Forum menu
And can there be such a thing as a moral atheist?
(If nothing else this may save the Cologne thread although hopes aren't high)
My guess:
Truth is the word of God. Amirite?
Moral atheist? Nope. They hate God/reject God, and only God is truly moral. Amirite?
But I asked you the question, and you still haven't answered.
Instead you've set up a thread trying to shore up your position as an atheist with the mockery of religion typical of this site.
I ask you again - what is truth?
Or let me put it more mildly, do you believe there is such a thing as truth?
Truth is the word of God. Amirite?
No. This is far too simple.
You are overlooking too many cognitive and epistemological factors in positing this, and then asking if it is a sufficient definition of 'truth'.
I will try to write something fuller in a while, but I wanted to state this before the thread becomes utterly chaotic. 😉
Moral atheist? Nope. They hate God/reject God, and only God is truly moral. Amirite?
Oh, and nope to this too. Of course an atheist can be moral - even on his/her own terms.
One's own truth is truest.
Truth's beauty, innit?
everything is mocked on here - start a vegan thread if you want some proof of that I just dont bother to whinge when i am in the minority and sure;y you should forgive us and turn the other cheek.he mockery of religion typical of this site.
Truth as in is there a god or not does exist but dualist binary truths dont exist and i am not a fan of moral absolutism as some debates have conflicting rights and morals at work - abortion for example. Neither solution is that great IMHO or that moral [ or immoral]
as for do aethists have morals [ wehn moaning about alack of respect] of course they do it sreally simple
1. God chose morals for a reason and we can all see the reason
2 God chose them on w him and therefore atheists wont see the reason
IIRC Adams argues this but its blindingly obvious that both have moral codes. the issue is that they are different and both sides think theirs is better.
To me circumcising a child is an act of barbarism we should outlaw to others its their right to practice religion and raise their kids hwo they see fit. Neither Of us lack moral we just disagree on what they are. Its not really hard to grasp unless you want to just press buttons and wind up the "other side"
Which God? They all denounce the "other" Gods and say there's only one. So if all religions do this, the only logical answer is there is none.
Perhaps the forum needs sub catagories beyon chat and bike.
God did go full on mass murdering everyone and thing that he/she/it could. God has major tantrums in that there bible, makes Hitler look like a 'ok chap'
Why worship a known killer
Why worship a known killer
He said he'd change. He said he loved me really.
everything is mocked on here - start a vegan thread if you want some proof of that I just dont bother to whinge when i am in the minority and sure;y you should forgive us and turn the other cheek.
That is not the root of my objection (infact, I enjoy being in the minority, maybe too much at times:)
My objection was that I asked Malvern Rider a legitimate question, and rather than answer it, he started a thread which had loaded language ("Truth is the word of God. Amirite?") in order I suspect to rally the Dawkinistas and avoid answering the question.
I'd be happy with a simple, "I don't know and don't care"!
Perhaps the forum needs sub catagories beyon chat and bike.
Politics and religion.
Would be the same people saying the same things day after day.
Would be great for the rest of the forum.
Wilburt - bikes, chat, "endless pointless futile intransigence?"
Truth is the word of God. Amirite?
Who says? The words were writing by human beings, we only have their word that the words they've written have come from God.
Moral atheist? Nope. They hate God/reject God, and only God is truly moral. Amirite?
Rubbish. We only have the word of humans that state that only God is truly moral.
And while humans are fallable, that doesn't mean they can't be moral. And who is it that defines what moral is, anyway?
The word of God? But who's the intermediary?
Why, human beings, of course.
Or let me put it more mildly, do you believe there is such a thing as truth?
I didn't answer it because I felt that your question (to me) was essentially philosophical and/or incomplete. I assumed (given your prior assertions about atheists and morals) that what you ask and what I hear you asking are two different things, ie when you say ' do you believe in truth?' - what I actually hear is - 'do you believe in (a) God?
What definition of 'truth' are you using in this context?
I assume you mean some kind of absolute truth?
Absolute truth to me is when someone says: 'I didn't take a biscuit from the jar in your locked cupboard this morning'.
I believe* they are telling the absolute truth because:
1. Only I have the key to the cupboard and that key is on my keyring in my pocket
2. There weren't any biscuits in the cupboard anyway
3. I don't have jars I use plastic tubs.
4. My CCTV backs them up
5. They only just arrived this morning and I met them off the London train myself.
*I might say that I 'know' that they are telling the truth, yet that would be merely poetic/for effect.
[i]'I believe to the best of my knowledge that they are telling the absolute truth' [/i]would be the more correct and accurate term.
There are probably more threads about consumer electronics than about politics and religion.
[i]There are probably more threads about consumer electronics than about politics and religion.[/i]
But they certainly ain't as loooooong!
the mockery of [s]religion[/s] [s]Crocs[/s] [s]beards[/s] [s]calendars[/s] [s]patios[/s]moobs is typical of this site.
Would be great for the rest of the forum.
If it means you stop doing this sort of thing then I am all for it
You know threads you dont like ....guess what intelligent folk ignore them. i dont chat on skiing or rugby or watches as I dont care. I also have the self restraint to not moan at folk who discuss things i have no interest in. give it a go flashy I feel you will be ahppier for not reading stuff you clearly dont like.
It works with the DM as well and Katy Hopkins my world is better for ignoring them .
But they certainly ain't as loooooong!
Or as full of endless pointless futile intransigence.
To me circumcising a child is an act of barbarism we should outlaw to others its their right to practice religion and raise their kids hwo they see fit.
Was it originally started in the belief it was hygienic?
Either way, it's no skin off my nose.
That's an example of ethical truth. I'm less interested in someone stealing cookies than I am in the idea of a complete explanation for the existence of the universe, I suppose.
Anyhow, it's teatime, so exit Badnewz, pursued by a bear.
Or as full of endless pointless futile intransigence.
Or posts by you?
he started a thread which had loaded language ("Truth is the word of God. Amirite?") in order I suspect to rally the [b]Dawkinistas[/b]
praise the lord you are careful with your language usage so as to not make "Loaded questions nor to claim that aethists have no morals. Shakes head walks away as clearly reasonable and intelligent [ or even self aware] discourse will not be forthcoming.
you have confused ethics and science quite spectacularly or you to struggle to stay on topic.the idea of a complete explanation for the existence of the universe
The big bang is many things but moral is not one of them
That's an example of ethical truth. I'm less interested in someone stealing cookies than I am in the idea of a complete explanation for the existence of the universe, I suppose.
That's physics you're thinking of.
My CCTV backs them up
Wouldn't it be lovely if you could "backup" biscuits.
everything is mocked on here - start a vegan thread if you want some proof of that
I blame the lack of bacon.
nearly but the evidence suggests that too much bacon makes folk thing they are funny whilst repeating the same old jokes .
Beauty innit
Something is true when you type in capitals on a forum. FACT.
While you're getting your dinner I'll put some work in to address your question. In good faith. SWIDT!? Pavlovian KA-ching!
That's an example of ethical truth.
No, that was my example of the noun 'truth'.
Couldn't even find 'ethical truth' either, please point me to a definition. Thanks.
Below is a dictionary definition for the noun 'truth'. You might compare it to my biscuit jar example, the one that confused you with concerns of ethics?:
truth
tru??/
noun
the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness; More
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so; More
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"
synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More
For 'noun' look up noun.
They all denounce the "other" Gods
That's not correct, I don't think…
It's a word.I ask you again - what is truth?
People ascribe different meanings to it.
Of course, but see a).Or let me put it more mildly, do you believe there is such a thing as truth?
If the question is is there a god, the truth is no.
They all denounce the "other" Gods
That's not correct, I don't think…
The three Abrahamic religions all worship the same God.
If the question is "is there a god?", the answer is "we don't know, but there's insufficient evidence for me to say that there is".
Miketually - that's not what "oh, teh ironing" really means 😀There are probably more threads about consumer electronics than about politics and religion.
he three Abrahamic religions all worship the same God.
^ 😯
Surely evidence* that if there was a God he'd be like a hat-trickin' trickster God chuckling, rolling about and high-fivin' his badself about now!
*In seriousness many of them variously accuse the other 2 faiths of being misguided or worse, and 'that's no God that I recognise' etc...
DezB - Member
Which God? They all denounce the "other" Gods and say there's only one. So if all religions do this, the only logical answer is there is none.
Nope, all the same - the 'big' single God faiths, Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the SAME God. They might not agree on the best way to be 'good' but the amount of over-lap in beliefs is huge, and the leaders of the major faiths largely get on - it's the people who use religion to try to control others who scream about how wrong the others are.
What's the truth? No body knows, some people can only believe what they can prove, or at least what someone else they trust can prove - they put their faith in science and it's not a bad thing to put your faith in - it's fair at least and there are enough scientists in the world that if a couple got together to try to control the rest of us, it doesn't take long for them to be disproved - after-all there are real world, highly qualified scientists that say man made climate change is a myth or that there's no link between smoking and lung cancer. The science world works to theorise why things are a certain way and then prove that theory - some people say "ah, we can prove that the universe was created with a Big Bang - how can God exist?" But is that the same as saying "ah, I can prove the Orange Five created by welding bits of hydroformed aluminium together - how can Orange exist?".
Others only put their faith in centuries old books, written by men on earth, not gods in heaven - men who couldn't understand the complexities of 'God' anymore than we could now, usually years if not decades after the fact - and that's before you even consider how many times the story is told and retold and translated into language after language - it's would be like trying to put together a car from parts and an instruction manual that's been translated from Japanese to Dutch, into Spanish then French and finally English via Google translate - and of course a hundreds generations of people who weren't above having a little edit here and there when it helped them control others.
In reality, does it matter? Our laws and rules are largely based on morals not too far removed from those found in some religious text or other - if everyone was tolerant, everyone would get along.
some people say "ah, we can prove that the universe was created with a Big Bang - how can God exist?" But is that the same as saying "ah, I can prove the Orange Five created by welding bits of hydroformed aluminium together - how can Orange exist?".
I would offer that the above is fallacious as an argument. If only for the fact that your bicycle and manufacturer are both observed/observable and tested/testable. You also assume that everything (including everything) assumedly (?) has an actual 'creator' based upon your observations of some humans with welding torches.
In reality, does it matter? Our laws and rules are largely based on morals not too far removed from those found in some religious text or other
Murdering old women for practicing herbalism, throwing men from tall building for homosexuality or murdering people for disbelief in religion is pretty far removed from what passes for law around my part of the world.
- if everyone was tolerant, everyone would get along.
Except for the murderers, abusers, paedophiles, rapists, bullies and assorted aggressors. Let us never, ever tolerate them.
If everyone was awesome to each other, everything would be awesome!
I've started reading up on Jainism recently as I have a Jain work colleague.
As a belief system it seems quite nice. I particularly like the central tenant of non-absolutism.
Nayav?da is the theory of partial standpoints or viewpoints.[27] Nayav?da is a compound of two Sanskrit words: naya ("partial viewpoint") and vada ("school of thought or debate"). It is used to arrive at a certain inference from a point of view. Every object has infinite aspects, but when we describe one in practice, we speak only of relevant aspects and ignore the irrelevant.[27] Nayav?da holds that philosophical disputes arise out of confusion of standpoints, and the standpoints we adopt are "the outcome of purposes that we may pursue"— although we may not realize it. While operating within the limits of language and perceiving the complex nature of reality, M?hav?ra used the language of nayas. Naya, being a partial expression of truth, enables us to comprehend reality part by part.[28]
Non-absolutism (an?k?ntav?da) is more formally stated by observing that objects are infinite in their qualities and modes of existence, so they cannot be completely grasped in all aspects and manifestations by finite human perception. Only Kevalins (omniscient beings) can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations; others are only capable of partial knowledge.[29] Accordingly, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth.[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-absolutism
I often read these threads and wonder if Hobbes, Burke, Franklin, Rousseau and the other giants of the Enlightenment are sitting around in heaven looking down and thinking "All that bloody thinking and writing books and this is our legacy?"
if there is a god he is a right bell end.
I don't know the others OMITN, but I do like a bit of Hobbes philosophy:
[img] 
[/img]
😉
if there is a god he is a right bell end.
She.