11 Arguments Against Theism

12357…10

Comments

  • prism
    prism Posts: 2,440
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    I could have a crack at it, as I am atheist/agnostic in the sense you ask for here. I too am formed by society ofcourse. And society have christian morals, or so we think at least. However, I would point out that many of the values we have in society easily predate christianity and are possibly evolutionary in nature. At the very least going very long back into our cultural origins.

    As for christians basing their morality on fear of god, I think that's rather reductionistic as well, as I am sure any christian will tell you.

    Now, what do I base my morality on then? Simply "The golden rule" which is also presented by Jesus, but in no way originates with him. "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you". If you behave and treat people nicely with respect, chances are, you get the same treatment in return. Humans have a great sense of reciprosity, or at the very least our culture does. If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on. The golden rule works, and it works well. And the more that abides by it, the better it works, and the more cooperative we become. This hasn't really a root in religion, but is most likely partly genetic, as human and primates in general are flock animals where cooperation has always been key. Thus acting "pro-social" is really in your own best interests, while acting "anti-socially" will deprive you of the help of others at some point. Good is helping people, cooperating and building communities and societies. Evil is actively hurting people, short-sighted selfishness and destroying community in favour of self.

    That answer your question? :)

    Peace
    Dan


    right on. as another agnostic (leaning to atheist) I was trying to figure out how to put it, but you have covered it quite well. you explained it much better than what was swirling around in my head, thanks :)
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    angels share laughter
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    If you get a gift, you feel obliged to return a gift at a future point. A friend gives you a loan of money at one point, you feel obligated to return the favour if he asks a loan, and so on.

    it's this word i have a problem with. obliged connotes a feeling or sense of not wanting to reciprocate but feeling you have to.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ClimberInOz
    ClimberInOz Posts: 216
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    now for the sake of whatever the hell else there might be to understand... what drives us to do good? for instance, there are mean unsympathetic people who would do harm. not just physical violent harm but also untangible harm such as discriminizing, taunting and slandering for no particular reason. maybe just because they are bitter or because they love to harm others. but in essence what is wrong with that? what would drive others to fear doing this or the fear of harming others and feel remorse and sympathy for those in need?

    for example, you see a child who is in need and you feel sympathy for the child. why? what harm would it do you if you just ignore the child and walk away and go on with your life?

    There is a very solid natural selection explanation for why most of us have a moral compass. Basically there has to have been some form of survival advantage to our ancestors being good. Some of the survival advantages include (this applies to animals and humans- but to different degrees):

    Protecting those in your family group ensures the survival of your genetic material is more likely then those who do not protect their family group.

    Being a provider attracts mates. If you are continuously supplying things for others you are more likely to attract mates because they are genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to a mate that can provide for them and their offspring.

    If you are an animal that lives in a community, reputation is everything. If you do not hold up your end of the bargain, in terms of communal living (eg- collecting food, protecting young etc.), you may be ostracized by the community, hampering your ability to pass on your genetic material. Equally, if you are 'good' to others, they will often be 'good' to you- increasing your chance of passing on your genes. These behaviors have been observed in many communal species.

    Thus the desire to do good is ingrained in our genetics because overall, our ancestors were more likely to survive if they were good. Genetic anomalies can cause our moral compass to change, as can brain injuries and disease. And there is also the effect of nurture- how we are bought up and the effect of society- which can also change our moral compass.

    So our morals are influenced by our genetics first, and then adjusted by other factors.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    But let's talk about goodness apart from society. If a friend were to leave me stranded on the middle of the road without giving me a ride why wouldn't it be okay for me to turn around and do the same thing to him? Or the case of a murder and the victim's family, is it okay for them to sentence the murderer to death for killing their daughter? These are intangible things that do not directly affect society by any means. It's more of a matter that affects us psychologically, or otherwise, emotionally.
    What affects us psychologically affects society. There's nothing happening in a society that isn't connected to or can have consequences for the whole. With the car example, I would certainly be justified in denying a ride back. Reciprocity again. However, one might also give that ride as a lesson, so maybe the person will think twice the next time. Single cases of unreturned reciprocity does little to the principle on a societal level. We act like we want everyone else to act, and establish values, norms and morals. The moment this "acting good as a general default rule" starts to fall apart, society unravels and implodes.
    Again, what determines that which is good? What sparks that motivation inside of us to do good, as in the case with your friend that needs a ride? While of course you would say, "well, that's what I would want others to do to me so I will do it." But what if nobody evers does it to you? Cause I know people who are like that. Would you cease to help him/her? Now if it is justifiable to you that in this case if this particular someone never offers a helping hand then it would be okay for you to ignore him/her in their time of need. But that doesn't really flow with the teachings of Jesus either. 70 x 7 is what I'm getting at here. His teachings were also, "keep doing good even if nobody returns the favor." There are also teachings where he said that if you lend someone borrow money never ask for it back. And also never be in debt with anyone. Am I making sense? I don't know I'm kinda sleepy.
    I would probably cease to help that person, as would most people around him I suppose. But in his deepest need, I might help anyway. That message of Jesus' there is the part of christianity I really like. It implies if we all just act nice and good no matter what, we can also win over those who doesn't act good. And that is important. If a few counter reactions was all it took to turn us away from community and society, then they would never hold together. Sending us into chaos and disorder (evil).

    I think my principle of reciprocity still stands, even if single cases goes against it. Reciprocity and trust is also the cornerstone of all economic activity, as well as all personal activities. Without good (sustaining cooperation and society) and reciprocity, trust won't happen.

    Anyway, to summarize, you asked what atheists/agnostics may have as a moral basis, I have now given you mine, which is simply "Reciprocity" perhaps also supported by "non-violence" or "non-harm". Although the latter two also derive from the former.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    catefrances wrote:
    it's this word i have a problem with. obliged connotes a feeling or sense of not wanting to reciprocate but feeling you have to.
    But the word fits. Isn't that exactly how it is when you out of the blue receive a gift you hadn't expected (nor wanted) from someone you're not close to? You feel obligated to return something. Think of the potential tyranny of christmas cards, for instance. :)
    There is a sense of "must" in the reciprocity, yes. I remember a story from the ancient norse about a man who was presented with a grand gift of a golden shield while he was away. When he returned and found this, he was furious and went and killed the giver of the gift. Why? Because by giving such a grand gift that he well knew couldn't be returned in kind, he then incurred unpayable debt and hence submission of the receiver. The vikings rarely suffered submission...

    The word is chosen carefully actually. It can be a pleasure, but also a duty, and not a pleasant one at that.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Dustin51
    Dustin51 Posts: 222
    Thanks for posting that. Here's an article a friend of mine wrote and we endlessly debated. Check it out...you might find it interesting.

    http://www.theobservationist.com/story.php?id=367&PHPSESSID=7667a209499a0c3cfca4ec9d94eec04e
    Be excellent to each other
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    But the word fits. Isn't that exactly how it is when you out of the blue receive a gift you hadn't expected (nor wanted) from someone you're not close to? You feel obligated to return something. Think of the potential tyranny of christmas cards, for instance. :)
    There is a sense of "must" in the reciprocity, yes. I remember a story from the ancient norse about a man who was presented with a grand gift of a golden shield while he was away. When he returned and found this, he was furious and went and killed the giver of the gift. Why? Because by giving such a grand gift that he well knew couldn't be returned in kind, he then incurred unpayable debt and hence submission of the receiver. The vikings rarely suffered submission...

    The word is chosen carefully actually. It can be a pleasure, but also a duty, and not a pleasant one at that.

    Peace
    Dan

    no. i never feel obliged to return christmas cards. nor do i feel obliged to return gifts in kind. i never think that the person giving is expecting something for their generosity, but giving merely out of the goodness of their own heart. if the motivation behind their giving was that expectation of reciprocity, then too bad for them. that's their problem not mine. however if i feel that the occasion warrants a reciprocal gift then yes i would.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    What affects us psychologically affects society. There's nothing happening in a society that isn't connected to or can have consequences for the whole. With the car example, I would certainly be justified in denying a ride back. Reciprocity again. However, one might also give that ride as a lesson, so maybe the person will think twice the next time. Single cases of unreturned reciprocity does little to the principle on a societal level. We act like we want everyone else to act, and establish values, norms and morals. The moment this "acting good as a general default rule" starts to fall apart, society unravels and implodes.


    I would probably cease to help that person, as would most people around him I suppose. But in his deepest need, I might help anyway. That message of Jesus' there is the part of christianity I really like. It implies if we all just act nice and good no matter what, we can also win over those who doesn't act good. And that is important. If a few counter reactions was all it took to turn us away from community and society, then they would never hold together. Sending us into chaos and disorder (evil).

    I think my principle of reciprocity still stands, even if single cases goes against it. Reciprocity and trust is also the cornerstone of all economic activity, as well as all personal activities. Without good (sustaining cooperation and society) and reciprocity, trust won't happen.

    Anyway, to summarize, you asked what atheists/agnostics may have as a moral basis, I have now given you mine, which is simply "Reciprocity" perhaps also supported by "non-violence" or "non-harm". Although the latter two also derive from the former.

    Peace
    Dan
    Well, it's a great idea and it makes complete sense. And I also find no reason to disagree, except for the part of every psychological aspect that affects us affects society. To a certain extent though. I agree that certain things in society affects us emotionally, or psychologically, and vise-versa, our psychological attributes will also affect society (i.e. neighbors, friends and relatives). But I also believe in something else that I don't know what to call it. But it really boils down to society not affecting you in any negative way. For instance, wars, hunger or plagues. I believe that we don't necessarily have to be affected by it. But anyways that really doesn't matter.

    However, what you said reminds me of a scripture in the Bible that seems to flow very well with what is being said. You know, the part of "doing good to affect society in a positive way. Thus, benefitting from it."

    Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God

    Basically, yeah, we do good because we conscientiously are desiring for that good to be done to us. I, on the other hand, believe that it's something that God has placed inside of us. Not that it matters to anyone though.

    There is also a scripture that says that sin is in the heart of a person who knows how to do good but does not do it.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    Basically, yeah, we do good because we conscientiously are desiring for that good to be done to us. I, on the other hand, believe that it's something that God has placed inside of us. Not that it matters to anyone though.

    Oxytocin makes us feel good when we trust people and are trusted.

    I've mentioned this a gazillion times, but no one listens to me.

    This article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

    Doesn't include Paul J. Zak's experiments
    http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZakatalH.pdf
    http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/?page=published
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Oxytocin makes us feel good when we trust people and are trusted.

    I've mentioned this a gazillion times, but no one listens to me.

    This article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

    Doesn't include Paul J. Zak's experiments
    http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZakatalH.pdf
    http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/?page=published
    well, there you go. God put that chemical inside of us... good job Ahnimus, you found it!
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    catefrances wrote:
    however if i feel that the occasion warrants a reciprocal gift then yes i would.
    That is the key here. I just outlined how reciprocity does not have to be a "joyful" thing, but also something one feels one must do. A duty. It can also be that. And the point isn't the motive of the giver, but what it does to the receiver. They probably do give of their own hearts, and really dont expect anything in return. But depending on the nature and magnitude of the gift, one may well feel an urge to return it in kind at a later point.

    Anyway, that's why I wanted to use that word. :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    well, there you go. God put that chemical inside of us... good job Ahnimus, you found it!

    How does this infer God?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    How does this infer God?
    how does it does not?
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    how does it does not?

    It's just as likely that a flying spaghetti monster put it there. But I'm placing my bets on evolution.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    It's just as likely that a flying spaghetti monster put it there. But I'm placing my bets on evolution.
    well, good for you!
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    Well, it's a great idea and it makes complete sense. And I also find no reason to disagree, except for the part of every psychological aspect that affects us affects society. To a certain extent though. I agree that certain things in society affects us emotionally, or psychologically, and vise-versa, our psychological attributes will also affect society (i.e. neighbors, friends and relatives). But I also believe in something else that I don't know what to call it. But it really boils down to society not affecting you in any negative way. For instance, wars, hunger or plagues. I believe that we don't necessarily have to be affected by it. But anyways that really doesn't matter.
    To not be affected by society or affect it, you must be outside of it. That's pretty hard these days.
    However, what you said reminds me of a scripture in the Bible that seems to flow very well with what is being said. You know, the part of "doing good to affect society in a positive way. Thus, benefitting from it."

    Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God
    That has gotta be a favorite quote for christian socialists. :)
    Basically, yeah, we do good because we conscientiously are desiring for that good to be done to us. I, on the other hand, believe that it's something that God has placed inside of us. Not that it matters to anyone though.
    Whatever floats your boat. I think it's more evolutionary coupled with ancient cultural origins myself.
    There is also a scripture that says that sin is in the heart of a person who knows how to do good but does not do it.
    Apart from not accepting or believing in sin as a concept, there is something to it. We should do what we know is right and good. Failing to do so, will not be good for ourselves either.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God

    This could very well be referring to Amanita Muscaria.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God

    This could very well be referring to Amanita Muscaria.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria
    actually, everyone's gotta admit that it just might be referring to you.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Whatever floats your boat.
    well, yes, of course. i came into this conversation fully aware that there are those who don't believe in what i believe.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    actually, everyone's gotta admit that it just might be referring to you.

    But the Bible is not literal, it would be very comic that it was literal in one part and not in the other.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire

Categories