Where do atheists get their morals from?

[Iormlund]

We routinely examine whether something can be objectively considered truthful or not already.

[Barrister]

We routinely examine whether something can be objectively considered truthful or not already.

Yes, are not infrequently we examine and determine that we can not come up with a conclusive answer.

[Razgovory]

I think Viking is trying to figure out if he can respect JR or not.

[frunk]

it's deeper than that - there is also a categorical error.

If I were to ask a question "What is love?," a scientist might say that what humans experience as love is just the brain processing certain electro-chemical stimuli that have been developed over aeons in response to evolutionary processes.

That may very well be an accurate description of the physical process but it doesn't answer the question at a fundamental level - because the question relates to a human experience, not the physical mechanism that is the pre-requisite for having that experience.

The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication.  One cannot reasonably claim this interaction is not "real" -- there is zero reason to believe that people who have these contacts and experiences are not accurately reporting them.  These are real phenomena.  Of course, one can claim that the people having these experiences are delusional and are systematically misunderstanding the true nature of their experiences.  But that require some objective framework or standpoint to judge which subjective experiences by others are true and which are mere delusions - and where in Viking's own belief system does that truth criterion arise?  And if one does make the claim of delusion, it amounts to saying the the majority of human beings past and present are delusional with only a relatively small minority being sane. 

I am less reluctant than Viking appears to me to start making such sweeping judgments about the validity of the subjective experiences of others, and while I do think science and logic provide very useful tools for making objective statements about the world, those tools are subject to certain limitations in terms of the kinds of questions they can profitably address and the extent they can provide definitive answers.

Other than romantic comedies and romance novels not many people would describe love as having actual measurable physical impact on the world apart from motivating humans to act.  Similarly only rarely do we expect others to love the same things that we do.  Religious experience isn't accorded the same element of skepticism as far as applicability to the nature of the universe.  Love is usually narrowly targeted, non-transferable and socially acceptable, while religious experience is given the choice of either being a revelation of the mysteries of the universe or the delusions of a madman. 

I'm not convinced religious experience is either one.

[Berkut]

The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication.  One cannot reasonably claim this interaction is not "real" -- there is zero reason to believe that people who have these contacts and experiences are not accurately reporting them.  These are real phenomena.  Of course, one can claim that the people having these experiences are delusional and are systematically misunderstanding the true nature of their experiences.  But that require some objective framework or standpoint to judge which subjective experiences by others are true and which are mere delusions - and where in Viking's own belief system does that truth criterion arise?  And if one does make the claim of delusion, it amounts to saying the the majority of human beings past and present are delusional with only a relatively small minority being sane. 

I think you are setting up a false choice here.

There are choices other than "God exists" and "Everyone who believes god exists is delusional".

[The Minsky Moment]

There are choices other than "God exists" and "Everyone who believes god exists is delusional".

There are such choices, but I don't think those choices are available to Viking given the other positions he has taken.
But I will let him address that and not put words in his mouth.

[grumbler]

The most obvious answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes - because the majority of human beings in the world have some kind of regular, direct interaction with God, whether in the form of prayer, dreams, visions, or even direct verbal communication. 

So the most obvious answer to the question "does magic exist" is yes, because the majority of human beings in the world's history have had direct experience of magic, whether in the form of curses, weather dances, bad luck from performing taboo acts, or even speaking with magical beings?

I suppose that, if you simply note that the obvious answer has no more chance of being right than a more subtle answer, your point is true and the answer to my question is yes.  Not sure that declaring something is "the most obvious" gets us anywhere in that case, though.

[Razgovory]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

[Ed Anger]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

Sometimes, I miss Torquemada.

[The Minsky Moment]

So the most obvious answer to the question "does magic exist" is yes

Sure it does.  David Copperfield has made millions off of it.

But if the question is whether magical incatations and spells can cause actual effects in the real world, that is an empirical inquiry amenable to experimental analysis.  Since magic, other than for the purposes of entertainment, has no point other than to generate real effects, that inquiry is probably sufficient to resolve the matter.

[HVC]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

Hey, not all of us are militant

[Malthus]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

[Razgovory]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

Hey, not all of us are militant

No, you are okay.  I find the militant and the patronizing types annoying.

[Iormlund]

Sorry, but I only get to be militant and patronizing on the Internet. You're not taking that away from me.

[Barrister]

Sorry, but I only get to be militant and patronizing on the Internet. You're not taking that away from me.

Being militant and patronizing is something of a professional specialty of mine.