Bigga said:Goo said:Bigga said:Interesting debate.
Here's my question; what is so difficult to answer about Vic's question that one has to tack religion to it?
I am not an atheist and nor am I religious, so this intrigues me that atheists cannot answer a question without defaulting to a safe ground.
Does the question have no validity? If so, explain on its own merit.
Not sure I understand you fully here, Bigga. As a atheist myself, I can draw upon perfectly good reasoning (scientific and Darwinian) as to why morals, and behavior which suggest morals, exist.
I haven't seen any evidence of a atheistic answer defaulting to a safe ground.
Also interested in your "not religious but not atheist" comment. Just to clarify I assume you're saying you're an agnostic? Everyone who isn't a believer is an agnostic in reality, but the term has problems as it suggest the agnostic is 50-50 over the existence of a God. I am 99.9 recurring per cent sure a God doesn't exist. While technically that makes me an agnostic, I use the term atheist as it gives a more accurate portrayal as to where I stand. Is this you? Or do you mean something else?
Funnily enough Markt85's Vicar brother is also 99.9 recurring per cent atheist as well. He only believes in one God of the thousands and thousands that have been created. So while he's not quite as atheistic as me, he's very very close.
Yeah.
Not what I said...
Blue Tooth said:Most world religions are at the most 3000 years old...man has been around significantly longer and I am pretty sure lived with a moral code of some kind prior to religion.
As Voltaire once remarked "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"
Maybe that's exactly what we did do.
Rocket-footed kolarov said:Same stuff as Pominoz's vid but in more detail.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJrcVhtzYo[/youtube]
if there IS NO GOD, THEN THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALS TO CLAIM.
Markt85 said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:Same stuff as Pominoz's vid but in more detail.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJrcVhtzYo[/youtube]
i know i could watch this and enjoy it. But would still struggle to answer the points in the email ...
'' If morals are a result of social conditioning how can you then claim we are WRONG for invading Iraq, since as you put it yourself "we are the product of our own morals", your world is natural and natural only, no ultimate meaning, no ultimate values.....that IS YOUR WORLDVIEW ''
You claim a world that morals are based on social conditioning without a common source and then as soon as the opportunity presents itself like in a bar instantly claim that invading Iraq is....wait for it........WRONG!?!? ''
pominoz said:Blue Tooth said:Most world religions are at the most 3000 years old...man has been around significantly longer and I am pretty sure lived with a moral code of some kind prior to religion.
As Voltaire once remarked "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"
Maybe that's exactly what we did do.
For me, no "maybe" about it.
Markt85 said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:Same stuff as Pominoz's vid but in more detail.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJrcVhtzYo[/youtube]
i know i could watch this and enjoy it. But would still struggle to answer the points in the email ...
'' If morals are a result of social conditioning how can you then claim we are WRONG for invading Iraq, since as you put it yourself "we are the product of our own morals", your world is natural and natural only, no ultimate meaning, no ultimate values.....that IS YOUR WORLDVIEW ''
You claim a world that morals are based on social conditioning without a common source and then as soon as the opportunity presents itself like in a bar instantly claim that invading Iraq is....wait for it........WRONG!?!? ''
JoeMercer'sWay said:Mark's gone mental again then...