Introduction and some questions
Offline Hello,
My name is Richard. I am a married 28 year old software engineer from Romania. I describe myself as atheist agnostic humanist and trans-humanist. I wasn't brought up in any religion, but I did believe in many supernatural things when I was young. At some point I saw the huge difference between "the worldview promoted by the supernatural" and "reality and common sense" and realized that the supernatural is imaginary.
In Romania many people are religions and do the sign of the cross when they pass any church. Also I live across from a very popular church (with loud-speakers). Feeling assaulted by religion led me to study the issues more and get a better understanding of the world. Yet there a couple of questions I find still interesting to talk about:
1. What is wrong with moral relativism? I find morals to be the consequence of evolution and social norms. So they are relative and they evolve. And I see many atheist hanging themselves in arguments by trying to have an 'absolute morality' which by definition becomes transcendental.
2. What is wrong with uncaused and eternal? In any worldview, we have to postulate something uncaused and eternal, yet I see many debates where the rational side fails to admit that.
3. Where do the laws of logic come from? The only non-transcendental answer I see is that the "laws of logic" are natural laws and we know these laws because we are a product of the natural world.
4. Is there any evidence that would convince us? Once we reject magical thinking I think that if the heavens open and Jesus himself comes down on a fiery chariot, scientists will start measuring the heat of the chariot and look for the propulsion system. Even an exceptional event could be considered as just a natural event we don't have the knowledge to understand yet.
5. Is there any point in debating a deist? As long something has to be uncaused and eternal, and it's beyond any evidence then I doubt there is anything to debate about, except maybe for philosophical squabbles.
6. What do we replace religion with? I see people getting much hope and relief from the church. Humanism seems our alternative, but on a practical level I think much more has to be done before we can offer something similar to what religions people get from their beliefs. On the other hand, consolation upon death is something we can never address the same way religion does (even if the religion's version is false).
7. Shouldn't we focus our efforts on a positive message? After a debate is over and we win, the worldview presented to the audiance is very bleak if our focus is mainly in destroying religion. I think that as much emphasis has to be put on a positive message to give a brighter worldview.
Sorry of the lenghy introduction. Probably I thought too much about these things and didn't get to debate them.
Cheers,
Richard
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the hizzle!
Hi Richard! Welcom to RRS. I by no means am an expert on these subjects, but I'll give you my take.
I find nothing wrong with moral relativism. I agree with you that they are the consequence or evolution and social norms and that they are always relative. What is considered moral in some cultures are very wrong in others.
I will usually take each issue on an individual basis and try to make my mind up by what makes the most sense. Take prostitution for example. For the majority of America it is considered imoral and is against the law virtually everywhere. But I just look at it and ask "why is it illegal to sell something that is free to give away?"
I'm not sure it's possible to create an "absolute morality" The idea of what is moral has always changed and will continue to change for many years to come. I don't think that there will ever be a set of absolute moral laws.
When discussing this topic with a theists the only claim that I would make is that all humans get their morals from the same place, and it isn't from any holy book.
As far as I know most atheists believe that the universe is uncaused and eternal. I can't talk for anyone but myself but I myself admit that we have to postulate something uncaused and eternal.
Your argument sounds good to me. Where else could the laws of logic come from if not the natural laws of our universe?
I have no idea what it would take to convince me. If I one day woke up and a god was hovering above my bed telling me that I needed to repent then I would probably assume that I was hallucinating. However, this is a non-issue in my opinion becuase virtually every god I've heard of is all-knowing and all-powerful, so they would know the evidence that I would need, and would be able to provide it.
I have no problems with deists. As I understand it for all intensive purposes they believe virtually the same thing as atheists. If the thought of a prime mover that has since left makes them feel a little better then go right ahead.
This is a tough one. I've never needed anything that religion supposedly has to offer, but there are a lot of people out there that do. I don't think religion necessarily needs to be replaced. I like the way that Christopher Hitchens put it. He said that religion was like a toy. You are more than welcome to play with your toys, do what ever you like with them, just don't make me play with your toys. Don't make me pay so you can play with your toys and don't make me pay for you to have my kids play with your toys. Religion should be a personal thing. If you want to believe in an afterlife because it makes you happy go right ahead. It just has no place in the public sphere.
Unfortunately our message isn't a very positive one. There are a large amount of people in America that think they are never going to die because Jesus is going to return before then. I don't see how it's positive to put a positive spin on telling someone that they will die someday. I find great awe and wonder in science but not many people do. I think actually understanding the world around me is enough of a positive message for me but I don't think it would fly for a lot of people. If you come up with something better I'm all ears.
No worries, I live in the northeast US and never get to debate religious topics. Everyone up here is indifferent about it.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
I think what happens here is that they confuse logical morals with absolute morals. You can use logic to define a good sense of morals if you start off with a few base assumptions. For instance: The Golden Rule (the one without the money
). If we assume that other people exist and experience reality in a way similar to us, then it would make sense to have a morality system to minimize hman suffering.
While you can surely arrive at logical ways to do this, you could certainly disagree on how to optimize it. I'm sure the problem is NP-Complete anyways
There's also the problem of suffering being subjective, along with several other things.
Indeed. Personally, I find the whole concept of existing to be a little absurd. But if I try to think of absolute nothingness, I wind up with an incoherent mess. No matter how I look at it, I can't quite get it to make sense. It reminds me of a Hitchhiker's Guide quote.
I find it amusing to throw in HHGTTG quotes into religious debates, formatting the quotes similarly to how someone would quote the Bible. Over the series, it mentions enough to make it appropriate almost anywhere.
I think it's more appropriate to say that logic is based off of assumption and definition, like mathematics. Logic, mathematics, and language are all artificial constructs we use to aide in our understanding of the world around us.
I'd probably be among those measureing the heat
For me to believe in G_d, I'd require a good deal of evidence. If I'm to believe in a personal god, I'd require somewhat regular and obvious interaction there, along with proof, tailored to my own requirements. I have my doubts on reality itself, so it would certainly be difficult.
Philosophical squables are fun
There's always something to gain from debate, even if there is no goal in mind. It's like a form of playing. It may seem pointless at the time, but if you ever find yourself at the mercy of a semi-barbaric tribe giving you choices of how you'll be executed based on whether your next statement is true or false, you'll be glad 
Replace religion with a more objective search for truth. Encourage openmindedness, fight ignorance, try to create a better world now, all that good stuff. One possible consolation for death is taking it from a mathematical point of view. Multiplying zero by infinity can lead to very interesting results...
I'm among the class of hopelessly optimistic people that think that attempting to understand the world around us should be enough, and that people can respect eachother without religion, or anything else telling them that they must. The focus should be more on what we can show to be true. Nothing is more powerful than giving someone the tools, and letting them discover the truth for themselves. It's the only reason I remember anything from my differential equations class
Overthinking is always more welcome than underthinking. Except when it isn't. The first case applies here
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
Nothing. There is no logical source for absolute morals. Even if there was a god who declared things morally right and wrong it would still only be his opinion. Punnishments and reward (hell and heaven) do not add any moral weight to his opinion they are just threats and bribery.
nothing, although it is not the only option. Eternity requires time and time is a part of the universe. If time had a starting point (the start of the universe) then nothing needs to be eternal.
I'd guess largely from language, logic is based on the deinitions of words and how they relate to eachother. Mathematics is simply the extrapolation from the base definitions of numbers and operations. I assume logic has a similar source.
I suppose a personal visit from god, maybe semi-regular news reports of god participating in human affairs (like the bible claims he did thousands of years ago). Maybe the discovery of a part of our minds that can only be explained by the soul.
They still ovecomplicate the explanation for the existence of the universe. Their god is still unnessesary
Independence
Truth and freedom aren't positive enough for you?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Welcome, Richard.
What a great introductory post! It's evident that you will have lots of contributions to the discussions.
We're glad you're here!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Thank you for the welcome and answers. I see we are on the same page in many of the answers.