Atheism! (2 Viewers)

^CoSMic DoRiS^^

makes the woosh noises
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
5,274
Location
middle of nowhere
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
agnosticism..
not in the pure sense though.

Merely believing in God won't get you anywhere

yes, even you christians among here.
just to 'believe in God' won't get you into heaven.
But apart from belief and repentance there is nothing else that a Christian must do to get to heaven. Not going to church will not send you to hell. Not being baptised will not send you to hell. Lying will not send you to hell. Etc. Works (all the good ''stuff'' people do, I have also heard it called fruit?) are supposed to follow on as a direct consequence of faith and the change that being born again apparently brings, NOT something you do to get a ticket to heaven or else noone would ever end up there. Correct? Y/N

The few really evangelical types I've talked to have all had this view.

Anyway on topic, I think according to that list of definitions that Kway posted I'm probably a weak agnostic.
 

MissGiggles

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
117
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
well, i don't mean that his conversion is bad. some people need guidance and find it through organised religion, but it is normal human behaviour that if you do something extremely bad, and feel extremely guilty, and then someone comes along who promises redemption if you follow their set path, then they will probably choose redemption.
as for me i feel i am doing a pretty decent job of not screwing my life up (or anyone else's) so i feel no need to be guided. i don't feel lost. I feel free. my life philosophy is that if you enjoy this life then you shouldn't be sad when it has to end. i feel sad for anyone who reaches the end of their life who has nothing they are proud of achieving.
this excludes the loss of life through injury, negligece, murder or illness of course
 

missanonymous7

Secretive Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
322
Location
Driving to Idaho
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
But apart from belief and repentance there is nothing else that a Christian must do to get to heaven. Not going to church will not send you to hell. Not being baptised will not send you to hell. Lying will not send you to hell. Etc. Works (all the good ''stuff'' people do, I have also heard it called fruit?) are supposed to follow on as a direct consequence of faith and the change that being born again apparently brings, NOT something you do to get a ticket to heaven or else noone would ever end up there. Correct? Y/N
.
That sounds about right.
 

theism

Resident Apologetic
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,047
Location
Within the interwebz
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
But apart from belief and repentance there is nothing else that a Christian must do to get to heaven. Not going to church will not send you to hell. Not being baptised will not send you to hell. Lying will not send you to hell. Etc. Works (all the good ''stuff'' people do, I have also heard it called fruit?) are supposed to follow on as a direct consequence of faith and the change that being born again apparently brings, NOT something you do to get a ticket to heaven or else noone would ever end up there. Correct? Y/N
yes pretty much spot on.

though it's not just to get to heaven that i follow God/Christ.
heaven is just the beginning..

to have a relationship, and feel the love of God is amazing.
the one who put the stars in the sky,
the one who created me from the start,
etc.

i'm only in the beginning stages, and it's awesome


as for me i feel i am doing a pretty decent job of not screwing my life up (or anyone else's) so i feel no need to be guided. i don't feel lost. I feel free. my life philosophy is that if you enjoy this life then you shouldn't be sad when it has to end. i feel sad for anyone who reaches the end of their life who has nothing they are proud of achieving.
this excludes the loss of life through injury, negligece, murder or illness of course
God isn't just a vending machine you urgently want something from when life isn't going too well..
he wants you to know him intimately.
 
Last edited:

MissGiggles

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
117
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
isn't the whole reason the church exists is to explain and spread the Word of God? keep people on the right path? it seems to be the gist of organised religion in general to me. and so i'm no longer a part of the Catholic community. otherwise deciding right from wrong and redeeming ourself when we make mistakes is entirely up to the individual
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I really wish this topic would go back to its purpose: Atheism.

Theism should be kept elsewhere, ie Does God Exist or create a new thread (I know Bible threads exist).

I'm interested in discussions amongst those who already hold an atheistic worldview. My question is, what moral philosophy have you chosen to guide your ways?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Why do you need a moral philosophy? How would you define one?

(If you can't tell, I'm having trouble answering that question).
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Why do you need a moral philosophy? How would you define one?

(If you can't tell, I'm having trouble answering that question).
Well atheism itself is simply a statement of rejection towards the theistic view (that you know) yet it does little in actual ethical guidance, i.e. a framework for making moral decisions. That is possibly the best definition I could give of a "moral philosophy"- the culmination of your ethical standpoints with philosophical justification. Many theists use the (some what flawed) religious framework as the crux of their moral outlook, but naturally this is out of question for the atheist.

Personally, I take a preference utilitarianism approach to most ethical dilemmas, yet I'm still much in the process of developmentation (I like Peter Singer on many issues). I think that evolutionary explanations also offer much value in explaining our moral intuitions, though I struggle to develop an objective validation for my moral positions, therefore accepting some vague form of moral relativism.

I also eventually plan to explore the ideas of Ayn Rand (Moral Objectivism based on reality).
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Evolutionary explanations and justifications for moral behaviour that society exhibits suffice for me. I don't think we need a moral framework; it's innate (and required) in social animals.
 

JClamp

Banned
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
120
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
you have no idea what you're on about, kwayera. no idea.
 

MissGiggles

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
117
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
My main question with organised religion is what right does one group of men have to say they are better than another group of men at making our moral decisions for us.
I believe the best thing to do is to choose the option that is best for the greatest number of people (ie the greater good, situationism)
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Evolutionary explanations and justifications for moral behaviour that society exhibits suffice for me. I don't think we need a moral framework; it's innate (and required) in social animals.
I'd be interested in an answer from say Kfunk.

On the surface, yes predispositions towards acceptable group behaviour are innate. I agree that in most normal humans (non-psychopaths/sociopaths) these are active, yet their presence alone (the "how" question) which we can discover through neo-darwinian theory does not give a philosophical justification towards "why" they are correct. This is where philosophy enters, which is of course subjective. The strength (on the surface) of a theistic world-view, although logically flawed, is that they can give an "absolute" validation to these precepts. For the moral atheist, other philosophical frameworks need be explored.

A good example would be- evolution has instilled within us that we need not kill each other. How does that on its own help you solve the ethical dilemma of abortion per se? Yes, you can (at any best attempt) let science dictate whether or not a life is present and then apply the rule accordingly, which places scientific judgements in an almost deontological moral framework. Yet we would then need to ask what the philosophical basis of scientific creedance still is. A moral framework IMO is needed to help us guide around the tricky moral dilemmas and to at least give breadth to meta-ethical questions of what exactly is "right" and "wrong"?

Since I at this point can not answer this- I delve dangerously into a form of moral relativism. However, there are many strong atheists out there who beleive in moral objectivity (with the same strength of the theist) and attempt to logically justify it within a self-contained universe as dependent on reason as the absolute source. See "The Logical Structure of Objectivism" by David Kelley- http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/introduction_to_objectivist_morality/
 
Last edited:

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
I'd be interested in an answer from say Kfunk.

On the surface, yes predispositions towards acceptable group behaviour are innate. I agree that in most normal humans (non-psychopaths/sociopaths) these are active, yet their presence alone (the "how" question) which we can discover through neo-darwinian theory does not give a philosophical justification towards "why" they are correct. This is where philosophy enters, which is of course subjective. The strength (on the surface) of a theistic world-view, although logically flawed, is that they can give an "absolute" validation to these precepts. For the moral atheist, other philosophical frameworks need be explored.

A good example would be- evolution has instilled within us that we need not kill each other. How does that on its own help you solve the ethical dilemma of abortion per se? Yes, you can (at any best attempt) let science dictate whether or not a life is present and then apply the rule accordingly, which places scientific judgements in an almost deontological moral framework. Yet we would then need to ask what the philosophical basis of scientific creedance still is. A moral framework IMO is needed to help us guide around the tricky moral dilemmas.
You may like to read a book by Jared Diamond, called Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. Also, anything regarding sociobiology, including those by E. O. Wilson.

I genuinely don't think a moral framework is necessary, because as I said, morality is innate and required for social species of animals. Even non-primate social species like wolves exhibit a kind of primitive (and necessarily limited) morality. Social transactions involving developing morality probably helped drive our intelligence.

It's all game theory, baby, and even human behaviour today is driven by it.
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
*I don't think my example of abortion was carefully explained.

The point lies in that although I think science can derive the tools in which we can aplpy reason to (materialistic facts from materialistic observations) extending the scientific model into the philsoophical realm is a dangerous task. I am poorly read on the philosophy of science and accept that the exact role of science in this area needs to be defined by the experts, however I firmly believe we need a separate framework to help with moral application.

In the example above, say it was determined that life does begin at conception (this was a tested and proven scientific hypothesis and hence fact). What are the ethical implications? The innate morality dervived from evolution tells us not to kill each other, yet this is too simplistic alone to answer a deep question of whether in this case the killing is justifiable? That is, what amounts to "morally condemnable" killing? Should we take the context into account- ie the mental states of this living thing, the state of the mother, how long each has lived, does consciousness exist and does the mother's right to her own body supersede? Is there any suffering per se if an abortion procedes? We begin to delve into the nature of what is right and what is wrong. This is where say a philosophical stance of consequentialism may enter and provide guidance. This is where science has given us the facts; philosophy now needs to help us apply it to achieve the most acceptable moral outcome.

Without a framework, a strict adherance to scientific results as a pure moral compass would IMO be no less fruitless then the guidance of religion (but I hate absolute authoritarian ethics).
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'll look into those books as well. Yet I am doubtful that any intelligent evolutionist would say that morally philosophy is useless given its innate (unless I'm misinterpreting your position??)

Its positions like that which make the religious hate evolutionists.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Um, evolution does not tell us to not kill each other. Even our current relativistic morality says that killing is acceptable in certain situations, such as self defence.

I think I'm way out of my depth here, to be honest, and I am not ashamed to admit it. You lost me when you started talking about the philosophy of morality and right and wrong, which obviously are abstract concepts that can't necessarily be answered by what evolution has provided it - which I never implied. Morality itself is something we evolved to be able to live in social communities. Therefore I.. don't really understand the question?

Never having relied on a moral framework, however, you might as well be asking me to compare apples and oranges.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top