Can someone explain to me what "the philosophy of naturalism" is?

I had philosophy clases and never came across that term during those lessons on ethics and moral.

The only atheist I know of which would approve of that philosophy is Ayn Rand. And she's just an asshole.

See, that is kinda what this thread is about. Theist take us to task for pigeonholing them but have no trouble at all saying generalized, oversimplified things about us.

If he simply had a discussion with an atheist he might actually have some idea what he is talking about. But I suppose it is easier to just make assumptions and run with them.

Churches are real big on collecting money from others for "charity." They are not so fast to reach into their own pockets......

Some think they are full of shit.

I think the main point theists are trying to make is that, yes, you don't seem to need a belief in God in order to be good, but why? Saying that our biology makes it so tends to rob the phenomenon of what, for lack of a better term, might be called its "moral dimension." If moral decisions are simply an expression of a particular biological expression, what specifically is "moral" about those choices? It seems to suggest that human morals are little more than happy accidents of evolution, which is a view which is less than satisfying to many, regardless of their religious beliefs. (And it quickly succumbs to arguments about moral relativism, "Why is a lion's desire to eat us less morally justified than our desire to prevent it from doing so?")

The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half.


(And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)

(February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am)apophenia Wrote: The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half. (And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)

Because morals are not derived from a book. How does one determine the Bible is a moral book, while they might determine the Qu'ran is not a moral book?
Because they already have morals.
How are we good without God? My understanding of good (promoting the commonweal) over "bad" (self-promotion at the expense of others) works just fine without a god.
I do not kill my neighbours, because I do not wish to be killed in turn.
I do not wish to rob someone because I do not wish to be robbed.
I do not cheat on my taxes, because I consider it unpatriotic.
I do not cheat on my wife, because I do not wish to be cheated on in turn, and I made an agreement with her about that which did not include any god.
The vast majority of what we consider "moral" is more properly defined as "pragmatism."
On the other hand, the Bible considers genocide, incest, rape, slavery, a whole host of marriage arrangements, plunder, rapine, and butchery of children for taunting a bald man to be morally good acts blessed by God.
The truth of the matter here is the only proof for the Christian version of a god is found in the Bible, a book written entirely within the capabilities of Bronze Age culture. And the only way the Bible can be justified for a source of (good) morality is to ignore large passages which are evil.
While humankind has come to a better understanding of what it means to live amongst each other, the Bible remains unchanged. The only way it can be justified as a "moral source for good" it to ignore the parts where it is a moral force for evil.
And God himself creates evil; it says so in Isaiah. (I will leave it to the student to find the passage.)
It is noteworthy that those who seem to me most often read the Bible (not just favourite passages, but all the Bible) are those who do not believe in it. Despite the commission of 1 Peter 3:15 to be able to give good reason for one's faith.
Perhaps it just comes from my former Wiccan perspective, or perhaps my lack of college, but it seems to me to be able to give good reason for a claim (such as the Bible is a source for moral good), one must at least read and understand what is being claimed.
I would caution the reader of this message who would actually carry out that commission and read and understand the Bible from cover to cover (that is, without interpreting or cherry-picking) - it is the single best tract for deconverting people and making atheists.

(February 12, 2013 at 4:13 am)Anymouse Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am)apophenia Wrote: The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half. (And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)

Because morals are not derived from a book.

Theists don't claim that morals are derived from a book, they claim that morals are derived from god.

The rest of your post seems like little more than a histrionic rant which neither addressed my points nor advanced the original discussion in any meaningful way.
Moreover, it had all the characteristics of a fundamentalist who types things in all caps in the (apparent) conviction that doing so makes his message more persuasive.

And this makes the second time that you've essentially bragged to me about your lack of education. Why you think being ignorant is something you need to advertise is a mystery to me.

If you feel your lack of education might render you incompetent to respond to a poster's point properly, then please don't respond at all.