Where do atheists get their morals from?

[The Minsky Moment]

Amusingly, Siege's theological maxims are a pretty close to those of Karaism, an medieval Jewish heresy that still has a few followers today.

[Siege]

Amusingly, Siege's theological maxims are a pretty close to those of Karaism, an medieval Jewish heresy that still has a few followers today.

Man, from day one back in Paradox off topic you have tried to label me a Qara'it.
Please dude, I told you before, the Qara'im believe the entire Tenach is equal in value to the Torah.
As you perfectly know, that is pretty much heresy in judaism. Even the most mystical within the haredim doesn't dare say something like that.
The Torah supersees the nevi'im rishonim (first prophets), which in turn do so with the nevi'im ahronim (last prophets), which in turn leads the ketuvim (writtings).

Besides, I am sefaradi, and Im not aware of any sefaradi being qara'it.

[Viking]

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).

so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?

[Razgovory]

What is the point of this Viking?

[grumbler]

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).

so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?

He said exactly what he was.  Why are you trying to re-write what he wrote to fit your own bizarro narrative?  Give it up.  You really need to think about what you believe (not the incoherent rambling you have engaged in here) before you start to tell JR what he believes.

[Viking]

so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?

He said exactly what he was.  Why are you trying to re-write what he wrote to fit your own bizarro narrative?  Give it up.  You really need to think about what you believe (not the incoherent rambling you have engaged in here) before you start to tell JR what he believes.

It is part of making sure I understand what he means. I'm trying to see if I can describe his view in my words in a manner he agrees with. It's how one avoids constructing strawmen.

[grumbler]

It is part of making sure I understand what he means. I'm trying to see if I can describe his view in my words in a manner he agrees with. It's how one avoids constructings strawmen.

FYP.  Someone who writes "Where do atheists get their morals from?" shouldn't be concerned about trying to rewrite others' words.  That person should be concerned about learning how to write in English, period.

If you don't understand what JR wrote, just ask him what the words or phrases you don't understand really mean.  Trying to hammer square pegs into round holes doesn't increase "understanding."

[Viking]

It is part of making sure I understand what he means. I'm trying to see if I can describe his view in my words in a manner he agrees with. It's how one avoids constructings strawmen.

FYP.  Someone who writes "Where do atheists get their morals from?" shouldn't be concerned about trying to rewrite others' words.  That person should be concerned about learning how to write in English, period.

If you don't understand what JR wrote, just ask him what the words or phrases you don't understand really mean.  Trying to hammer square pegs into round holes doesn't increase "understanding."

so you didn't see the question mark?

[grumbler]

so you didn't see the question mark?

So you didn't understand my post?

[Viking]

so you didn't see the question mark?

So you didn't understand my post?

I understood you post perfectly well. Your paranoid mind cannot comprehend a discussion with the objective to increase learning and understanding.

I was asking him if I understood him correctly.

[grumbler]

I understood you post perfectly well. Your paranoid mind cannot comprehend a discussion with the objective to increase learning and understanding.

Didn't take long for the ad hom to make its appearance! 

I was asking him if I understood him correctly.

He said he was a "philosophical agnostic" on "deist or theist," so you asked if you understood correctly that he was a deist? That makes a lot of sense. He said he was a "philosophical agnostic" on "materialist," so you asked if you understood correctly that he was a non-materialist? That makes sense, as well.  You insist on binary solutions to problems that are not binary.

[The Minsky Moment]

Man, from day one back in Paradox off topic you have tried to label me a Qara'it.
Please dude, I told you before, the Qara'im believe the entire Tenach is equal in value to the Torah.

Not so.  The Karaites hold as do talmudic Jews that the Torah was directly dictated by God to Moses, whereas the writings, prophetic books etc. are divinely inspired but not the direct word of God.  AFAIK no Jewish sect has every held that the writings are "fakes," unless you count Trotskyites as a branch of Judaism.

The key area where you agree with karaism is your rejection of the Oral Lawm, including the Mishneh.  Even the Falasha don't reject the legitimacy of the Oral Law as a concept.

Besides, I am sefaradi, and Im not aware of any sefaradi being qara'it.

There were plently of Spanish Karaites during the medieval period. There are a few left in Turkey even now.

[Barrister]

You insist on binary solutions to problems that are not binary.

That seems to be Viking's fundamental problem on the topic in a nutshell.

[The Minsky Moment]

so you are a deist non-materialist leaning towards accepting some form of a non-material part of the self with no view on determinism vs free will?

No.
By philosophical agnostic, I mean that I hold that those questions are ones that are not capable of any determinative answer, at least with the methodologies presently at our disposal.  It might be that some conceivable future experiment could be designed to resolve one or more of these matters, but it either hasn't happened yet or I don't know about it.

I'm also not committed to any particular position on these issues out of some kind of philosophical preference.  My only real beef with hard dualism is that it seems superfluous and is thus vulnerable to Ockham's Razor but that isn't real disproof.   Personally I follow certain religious rituals or traditions, for personal and communal reasons, without being committed to any particular theological viewpoint. 

[The Minsky Moment]

That seems to be Viking's fundamental problem on the topic in a nutshell.

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.