Morality without God is an Illusion

Debate Room
101

Then no one has any reason to believe the claim, or any claims attached to it about morality, anymore than you would believe identically subjective and unevidenced claims from others.

It requires for me sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, if that is not provided then I remain dubious, I imagine each person sets their own standard, but if that standard accept one subjective unevidenced claim, like yours, it has no basis on which to reject all others, even if they violate the law of non contradiction, without using bias for or against, and this is the definition of being closed minded.

102

Humans simply are imperfect bags of sometimes conflicting needs / desires / urges and it’s past time to wrongly label those impulses as “immoral” for the purpose of manipulating people through guilt. We are just seeking a stable state at the intersection of thirst, hunger, and the drive to reproduce and nurture young, ultimately. There’s no moral valence to it.

That’s not the same thing as saying that we can’t or shouldn’t bother to understand and manage our needs for the good of all, or that self awareness or delayed gratification is bad, etc.

Theological / religious perspectives on this produce heat rather than light.

103

Ok, Ratty. I’ll accept that you have a god and it demonstrates itself to you. So long as you make no attempt to, or insist that, anyone adjust their behavior to comply with rules or instructions you get from your god, then good on ya and I don’t give two shits if you have a god.

1 Like
104

Would you believe the claim if God demonstrated His existence to you?

What kind of demonstration would God Himself have to provide you with, Sheldon, before you accepted such a demonstration as a “sufficiently non-subjective form of evidence.”?

105

I think humans will commit as many petty or grave atrocities as they think they will be able to without the threat of punishment. And I think guilt is more often an outcome of someone inevitably being held accountable by the rest of the group for inequities committed out of treachery than it is an inner atonement spurred on by conscience.

Most people won’t admit to their inner wretchedness until another person has held them accountable for it and deemed them worthy of punishment for it - if in fact they have acted on such innate desires to “scam the system” (so to speak). Most of the time we get away with our petty schemes. So most of the time we assume we’re doing okay morally.

106

Oh! But didn’t you also know that this God sends people to hell for immoral behavior in life? Wouldn’t you want me to proselytize to you for the sake of your soul? After all, this is the most consequential of absolute truths. Wouldn’t you want to believe in it as well?

107

I don’t have enough information, how would I objectively verify this demonstration for example?

The answer is right there in the very first sentence you quoted?

108

No.

20, 20, 20, 20 twenty characters

109

In these dark times it is easy to see only the dark side of human nature. People (or at least some people) also possess virtue, and some elevate others around them just by existing. I’d guesstimate maybe 5% or so of humanity exudes love and kindness and acceptance and decency and empathy with seemingly seldom a misstep. Maybe another 35% has more of those things than not. The others exist on some sort of spectrum between venal / weak and evil. In the middle of humanity is a group that will swing either way depending on how the wind is blowing and so to some extent what goodness they project is performative / opportunistic.

I am no Pollyanna but I cannot see all of humanity as some sort of monolithic study in degeneracy – if only because to be “degenerate” implies there’s some sort of grace to fall from.

110

How do you normally objectively verify demonstrations?

So would something you see, heart, taste, smell or touch? Would that be sufficient?

111

What demonstration, no one has ever offered any demonstration a deity exists for me to examine in any way, only bare subjective claims, and weak or poorly reasoned arguments, which have been insufficient to allay my doubts.

  1. If you can demonstrate that a deity exists, then do so.

  2. If your demonstration goes beyond bare assertions and subjective experience that cannot be objectively examined, then explain how this can be done.

In this hypothetical, how are those senses objectively verified?

Why would anyone accept ideas like souls and hell are real, you have offered no more compelling reason to believe these superstitions than you have for deities?

1 Like
112
  1. I CANNOT demonstrate that a supreme being exists. Only a supreme being can demonstrate that a supreme being exists.
  2. My demonstration does not even attempt to level “bare assertions” or “objective examinations”.

Therefore I ask of you AGAIN: what kind of demonstration from a supreme being would convince you of His existence ? What level of “objective evidence” would a supreme being have to give you to convince you of His existence?

The five senses are all we have. Sheldon, even when we measure the readings on a micrometer we are relying on our senses - our sense of sight. What sense outside the five senses could you possibly rely on to gather you data?

Of course, there’s every humans innate sense of punishment which comes to mind. But Again, I cannot speak on the behalf of a supreme being.

113

I don’t know whether you can demonstrate a deity exists, only that you have not, so I remain dubious, and you have no evidence for the second claim, so again I remain dubious.

Look at my previous answers, it’s never going to change.

A sufficient level, I believe I have been unerringly clear on this.

Not true, we have created many methods that go beyond our purely subjective interpretations of reality, philosophy, logic science etc, the latter creating experiment and testing designed specifically to remove as much subjective bias as possible.

False equivalence, you do this every single time, using our senses, and relying solely on the subjective information they offer are not the same, and the micrometer gives an objective result within a specific tolerance, it removes subjective bias, it is designed to do so, we even test beyond that by having them calibrated carefully and regularly.

A micrometer is a very good example, thank you.

That doesn’t answer my question, and adding unevidenced claims adds nothing, I have explained this, 0 + 0 is still zero.

114

Oh, just pick one:

  1. Yahweh (Levant)
  2. Zeus (Greece)
  3. Jupiter (Rome)
  4. Allah (Arabia)
  5. Brahma (India)
  6. Vishnu (India)
  7. Shiva (India)
  8. Ra (Egypt)
  9. Odin (Scandinavia)
  10. Marduk (Mesopotamia)
  11. Amaterasu (Japan)
  12. Jade Emperor (China)
  13. Quetzalcoatl (Mesoamerica)
  14. Huitzilopochtli (Mesoamerica)
  15. Inti (Andes)
  16. Viracocha (Andes)
  17. Thor (Scandinavia)
  18. Athena (Greece)
  19. Poseidon (Greece)
  20. Isis (Egypt)
  21. Osiris (Egypt)
  22. Horus (Egypt)
  23. Krishna (India)
  24. Ganesha (India)
  25. Kali (India)
  26. Durga (India)
  27. Laozi (China)
  28. Inanna/Ishtar (Mesopotamia)
  29. Enlil (Mesopotamia)
  30. Enki (Mesopotamia)
  31. Ahura Mazda (Persia)
  32. Mithra (Persia)
  33. Anu (Mesopotamia)
  34. Baal (Levant)
  35. Asherah (Levant)
  36. Dagda (Ireland)
  37. Lugh (Ireland)
  38. The MorrĂ­gan (Ireland)
  39. Brigid (Ireland)
  40. Perun (Eastern Europe)
  41. Veles (Eastern Europe)
  42. Svarog (Eastern Europe)
  43. Tiamat (Mesopotamia)
  44. Apsu (Mesopotamia)
  45. Hera (Greece)
  46. Apollo (Greece)
  47. Artemis (Greece)
  48. Aphrodite (Greece)
  49. Ares (Greece)
  50. Hephaestus (Greece)
  51. Hermes (Greece)
  52. Dionysus (Greece)
  53. Hades (Greece)
  54. Demeter (Greece)
  55. Mars (Rome)
  56. Venus (Rome)
  57. Minerva (Rome)
  58. Diana (Rome)
  59. Neptune (Rome)
  60. Mercury (Rome)
  61. Bacchus (Rome)
  62. Vesta (Rome)
  63. Janus (Rome)
  64. Frigg (Scandinavia)
  65. Loki (Scandinavia)
  66. Freya (Scandinavia)
  67. Freyr (Scandinavia)
  68. Baldur (Scandinavia)
  69. Heimdall (Scandinavia)
  70. Tyr (Scandinavia)
  71. Hel (Scandinavia)
  72. Thoth (Egypt)
  73. Anubis (Egypt)
  74. Bastet (Egypt)
  75. Sekhmet (Egypt)
  76. Set (Egypt)
  77. Ptah (Egypt)
  78. Hathor (Egypt)
  79. Lakshmi (India)
  80. Saraswati (India)
  81. Hanuman (India)
  82. Indra (India)
  83. Agni (India)
  84. Yama (India/Tibet)
  85. Tara (Tibet/India)
  86. Avalokiteshvara/Guanyin (India/China)
  87. Pangu (China)
  88. Nuwa (China)
  89. Xiwangmu (China)
  90. Nezha (China)
  91. Susanoo (Japan)
  92. Tsukuyomi (Japan)
  93. Izanagi (Japan)
  94. Izanami (Japan)
  95. Olodumare (West Africa)
  96. Shango (West Africa)
  97. Ogun (West Africa)
  98. Anansi (West Africa)
  99. Sedna (Arctic)
  100. Tane (Polynesia)
115

If you do not quote the second claim in your reply do not expect me at act as though I care.

As far as I can tell, you’ve entirely evaded the question.

Ah. Okay. You would believe in God if He provided you with a sufficient level of objective evidence. Why do you think He has failed to do so?

“As much subjective bias possible” - but not all. All empirical observation occurs through the lense of the senses.

It is no different than what a flint is to a caveman. A means by which to produce fire. The entire scientific endeavour is a search for power. Man has and always will use knowledge for the destruction and subjugation of other men. All science is predicated on this property.

To build a micrometer we rely on the sense of touch. To use a micrometer we rely on the sense of touch. To read a micrometer we rely on the sense of sight.

There’s a lot of evidence in the field of psychology which points to the plain fact that human beings are motivated by a fear of their fellow human.

In particular we are all born with an instinctual fear that our fellow human will exact pain upon us for encroaching on their belongings, territory, property - etc.

it’s not only merely an obvious psychological observation - this property of humans has evolutionary advantages as well.

For you to say that our innate fear of punishment is a “bare Unevidenced claim” just shows how low you’ll go to win an argument. I have no desire to talk to you any longer. Kindly Stop responding to me or hijacking responses I’ve made to others. I’m here for fruitfull debate, not philosophical leg humping.

116

I quoted your second claim, it’s right there, as anyone can see if they click on the arrow to my post? You said:

Claim 1: “I CANNOT demonstrate that a supreme being exists.”

Claim 2: “Only a supreme being can demonstrate that a supreme being exists.”

I quoted both and quoted them verbatim, my response is above for anyone to see?

You’re wrong, you asked “Therefore I ask of you AGAIN: what kind of demonstration from a supreme being would convince you of His existence ?”

I have repeatedly for years stated unequivocally what my threshold for credulity is, and you must know that. I think you are trying to get me to describe specific evidence for a belief you hold that I do not, which is an absurd but popular tactic from religious apologists, who think they can reverse and abandon their own burden of proof for their claim a deity exists.

It’s your claim a deity exists, it is for you to properly evidence your claims, not for me to guess at what might work. If you can’t do this then I will remain dubious and say so, and I think to my credit, say exactly why.

I explained I don’t care about the source of the evidence, only it’s quality, and the second question makes no sense addressed to an atheist? I worded my assertion as a hypothetical “If a deity exists…” etc.. yours does not read like a hypothetical, you even capitalised the word he, it makes no sense as clearly if i don’t believe a deity exists, then it follows I don’t believe a deity has failed to do anything. FWIW an extant deity that never demonstrated in any objective way that it existed, is indistinguishable from a non-existent deity.

Indeed, but we have methods and tools for removing subjective bias, the more we remove the more reliable the results, with entirely unevidenced subjective claims right at the bottom as the lowest bar, and that’s all you are offering here. Right at the top would be objective facts, underpinned by so much objectively verifiable evidence it would be absurd to deny them, the rotundity of the earth, species evolution etc etc. Your claim to have experienced a deity speaking to you in your head, is entirely subjective.

Absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim, or my response. I also don’t believe your bare claim, and FWIW science is the pursuit of knowledge, the alternative is to remain ignorant, what that knowledge is used for is nothing to do with science, and certainly not predicated within the method (s), science is just a method (s) for better understanding objective reality. Since science has enabled us to eradicate diseases and saved countless lives, that last sentence is also demonstrably wrong.

Oh dear ratty, is that all we use? Think carefully now…You make a micrometer based solely on your sense of touch and I’ll buy one based on mathematics and engineering, and we can see which one provides the more accurate data.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Which do you think will provide more accurate measuring data your eyes or your eyes being used to read a micrometer? Think carefully now, and you will see a micrometer is a tool to help provide more objectively accurate data, just as methods like science do all the time. You keep ignoring what I am telling you and producing the same straw man over and over. I have never claimed our sense are not used, not once. So I will try bigger letters again:

Our senses used alone (note the word alone) are less reliable than methods and tools that help us remove subjective bias, and provide more objectively accurate data. Our senses are easily deceived.

I don’t believe I made any such claim? Could you quote where you think I did this please as I am dubious. My question seems now to have been lost. For ref this was my question:

“Why would anyone accept ideas like souls and hell are real, you have offered no more compelling reason to believe these superstitions than you have for deities?”

For ref here was your answer:

Of course, there’s every humans innate sense of punishment which comes to mind. But Again, I cannot speak on the behalf of a supreme being.

Note the way above you changed the wording which was vague enough to start with, and how does this fear evidence a soul or Hell exactly? Unevidenced fears are not evidence, I’d have thought this was obvious.

That’s your choice, I am not sure it needed a post though.

Please don’t try and tell me when i can and cannot post, you’re not a mod here. I will challenge theistic and poorly reasoned claims when I deem I have something worthy to post, when and as I choose. It’s up to others whether they read them, and whether they respond.

1 Like
117

Why would it matter how they’re objectively verified, if you have none?

When a deity offers anything I will take a look.

I don’t think this. I don’t believe any deity exists.

Yes, and we have created many methods and tools that go beyond our purely subjective interpretations of reality, as I said.

Beyond them all being tools, it is entirely different, Since I am talking about tools that can remove subjective bias, or provide more objectively accurate data than our senses alone. How does a flint do any of that?

This is demonstrably untrue of course, there a many many ways knowledge has been used altruistically, but even were your claim true, it would mean that your claims to knowledge of a deity must then have the same motive to “destroy and subjugate other men”, by your own rationale. You can’t claim knowledge always has the same motive, then exclude your own claim to knowledge.

We used our senses and our imagination to design tools and methods to improve on those senses, as I said.

How does this evidence either of those? If someone fears they’ll be punished by a fire breathing dragon that doesn’t make dragons real.

I never said this, only that your assertion this fear supports the existence of souls and Hell is itself an unevidenced claim, obviously.

118

What does this mean, “living based on a mystery”?

Much what we know to be true about gravity (for example) is quite mysterious, yet if we deny certain realities about gravity, then we hurt ourselves when we walk off of a cliff.

Just because we don’t know (or understand) everything about a given phenomena doesn’t mean that we can’t use it.

Ice Age hunter-gatherers didn’t know shit about gravity, yet they put gravity to good use when they built pit traps to catch large animals for food.

In a like manner, why do we need to even know and/or care about the origins of ethical behavior in order to utilize a sense of right and wrong?

When I write this post on my phone, I only have a fuzzy, vague idea about how circuits, fiber-optic links, and data farms work . . . yet this lack of knowledge doesn’t keep me from using my phone to post on this forum.

If this is the point where you might clain that “gravity comes from God” (along with everything else), then were are circling back to the debunked “prime mover” argument.

1 Like
119

It sounds like theistic morality to me, based on magic and mystery.

1 Like
120

This particular sort of theist basically deploys an argument from incredulity that morality without a backing authority or sufficiently black and white ruleset cannot have any force or effect and any alternative is just a thin patina over “anything goes”.

It comes from a desire for clarity and certitude (and relief from difficult moral decisions or responsibilities) that simply doesn’t exist in the real world.

Even for an inerrantist / literalist Christian, there exist situations that their holy book doesn’t discuss, much less give guidance about. So even with their alleged endorsement by god, there is no absolute moral clarity on every point – yet there is also no flexibility or nuance where needed, either. I suppose where they are unsure they are supposed to pray for guidance which of course is no different than rolling the dice and claiming it came up sixes.

Moral standards don’t “come from” anywhere in particular. They are, effectively, hammered out and negotiated as people navigate life’s difficulties. The minute at least two people had to coexist or cooperate, that’s when morality sprang into existence as a byproduct of their figuring out how to do just that. Some of it is drop dead obvious: respect each other’s property and privacy, deal fairly in exchanges, be reasonably predictable and stable in your relations with others. At first this was applied within one’s tribe, and eventually it was applied in inter-tribal relations. This has gone on for countless generations and we’ve gotten reasonably good at it. Then relgion came along and, as per usual, claimed to be the inventor and protector of an emergent phenomenon that had already existed in its own right.