d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Atheist / Agnostic Thread
Prev11718192021193Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 31339Replies: 1923Track Topic
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
#181
Sep 22 2014 11:32pm
Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ Sep 23 2014 01:29am)
What does the atheist base his morality on? Philosophy and ideology are all too fallible.


Do you see what you did there? :rolleyes:

Morality is based on reason and scientific observation, of course.
Member
Posts: 75,902
Joined: Dec 16 2011
Gold: 113,036.23
#182
Sep 22 2014 11:33pm
Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ Sep 23 2014 01:29am)
What does the atheist base his morality on?


the new testament is the base of mine, being atheist doesn't mean we cannot understand morality, we just take the best of it and reject the fantasy around it.



Member
Posts: 12,201
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
#183
Sep 22 2014 11:54pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 22 2014 09:32pm)
Do you see what you did there?  :rolleyes:

Morality is based on reason and scientific observation, of course.


There is no scientific observation behind morality. Science is a study used to determine the nature of the world. It does not provide humanity with meaning. The tool is meaningless without the appropriate user. Morality and meaning stem from humanity. As for reason, we can reason until we're blue in the face. Reason over things like the use of atomic weaponry, execution of criminals, justifications of war. We are never closer to a state of consensus, reason is hardly scientific or superior to any other basis for decision making. Reason has no standard, it is too personal. Maybe you intended to use the word rationality? If so, look at the world around you. Look at the masses, the dying old and the defiant youth. Tell me, how much faith do you put in their rationality? Your morality does not stem from science, they are completely unrelated to on another. Morality stemming from reason is meaningless, malleable from person to person. And as it ages, it loses its malleability. Brittle, it cracks and shatters. It assumes no form, because it never truly had one.

As for humanity in this current world devoid of meaning, they're capable of surviving. We have police and a sense of empathy which generally prohibits us from engaging in behavior that is too destructive. But without proper guidance people are not truly living, they devolve into creatures responding to the baser instincts. Some get by, some blow their brains out when driven mad through lack of meaning and worth, while others blow other people's brains out for similar reasons.
Member
Posts: 78,723
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 493.00
#184
Sep 22 2014 11:56pm
Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ Sep 23 2014 12:54am)
There is no scientific observation behind morality. Science is a study used to determine the nature of the world. It does not provide humanity with meaning. The tool is meaningless without the appropriate user. Morality and meaning stem from humanity. As for reason, we can reason until we're blue in the face. Reason over things like the use of atomic weaponry, execution of criminals, justifications of war. We are never closer to a state of consensus, reason is hardly scientific or superior to any other basis for decision making. Reason has no standard, it is too personal. Maybe you intended to use the word rationality? If so, look at the world around you. Look at the masses, the dying old and the defiant youth. Tell me, how much faith do you put in their rationality? Your morality does not stem from science, they are completely unrelated to on another. Morality stemming from reason is meaningless, malleable from person to person. And as it ages, it loses its malleability. Brittle, it cracks and shatters. It assumes no form, because it never truly had one.

As for humanity in this current world devoid of meaning, they're capable of surviving. We have police and a sense of empathy which generally prohibits us from engaging in behavior that is too destructive. But without proper guidance people are not truly living, they devolve into creatures responding to the baser instincts. Some get by, some blow their brains out when driven mad through lack of meaning and worth, while others blow other people's brains out for similar reasons.


and who's going to give them proper guidance exactly?
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#185
Sep 22 2014 11:57pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 22 2014 11:26pm)
I think on the contrary, you're projecting anthropomorphic mind-states onto animals who almost certainly don't have the neural requirements for such thought. All observation of non-human animal behavior also agrees with my assessment.

Of course I consider non-human animals intellectually below me, but I consider pre-linguistic toddlers intellectually below me as well (and probably intellectually below the higher non-human primates).

This has nothing to do with them being different from me and your relating it to humans throughout history being prejudiced is completely unrelated.


When you're going to claim to have read every paper on the subject ever published, there's really just no talking to you. You've just stuck your head in the sand at this point.
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
#186
Sep 23 2014 12:00am
Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ Sep 23 2014 01:54am)
There is no scientific observation behind morality. Science is a study used to determine the nature of the world. It does not provide humanity with meaning.


There is absolutely scientific observation behind morality and a sufficiently intelligent agent could construct a complete and correct ethical framework based exclusively in reason and systematic observation of phenomenal qualia (of course I am in the minority in that I consider phenomonology to be an area of scientific inquiry).

Your response was a pleasure to read though, as incorrect as it was.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 23 2014 01:57am)
When you're going to claim to have read every paper on the subject ever published, there's really just no talking to you.  You've just stuck your head in the sand at this point.


It doesn't require reading a paper, go look at some dogs and observe them...

Unless some species of non-human animals actually have a secret society defined by scientific and technological progress that they're keeping hidden from human sight, there is no valid reason to think they have the cognitive abilities for such behavior or thought. I'm actually at a loss that you're arguing such an indefensible position.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Sep 23 2014 12:03am
Member
Posts: 12,201
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
#187
Sep 23 2014 12:00am
Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 22 2014 09:56pm)
and who's going to give them proper guidance exactly?


This guidance was at one time provided by spiritual leaders. At others through leaders of nations.

In the age of democracy in a world without meaning, the message is considered too stale, too prudish. The act of restraint is a good portion of this guidance, and restraint is the only sin one can commit in the world without meaning.
Member
Posts: 29,687
Joined: Mar 3 2008
Gold: 0.00
#188
Sep 23 2014 12:01am
Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ 23 Sep 2014 01:29)
What does the atheist base his morality on? Philosophy and ideology are all too fallible. What's right for society turns to what's right for the masses turns to what's right for the individual. The conclusion is hedonism and instantaneous satisfaction.

Humanity does no good, but merely what feels good. This has always been true, while dignified souls turned deaf ears and blind eyes to this manner of living, they are losing the battle. They no longer manage society, it has been turned over to the savages and barbarians, the very animals previous posters have likened us to.


So what is the right way to base one's own morality on then?
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#189
Sep 23 2014 12:04am
Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 23 2014 12:00am)
There is absolutely scientific observation behind morality and a sufficiently intelligent agent could construct a complete and correct ethical framework based exclusively in reason and systematic observation of phenomenal qualia (of course I am in the minority in that I consider phenomonology to be an area of scientific inquiry).

Your response was a pleasure to read though, as incorrect as it was.


So how does one quantify or qualify good and bad without bias in the observer? How do you determine what is a right or wrong action to take, and what experiments or experimental results would allow us to construct an ethical framework?
Member
Posts: 12,201
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
#190
Sep 23 2014 12:06am
Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 22 2014 10:00pm)
There is absolutely scientific observation behind morality and a sufficiently intelligent agent could construct a complete and correct ethical framework based exclusively in reason and systematic observation of phenomenal qualia (of course I am in the minority in that I consider phenomonology to be an area of scientific inquiry).

Your response was a pleasure to read though, as incorrect as it was.


You claim yourself that your own framework for the creation of your ethics is based in an area of non-science. Why not base morality off of economics, sociology or some other soft science? The basis in one is as arbitrary as the next.

Your point fails your science births morality claim. The fact that you can remain so arrogant while simultaneous contradicting your own argument may suggest you haven't thought long enough on this.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11718192021193Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact