What A Surprise: Atheists Have Highest SUICIDE Rate.

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

thats cool breh

anyways breh college basketball

 

[the mechanic]

Another great thread from junglebook

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

In order for it to be anthropomorphism, we would have to be needlessly attributing humanity to inhuman entities.

You ARE needlessly attributing human qualities to inhuman entities.

As for morality, take everything I said about consciousness,and, once again, one would have to prove that human social behavior was absolutely different, or different in kind, from animal behavior in order to be able to pose your question.

No, one wouldn't.

There is no good reason to accept that claim unless you accept ultimately theological assumptions, in which case you're already begging the question. On the other hand, both logic and the numerous similarities demonstrated between humans and say, dolphins, including neurological data concerning the same parts of the brain showing activity when similar social behaviors are performed by our two species provides strong reasons for endorsing the contrary position.

Neurological data doesn't = 'consciousness' (a human in a coma will respond to stimuli).

No, but it points towards a naturalistic explanation that does not inherently require theological premises, unless morality can be demonstrated to exist apart from consciousness, or, if not, that consciousness can be demonstrated to exist apart from nature.

I'm asking for a 'natural' ontic referent to define 'good' and 'evil', not a theological one. 'Consciousness' has no bearing on morality as any serial killer will tell you.

Also, I'm not an atheist in the sense that I would reject any and all possible definitions of God as weak, so I myself do not describe myself with that term. I believe the notions of a personal, anthropomorphic God and a creator of the universe are nonsense, though, along with a First Cause. In the case of my own position, it's a question of semantics. If you're a Spinozist and define god as nature, with no supernaturalism, then I might be a theist.

How do you determine 'good' and 'evil'?
​

 

[The Real]

You ARE needlessly attributing human qualities to inhuman entities.

Which human qualities? Which of these qualities have been demonstrated to exist only in humans, according to their secular definitions (since, again, theological ones would be begging the question?)

No, one wouldn't.

One would. If human and animal behavior are not different in kind, then it makes no sense to suggest that morality belongs to humans alone.

Neurological data doesn't = 'consciousness' (a human in a coma will respond to stimuli).

I agree that consciousness can't be reduced (eliminated by) reference to electrochemistry, but electrochemistry does ground consciousness. Consciousness is a physical entity- it has a physics, and is thus part of nature.

I'm asking for a 'natural' ontic referent to define 'good' and 'evil', not a theological one. 'Consciousness' has no bearing on morality as any serial killer will tell you.

Well, morality can only exist in beings that possess mindedness, but as I stated above, mindedness is itself physical. Thus, morality is physical, too, and emerges from the same grounds as other physical entities, whether the perceived-as-absolute morality of the Christian, or the subjective morality of the atheist.

How do you determine 'good' and 'evil'?

I don't think "I" do, I think nature does, but I experience myself as determining it through my own mental processes, reason, passion, etc, included.

 

[Crakface]

Less people driving slow on the freeway.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Which human qualities? Which of these qualities have been demonstrated to exist only in humans, according to their secular definitions (since, again, theological ones would be begging the question?)

Morality.

One would. If human and animal behavior are not different in kind, then it makes no sense to suggest that morality belongs to humans alone.

A male lion killing cubs of a deposed rival vs. a human step-father doing the same to children of his new wife from her previous relationship. Identical acts, yet one is 'evil'. Why?

I agree that consciousness can't be reduced (eliminated by) reference to electrochemistry, but electrochemistry does ground consciousness. Consciousness is a physical entity- it has a physics, and is thus part of nature.

Then what is the 'natural/physical' explanation for your moral sense of 'good' and 'evil'?

Well, morality can only exist in beings that possess mindedness, but as I stated above, mindedness is itself physical. Thus, morality is physical, too, and emerges from the same grounds as other physical entities, whether the perceived-as-absolute morality of the Christian, or the subjective morality of the atheist.

If 'morality' can only exist in entities with 'mindedness', why do no other organisms with 'mindedness' possess 'morals'?

I don't think "I" do, I think nature does, but I experience myself as determining it through my own mental processes, reason, passion, etc, included.

Nature doesn't determine 'good' or 'evil' as nature doesn't possess 'mindedness' and is not a 'physical' entity per sé. You, on the other hand, do and are. So, using your own mental processes, reason, passion, etc., how do you define 'good' or 'evil'?
​

 

[Bondye Vodou]

 

[The Real]

Morality.

When and how exactly was morality demonstrated to exist only in humans?

A male lion killing cubs of a deposed rival vs. a human step-father doing the same to children of his new wife from her previous relationship. Identical acts, yet one is 'evil'. Why?

Evil to whom? Not all of humanity, certainly. To some humans, yes, maybe even most. But what does that have to do with morality? Vikings routinely engaged in this kind of behavior, as did tribes in the Pacific and South America, but that doesn't make them immoral, unless, again, you're dealing in an a priori theological notion of morality (and even then, it would have to be Abrahamic, since these people were all obviously religious.) As for why we regard one as evil and one as not, unless you're making those same, old theological assumptions, there's no reason for all moral systems to necessarily be the same, and different ones can certainly contradict each other.

If 'morality' can only exist in entities with 'mindedness', why do no other organisms with 'mindedness' possess 'morals'?

There is no non-theological definition of morality that would categorically exclude all non-human life.

Then what is the 'natural/physical' explanation for your moral sense of 'good' and 'evil'?

Nature doesn't determine 'good' or 'evil' as nature doesn't possess 'mindedness' and is not a 'physical' entity per sé. You, on the other hand, do and are. So, using your own mental processes, reason, passion, etc., how do you define 'good' or 'evil'?

Nature is thoroughly and only physical. There's no way to reject that claim without immediately entering the theological realm or positing an untenable ontological dualism a la Descartes. Thoughts are as physical as tables. As for nature possessing mindedness, the totality of nature does not display mindedness as we recognize it in relation to life- nevertheless, the seeds of that mindedness, which are not different in kind from it (and this is largely a semantic distinction,) are present, unless, again, you are assuming a theologically-inspired dualism from the very beginning.

As for specific explanations, there are many currently being studied, none of which have been conclusively established to the rejection of the others, but for the purposes of this argument, that's alright, since almost all of them are far superior to any theological explanation by the rubrics which make a good argument. As there is no single cause or ground of animal social behavior (I half expect you tell me next that only humans possess sociality,) an explanation that takes into account all the causal factors would be near impossible to achieve.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

When and how exactly was morality demonstrated to exist only in humans?

Are you claiming that other organisms possess morals? If so, how and when was that established?

Evil to whom? Not all of humanity, certainly. To some humans, yes, maybe even most. But what does that have to do with morality?

'Evil' to you. If you don't consider killing children to be 'evil', how about torturing them?

There is no non-theological definition of morality that would categorically exclude all non-human life.

Non-humans don't have morals and are automatically excluded. Everything I've read on the subject indicates nothing more than inexplicable non-reproducible anomalies in observed animal behavior.

Nature is thoroughly and only physical. There's no way to reject that claim without immediately entering the theological realm or positing an untenable ontological dualism. Thoughts are as physical as tables. As for nature possessing mindedness, the totality of nature does not display mindedness as we recognize it in relation to life- nevertheless, the seeds of that mindedness, which are not different in kind from it (and this is largely a semantic distinction,) are present, unless, again, you are assuming a theologically-inspired dualism from the very beginning.

I'm assuming that atheism, as an ideology/philosophy/worldview has no way to determine 'good' or 'evil' and am just waiting for one of you to posit some way that you can judge it that doesn't require anything theological. Purely logical/material/physical.

As for specific explanations, there are many currently being studied, none of which have been conclusively established, but for the purposes of this argument, that's alright, since almost all of them are far superior to any theological explanation by the rubrics which make a good argument. As there is no single cause or ground of animal social behavior (I half expect you tell me next that only humans possess sociality,) an explanation that takes into account all the causal factors would be near impossible to achieve.

So, you're stating that you have NO way to judge 'good' or 'evil' presently or at any point in the past and are waiting for someone to figure it out?
​

 

[The Real]

Are you claiming that other organisms possess morals? If so, how and when was that established?

Non-humans don't have morals and are automatically excluded. Everything I've read on the subject indicates nothing more than inexplicable non-reproducible anomalies in observed animal behavior.

How are you defining morality? That seems to be the crux of this entire argument. As I stated before, I suspect that you're sneaking in theological presuppositions.

'Evil' to you. If you don't consider killing children to be 'evil', how about torturing them?

I consider both unethical, yes.

I'm assuming that atheism, as an ideology/philosophy/worldview has no way to determine 'good' or 'evil' and am just waiting for one of you to posit some way that you can judge it that doesn't require anything theological. Purely logical/material/physical.

Atheism's determinations of morality come from the same place as religion's- they're aesthetic preferences that may or may not achieve greater social validity through retroactive justification ("God is the source," "logic or science is the source.") Those aesthetic concerns are ultimately grounded in nature, since they are part of the physical world.

You seem to be refuting a strawman- no one but Sam Harris types (or religious people) would suggest that morality is purely logical, since logic is incapable of grounding itself, and the idea that it must have a metaphysical (in the sense of extranatural) source if not purely logical is fallacious. Maybe you're using the term "metaphysical" in a different sense?

So, you're stating that you have NO way to judge 'good' or 'evil' presently or at any point in the past and are waiting for someone to figure it out?

No, but I am stating that "my" judgements don't require supernatural grounding.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

How are you defining morality? That seems to be the crux of this entire argument. As I stated before, I suspect that you're sneaking in theological presuppositions.

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 2nd entry.​

I consider both unethical, yes.

'Unethical' =/= 'evil'. Example: Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky vs. Josef Fritzl and his daughter.​

Atheism's determinations of morality come from the same place as religion's- they're aesthetic preferences that may or may not achieve greater social validity through retroactive justification ("God is the source," "logic or science is the source.") Those aesthetic concerns are ultimately grounded in nature, since they are part of the physical world.

If morals are just a product of socially aesthetic preferences, then there was nothing 'evil' about Hitler's actions. They were just contrary to socially acceptable behavior at that particular time and, at some point in the future, may be regarded as 'good'. Is this correct?​

You seem to be refuting a strawman- no one but Sam Harris types (or religious people) would suggest that morality is purely logical, since logic is incapable of grounding itself, and the idea that it must have a metaphysical (in the sense of extranatural) source if not purely logical is fallacious. Maybe you're using the term "metaphysical" in a different sense?

I didn't suggest that it was purely logical, but since you don't believe it is, I can focus on material and/or physical explanations.​

No, but I am stating that "my" judgements don't require supernatural grounding.

By what mechanism (physical or material) do you objectively render judgments on what is 'good' vs. what is 'evil'?​

 

[Scustin Trillberlake]

highest suicide rate.....but the lowest rate of suicide bombers.

/thread