Where do atheists get their morals from?

[The Minsky Moment]

I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. 

Damning words from an actuary. 

[Razgovory]

I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. 

Damning words from an actuary. 

From the Soviet Union no less.

[grumbler]

I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. 

Could be worse; we could be dealing with the magical thinkers that argue for some reason that there is no such thing as a meme (also an idea from The Selfish Gene)! 

[Oexmelin]

Dennett I thought was focused on reconciling free will and determinism.  It's an inquiry that has some relevance to what Viking is talking about but not quite the same thing.

That's his most current endpoint (and indeed, it might appeal more to Viking). However, he did some work on the nature of emotions, which in turns entails questioning their relationship to norms (and then, in turn, their evolutional emergence).

[mongers]

I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. 

I'm somewhat amused, a poster uses Ye Olde Languish Ways to attack other posters under the guise of enquiring about some cod philosophical issue.
It's like a highly refined Languish, maybe we could bottle it and sell it as snake oil.   

I don't know what Viking thought he'd achieve with the thread, clearly live and let live isn't a mantra he's matured into yet. 

[Razgovory]

I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. 

Could be worse; we could be dealing with the magical thinkers that argue for some reason that there is no such thing as a meme (also an idea from The Selfish Gene)! 

You know if you want to talk to me, you don't have to go to through DGuller to do it.  I'm actually posting on the same board.

[Viking]

In case some of you are interested, Daniel Dennett's work has been an attempt to tackle that very question, trying to manage a space between Hume and Darwin.

Dennett I thought was focused on reconciling free will and determinism.  It's an inquiry that has some relevance to what Viking is talking about but not quite the same thing.

Dennet has so many threads running that it's hard to call it focusing. TBH the free will/determinism bit is a bit incidental here... but we did get there..

[Viking]

That the "I" character that you experience being inside your brain is not making the decisions, it is merely rationalizing them. We don't have free will if "we" means the "I" character inside your brain. That is what it means and I think that is mindblowing.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the experimental result.  All the experimental result shows is that mental activity is associated with a mechanical physical manifestation, which is something even a Cartesian dualist can accept.

Well, yes, but the point I was making there was about free will.

BTW, you never did state your views on the presuppositions


Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist


if it wasn't clear I am a physicalist monist, determinist, materialist and an atheist.

[The Brain]

What differences will be observed between free will existing and free will not existing?

[Barrister]

Look, you said you could prove to your own satisfaction that god was real. Are you seriously telling me that you would rather have me burn in hell for eternity than spend 5 or 10 minutes summarizing and referencing that evidence? That's not very christian of you. The reason I am an atheist because I have not seen any convincing evidence for his existence. I'm not wedded to any Idea show me that you are right and I am wrong and I will change my mind. Maybe you are worried that I as a fundamentalist (since I already agreed that I would be a fundamentalist if I were religious) would burn down sea food stores and murder gays and lapsed christians. I'll promise right here and now to abide by my nation's laws in all cases if that is the price of you saving my soul here and now.

What a really, really bizarre post.  Why on earth would I want you to become a Christian fundamentalist?  They're scracely any better than militant atheists.

Because I want to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false ones as possible. This is important to me.

This just goes to what I've been saying before - we're talking different languages.

I for one am not trying to tell you I have the "one universal trurth that cannot be argued".  There is plenty of doubt and uncertainty when adressing the big questions of Life, The Universe, and Everything.  If you ask for absolute answers, you're going to get pretty simplistic answers IMHO.  Life isn't simplistic.

I wouldn't want you to be a fundamentalist Christian because being a fundamentalist Christian is about as far removed from what I believe as what you currently believe.

If anything - I want you to reject the notion that that there is any single right answer.  That questions such as this are inherently uncertain, and to embrace that uncertainty.  Once you do so you might still reject God, but at least you're looking at the right questions in the right framework.

[grumbler]

What differences will be observed between free will existing and free will not existing?

We must believe in free will.
We have no choice.

[Siege]

Ok, I really hate talking of religion with non-initiated people because it crosses the line of civility and quickly become proselitism.
But since this thread is about the big question, I'll say my piece.
Disclamer: I am in no way trying to proselite any of you assholes.

1- All mankind knows about G comes from revelation (written word). Without the "bible" mankind would "know" of a gazillion gods, but not from the monoteist deity that is at the core of western civilization.

2- If G is real, and all we know comes from the books, then the Torah (first 5 books in the "bible") is the begining of G revelation to mankind.

3- If the Torah is the word, then everything that follows in the "bible" have to match with the Torah. If it doesn't it ain't true.

4- Since NOTHING after the Torah matches with the Torah 100%, then the Torah is the only true message from G to mankind, and everything else after the Torah is comentaries at best, fake books at worst.

I mean, have you ever wondered why the Book of Daniel is in the Ketuvim (writtings, least importants books in the Tenach) as oppoussed to being in the Neviim Ahjronim where it should be chronologically?

Because even in old times we new it was a fake. The language and grammar in which is written does not match with the other writtings of the period. The Book of Daniel is post-diction.

[Siege]

Therefore, the G-d that exist is the G-d of the Torah, all powerfull, all knowing, all controlling.
The G-d that destroyed Sodoma and Gomorra, that punish the sins of the parents on their children, but also forgive and is merciful for a thousand generations, that causes the wound and heals it, that gives life and takes it.
The G-d that delivers all my enemies into my hands, and forgive my sins, and rewards my obediance.
Yes, that Bronze Age G-d is the only G-d.

Forget all your dualism, about good and evil. That's Zoroastrism influence on rabbinical judaism and christianity.
Every day thousands die, in all kinds of accidents, sickness, and wars. And thousands are born.
An oportunity to search and find G.

Only the kohanim have the right of it.
All the rest are chasing shadows, because the truth is too hard to bear.
Man is not looking for truth, they are looking for peace of mind and confirmation of their pre-coninceived beliefs.

Whatever. Do what you must, or lack thereof.
The world will keep going.

[Viking]

The dualism we are talking about is mind-brain duality. A mind-brain dualist thinks that there is a non-material self which exists not dependent on the brain. A mind-brain monist (such as myself) thinks that the self is a creation of the brain and exists only as a creation of the brain.

We are not talking about Manichean dualism where there are two gods the evil creator of matter and a good creator of soul.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist

I think I am philosophical agnostic on all issues, although a strong form of dualism strikes me as unlikely.  I don't think the question of the existence of God - if viewed as a philosophical issue and not a theological one - is really all that interesting. at least compared to the amount of attention paid to the question. If there is a transcendent being that exists, it is extremely unlikely that such a being would have any concern whether it is worshipped by a bunch of homo sapiens in any particular way (or at all).