Originally posted by FMF Do collectives and groups - like families, neighbourhoods, communities, tribes, societies, nations - who clearly develop mores, standards, assumptions, conventions, morals, etc. and which are evidently able to do so without necessarily citing supernatural beings - qualify as "moral lawgivers" in this thought exercise of yours?
Firstly, human societies or communities cannot adequately account for moral obligation.
Secondly, the demands of morality frequently conflict with our self-interests in a way that suggests that they transcend mere individual or societal conventions. If we were solely responsible for assigning moral obligations to ourselves, why would we make them so difficult to fulfill, and why do we keep on trying to meet them when we have proven that we are incapable of doing so perfectly? Why not adjust our obligations to match our practical abilities? Our very struggle in this area shows that we recognize the transcendent, otherworldly source of our moral obligations.
When we complain about evil, we do indeed presuppose the reality of the good. Good and evil invoke an objective standard of right and wrong.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Firstly, human societies or communities cannot adequately account for moral obligation.
Why not? Presumably your use of the word "adequately" is deliberately thrown in there as your insurance against having to accept that your plucked-from-thin-air assertion has been refuted ~ a kind of verbal cop-out valve.
So let's remove it shall we - why would you need to cop out from what you are saying? - and take a look.
You are more or less claiming that human societies or communities "cannot account for" [you mean "explain" right?] moral obligation, even though moral obligations are quite clearly arrangements that govern relationships in human societies or communities and can be established (out of necessity) and validated (by consent) and enforced (turned into convention) without reference to theism.
Your assertion strikes me as arbitrary, rather like saying 'human societies or communities cannot adequately account for conflict' or 'human societies or communities cannot adequately account for conservatism'.
So, please explain.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk If we were solely responsible for assigning moral obligations to ourselves, why would we make them so difficult to fulfill, and why do we keep on trying to meet them when we have proven that we are incapable of doing so perfectly?
I don't think moral obligations are "so difficult" to fulfill.
I think moral obligations actually coincide with - and represent - our self-interests for the most part, something we learn from being social creatures and living collectively.
I think moral obligations actually do not frequently conflict with what we want due to the fact that we internalize them and they shape what we want. A framework of moral obligations can, and often is, quite empowering. I think they contribute to personal and collective self-preservation.
I don't see the need to factor in theism to arrive at these ideas and observations. Not at all.
Come to think of it, I wonder if you may have some sort of notion like "sin" in your mind as you talk about "morality". They are not the same.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Why not adjust our obligations to match our practical abilities?
But moral obligations are adjusted to match our practical abilities. Moral obligations change over time (they do for theists too), just as societies do.
Our very struggle in this area shows that we recognize the transcendent, otherworldly source of our moral obligations.
You have made a leap here. Give me reasons why I should accept this assertion.
I accept my moral obligations without "recognizing some sort transcendent, otherworldly source" of those obligations. Groups and collectives can and do, too.
Humans working in cooperation with each other is not a "transcendent, otherworldly source" of the moral obligations that are the product of that cooperation and the practical need for a code for communal living.
Originally posted by googlefudge I was born an atheist*, with two atheist parents, in the largely secular UK, where I have
remained an atheist my entire life.
I remain an atheist because I believe in only believing things for which there is sufficient
evidence to justify that belief.
There is no evidence that any gods exist, and plenty of evidence that all the claimed gods
a ...[text shortened]... nd society into believing in the god/s of whichever religion is popular in that area/region.[/i]
There is no evidence that any gods exist, and plenty of evidence that all the claimed gods are man-made inventions.
Your rejection of evidence does not mean there is none. You cannot know with absolute certainty that there is no evidence.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk [b]There is no evidence that any gods exist, and plenty of evidence that all the claimed gods are man-made inventions.
Your rejection of evidence does not mean there is none. You cannot know with absolute certainty that there is no evidence.[/b]
No evidence in the sense that we cannot out of hand deny the POSSIBILITY of a god, there is PLENTY of evidence the bible god of the Abrahamics are faked, man made and all that. Like anthropomorphising your god, 'I am a jealous god' as if a god who can make entire universes would be CAPABLE of feeling jealousy for one of its own creations, according your your mythology.
Like I make a computer chip and THIS one out of the millions I just made, I am frigging JEALOUS.
Come on, try to think critically, shuck the sham of organized religion and think for yourself, try to skim off the brainwashing inherent in your religion.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk [b]There is no evidence that any gods exist, and plenty of evidence that all the claimed gods are man-made inventions.
Your rejection of evidence does not mean there is none. You cannot know with absolute certainty that there is no evidence.[/b]
Feel free to show me any and all evidence you have that a god or gods exist.
Why are you are an atheist
02 Jun '16 06:482 edits
Back to Top