Morality

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

See if you can spot the pattern.

"The Good is Allah"...... Still  make sense to you?

"The Good is Yahweh" Still make sense to you?

"The Good is Buddha"... Still make sense to you?

"The Good is Brahma(Hindu top God)" Still make sense to you?

It seems that this pattern is just changing the name, and nothing more.

Like

Peter is Pedro
Peter is Piere.

If it means something more than a name change, like The Good is also Allah, and not Yahweh, or Brahma. Then you’re actually adding additional beliefs to it, and not just additional beliefs, but beliefs that distinguish them from each other.

Me, "The good is in our behaviors, and most humans are capable of doing and being good.

I’m not sure what that means, our behaviors are all over the place, some good some not so good. Our behaviors are merely what is, good is how we ought to be, not merely how we are.

That says to me morality isn't magic, isn't being handed down from a divine place, or our spirit ancestors. That says to me humans can be capable of both good and bad, compassion and cruelty, and neither require magic or old mythology to explain. It is still up to humans how we chose to interact with each other.

I don’t think morality is magic, I think it’s exceptionally hard and difficult, that what is Good is always on the verge of being trampled and crucified. A child’s innocence and kindness, exist in a world that continually tries to take it from them.

---

There is no such thing.

Unless atheism-based moral nihilism is false, than atheism-based objective morality can't exist.

It's always existed. Everything comes from it.

Then there's no need for God.

Boru

[Brian37]

I don't see how anyone can agree that humans do both good and bad, and still claim there is a magical super cognition running things.

There does not have to be a super cognition running things for cruelty or compassion to occur in our species. Those things are not a product of humans being poker chips. Our behaviors, for good or bad, are in our behaviors, nowhere else.

I am 52 years old. My life has not been perfect, I have certainly made mistakes, and hurt people(not criminally), but still. I simply do not assign anything I have done in my life to a super hero vs a ground villain.

I do not need Jesus or Yahweh or Buddha or Vishnu or Allah, to avoid things like stealing from my neighbor, or murdering my neighbor or raping my neighbor. I've avoided those things for long time since I left the position that I needed a god or any religion.

I simply see humans attaching good and bad needlessly to old mythology.

[Acrobat]

Then there's no need for God.

Boru

Only as much as a reality transfixed and embedded with meaning is in no need of that which makes it so. Or a novel has no need of an author.

[Brian37]

Then there's no need for God.

Boru

Only as much as a reality transfixed and embedded with meaning is in no need of that which makes it so. Or a novel has no need of an author.

Every time I think I've seen it all, someone always comes along and tries to re dress the same bad logic with different wordage, "Or a novel has no need for an author".

Um no, a novel only needs evolution that lead our species to come up with human language. But evolution itself was not a factory product, like Willy Wonka making chocolate. Our species is only an estimated 200,000 years old, to which human written language has only been around 10,000 years, out of a 4 billion year old  planet, which has had 5 mass extinction events in a  13.8 billion year old universe.

Ok, you want to go with the "novel" metaphor"?

Lots of good Novels, sure, but lots of crappy dime store novels too. 

This is just another way of saying "everything has a creator, my creator".

Stephen King wrote lots of graphic horror si fi novels. But I certainly hope you don't take those as reality.

Neither Creationism or ID as it is now called, explain anything.

If everything has a creator, then horrible things like ecoli and cancer and cockroaches also were created. So by your logic, Stephen King is God.

[Acrobat]

Only as much as a reality transfixed and embedded with meaning is in no need of that which makes it so. Or a novel has no need of an author.

Every time I think I've seen it all, someone always comes along and tries to re dress the same bad logic with different wordage, "Or a novel has no need for an author".

Um no, a novel only needs evolution that lead our species to come up with human language. But evolution itself was not a factory product, like Willy Wonka making chocolate. Our species is only an estimated 200,000 years old, to which human written language has only been around 10,000 years, out of a 4 billion year old  planet, which has had 5 mass extinction events i in a  13.8 billion year old universe.

Ok, you want to go with the "novel" metaphor"?

Lots of good Novels, sure, but lots of crappy dime store novels too. 

This is just another way of saying "everything has a creator, my creator".

Stephen King wrote lots of graphic horror si fi novels. But I certainly hope you don't take those as reality.

Neither Creationism or ID as it is now called, explain anything.

If everything has a creator, then horrible things like ecoli and cancer and cockroaches also were created. So by your logic, Stephen King is God.

Novels have authors, non-novels don’t

Life is all sound and fury signifying nothing is like a non-novel, life signifying something is like a novel.

[Brian37]

Everything is created like a novel? Ok then Cujo is the cause of the existence of rabid dogs.

---

Every time I think I've seen it all, someone always comes along and tries to re dress the same bad logic with different wordage, "Or a novel has no need for an author".

Um no, a novel only needs evolution that lead our species to come up with human language. But evolution itself was not a factory product, like Willy Wonka making chocolate. Our species is only an estimated 200,000 years old, to which human written language has only been around 10,000 years, out of a 4 billion year old  planet, which has had 5 mass extinction events i in a  13.8 billion year old universe.

Ok, you want to go with the "novel" metaphor"?

Lots of good Novels, sure, but lots of crappy dime store novels too. 

This is just another way of saying "everything has a creator, my creator".

Stephen King wrote lots of graphic horror si fi novels. But I certainly hope you don't take those as reality.

Neither Creationism or ID as it is now called, explain anything.

If everything has a creator, then horrible things like ecoli and cancer and cockroaches also were created. So by your logic, Stephen King is God.

Novels have authors, non-novels don’t

Life is all sound and fury signifying nothing is like a non-novel, life signifying something is like a novel.

Wow, way to trash Shakespeare.

Sorry cant have it both ways.

If you are going to argue God doesn't have a cause, then the far more simple answer is to say that the universe would not need one either.

Otherwise if you claim everything has a cause or "author" then your God also has an "author".

Let me clue you in, "God" does have an author, humans, nowhere else.

---

I hate to burst your bubble, but 4 billion years ago, there were no god claims, because there were no humans to make up those things. 5 billion years from now, our species will be long extinct and all the mythologies humans have made up will die with our species. Our sun will expand, fry our planet, and our solar system and sun will die and there will be no record of the claims humans have made.

[Acrobat]

If you are going to argue God doesn't have a cause, then the far more simple answer is to say that the universe would not need one either.

Otherwise if you claim everything has a cause or "author" then your God also has an "author".

Let me clue you in, "God" does have an author, humans, nowhere else.

---

Everything doesn't have a cause, even though many atheists seem to have straw manned the first cause argument to suggest this. .

Every actualization of a potential has a cause, or whatever is contingent has a cause. 

"First Cause argument, there is no inconsistency, no sudden abandonment of the very premise that got the argument going.  Rather, the argument is that the only way to terminate a regress of actualizers of potentials is by reference to something which is pure actuality, devoid of potentiality, and thus without anything that needs to be, or even could be, actualized"

In some way the idea, that some form of the universe has always existed, that gave rise to everything is, can be considered a first cause as well. 

The difference between an atheistic first cause, and a theistic one, is that in theistic one intentional properties are included, a first cause that imbeds meaning and purpose into reality, moral facts, teleological aspects, a signifying of something rather than nothing. Or in other words the first causes posses elements of being, rather than non being. 


https://strangenotions.com/if-everything...aused-god/

[Brian37]

If you are going to argue God doesn't have a cause, then the far more simple answer is to say that the universe would not need one either.

Otherwise if you claim everything has a cause or "author" then your God also has an "author".

Let me clue you in, "God" does have an author, humans, nowhere else.

---

Everything doesn't have a cause, even though many atheists seem to have straw manned the first cause argument to suggest this. .

Every actualization of a potential has a cause, or whatever is contingent has a cause. 

"First Cause argument, there is no inconsistency, no sudden abandonment of the very premise that got the argument going.  Rather, the argument is that the only way to terminate a regress of actualizers of potentials is by reference to something which is pure actuality, devoid of potentiality, and thus without anything that needs to be, or even could be, actualized"

In some way the idea, that some form of the universe has always existed, that gave rise to everything is, can be considered a first cause as well. 

The difference between an atheistic first cause, and a theistic one, is that in theistic one intentional properties are included, a first cause that imbeds meaning and purpose into reality, moral facts, teleological aspects, a signifying of something rather than nothing. Or in other words the first causes posses elements of being, rather than non being. 


https://strangenotions.com/if-everything...aused-god/

Everything does not have to have a cause? I AGREE!

BINGO, stop right there. Keep reading until you get it.

The rest of your argument is simply gap filling, the same bad logic people of other religions use.

How about considering it is simply an argument you bought because it sounded good to you?

You, "Intentional properties are included"  in a theistic position?

Wow, crappy sky boss you have. I see nothing good about tornados, hurricanes, volcanos, deadly bacteria, famine, cockroaches, pedophilia, genocide. Nice "intent" your sky parent has.

I see them as natural sure, but not anything I want effecting me, and find your logic even more vile when kids die from those things.

So "God" intentionally allows 50 to 60 million humans worldwide to die from everything on average per year? 

"Intent" another doge to say, "I see pretty in life so god did it". Um no, there certainly are pretty things in nature but there is no magic to the good or bad that happen in nature. 

I see no intent in cancer. I see no intent in tornados or cockroaches. I simply see those things as part of nature.

[Acrobat]

Everything does not have to have a cause? I AGREE!

BINGO, stop right there. Keep reading until you get it.

The rest of your argument is simply gap filling, the same bad logic people of other religions use.

How about considering it is simply an argument you bought because it sounded good to you?

You, "Intentional properties are included"  in a theistic position?

Wow, crappy sky boss you have. I see nothing good about tornados, hurricanes, volcanos, deadly bacteria, famine, cockroaches, pedophilia, genocide. Nice "intent" your sky parent has.

I see them as natural sure, but not anything I want effecting me, and find your logic even more vile when kids die from those things.

So "God" intentionally allows 50 to 60 million humans worldwide to die from everything on average per year? 

"Intent" another doge to say, "I see pretty in life so god did it". Um no, there certainly are pretty things in nature but there is no magic to the good or bad that happen in nature. 

I see no intent in cancer. I see no intent in tornados or cockroaches. I simply see those things as part of nature.

I have no theodicy, or explanation for suffering in our world. 

You can take the sum of total of everything, of the entirety of your life, all the good and evil in the world, all its pains and joys, all it's hatred and love, all it's ugliness and beauty, and it sheer excessiveness. And there is something sympathetic about the view that it's all nothing and pointless; "The shadow of the ax hangs over every joy. Every road ends in death: every friendship, every love! Torment, loss, betrayal, pain, suffering, age, indignity, hideous lingering illness" A long an endless dark abyss of nothingness. But there's something else, deep and profound within this too, a thing of great beauty and power, once seen a man wants to be consumed by it, transformed by it, live for nothing else but it. Men who see this believe, and there's no going back from it.  It exists in some form in our orientations, in our desire for meaning, for goodness, our sense of the sacred, etc.... 

“At the deep bottom of the mine where the gold is at there aint none of that. There’s just the pure ore. That forever thing. That you dont think is there. “. That thing that makes it possible to ladle out benediction upon the heads of strangers instead of curses. It’s all the same thing. And it aint but one thing. Just one.”

[Brian37]

What "intent" could be had by an alleged "all powerful" being to say humans are the apple of his eye, but yet the "water bear" or "Tardigrade" is far older than humans and has survived all 5 mass extinction events in our planet's history? What "intent" would an alleged being have to allow that same Tardigrade to survive hundreds of degrees below zero and hundreds of degrees above zero without having to build houses or clothing to survive? Yet we humans do?

I'd argue that Tardigrades are a far tougher species than humans.