Science, is the study of natural reality. Applied science is engineering. There's a clear and distinct difference. Neither of the two provide metaphysical outlooks on life that ultimately all humans intimately search for. Science will tell me HOW I was born, but not WHY I was born for example. What it really boils down to is that almost every person has a dogma of his own that he chooses to share with others or not. Even atheists contrive ethics in the exact same manner as the religious do. While atheists reject the existence of gods and the practice of contemporary mainstream religions, they still have no problems respecting human life, but having rejected religious outlooks, they're forced to search for metaphysical value to life elsewhere. That is why the many different moral systems adopted by atheists are in reality not much different than religions. In fact, Max Stirner, a famous atheist philosopher, saw secular morality as nothing more than a new religion.
Consider the claim moral realists are making. They generally claim there are invisible properties in the world not detectable by our usual tools of science, properties of an entirely different sort than the usual “is” facts of science. These are mysterious “ought” facts, and there is great disagreement about what they are or how we know them. Now that is a strong claim. A claim, we might say. And claims require evidence, right?
So what is the atheist’s evidence for this claim? Usually, it’s something like this: “I experience a world of moral facts. I feel very strongly that rape is objectively wrong, and charity is objectively right.” “Almost everybody believes in moral facts. It’s just obvious. Until you can prove there aren’t any, I’m justified in believing what people have always believed: that some things are really right or wrong.”
Do those arguments look familiar? They should. Tl;dr if you're atheist and believe in morals you're a hypocrite
>Did men also make the color yellow? That's the most idiotic non-sequitur I've ever seen in print
Leo Cruz
Actually our brains make both the color yellow and morals. Almost all universal moral ideas come from instincts that foster group survival.
Dominic King
only big brained faggots worry about shit like this we need to put lead back in gas and teach boxing in schools
Logan Cruz
>Science will tell me HOW I was born, not WHY I was born. Ok so first of all you just admitted that since told you how you were born, you are officially an atheist, if science can prove how you were born, then that’s it, what if there is no reason why you were born, are you really that full of yourself that you think there is no way you are a product of science, you are that important that a higher being put you on this place for a specific reason? Let’s say your god is real, why the fuck would he need your scrawny ass to do anything, he’d just do it himself, after all he is a fucking god. You big idiot, think for yourself you bozo.
Dominic Bailey
>Get btfo by le spook man like Marx and Engels did Damn
Charles Nelson
I love that no one responded to this, when you say something no one has a response to they just pretend they didn’t see it and carry on with their beliefs, that is golden.
Austin Barnes
>Ok so first of all you just admitted that since told you how you were born, you are officially an atheist Wrong We are born essentially without knowledge of the world. With newborns lacking knowledge, we could argue that a newborn is inherently agnostic rather than atheistic. But we won't do that either. Agnostic or atheist is a foolish claim in that context. Both terms relate to at least a small understanding of the concept of god. Newborns don't have it. Lacking the concept of a deity, atheist and agnostic are irrelevant terms. It would be equally irrelevant to assign any religious belief system to a newborn child
We are born, not with a position on whether a deity exists or not, but a growing desire to know. Learning is what is inherent in us. What we learn is largely what those around us teach us. Whether we, as children, start out as believers or non-believers depends on what we are taught. As in large part a child's desire to have clear answers makes "I don't know" an unacceptable response, children have an unfortunate predisposition to believe those who say they do have an answer - the answer being God.
Whether we have the ability to later move away from learned childhood beliefs depends in large part, how well we were taught to think.
Don't rely on the claim "We are all born non-believers," particularly if you have children. It does not work that way. You have to teach children disbelief - and I don't particularly care whether you teach them agnosticism or atheism. But disbelief must be taught. Just as the children of others are taught religious belief. We must teach our kids disbelief to inoculate them from the beliefs they will encounter in others as they grow up. And we must teach them how to think; how assess the claims of others also to inoculate them from the beliefs they will encounter.
"Born atheist" is a pernicious claim. Don't believe it. Disbelief is learned, just as belief is.
Liam Gutierrez
>Almost all universal moral ideas come from instincts that foster group survival. I don't think that explanation is adequate. That goes something like this: In order to survive, animals develop. Through the process of natural selection, naturalistic forces mold certain behavior that we call moral behavior which simply functions to allow the organism to exist and continue to survive. Actually, not the organism, but the species, because in some cases it requires sacrificing individual organisms so that the larger species can survive. This is all that morality ends up being.
That which we think is morality, or that which we call morality, turns out to be a description of animals conditioned by their environment to act in certain ways that benefit the survival of the species. We have just given that conduct a label. We call it morality. That is offered as a sufficient, adequate and complete description of how the behavior that we call moral behavior actually came about.
My response to that is it isn't an adequate explanation at all, because the category of things that we call moral is not adequately engaged by mere descriptions of past behavior. That morality entails a look forward to the future, not just to the past, not just looking backwards to what we have done, or what was done by certain individuals, which they happen to call moral. But it is a look forward into the future about how we ought to behave. Since morality is prescriptive, not descriptive, and if it is normative -- if it talks about how we ought to behave -- and the evolutionary description of moral behavior doesn't engage that very fundamental, core element of morality, then it hasn't explained it and morality still needs to be explained.
Michael Nelson
Damn is this even the same person I’m talking to? You just said that atheism makes no sense now you’re telling me kids grow up believing what they’re told, who brought kids into this I’m specifically talking to you, you said science will not tell me WHY I was born, and I said it doesn’t need to, because you don’t need a reason to be conscious you just are, refute that buddy stop changing the subject.
Isaiah Wood
Rape would ensure the survival of the species "Why ought anyone be unselfish in the future?" There was a group of chimpanzees which had, in a sense, punished one member for being selfish by withholding food from that member and therefore teaching that member moral behavior. Apparently, the moral rule that undergirded the lesson was that the other chimpanzee ought not be selfish. That's a moral statement and the question I'm going to ask is "Why ought the chimp (or human) not be selfish?" I'm looking for a justification there.
The answer is going to be that when we're selfish, it hurts the group. But you see, that answer isn't enough of an answer because that answer itself presumes another moral value that we ought to be concerned about the health of the group. So, I'm going to ask the question, "Why ought we be concerned about the health of the group?" The answer is going to be because if the groups don't survive, then the species doesn't survive. Then you can imagine the next question. "Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?" You see, the problem with all of these responses that purport to be justifications or explanations for the moral rule, is that all of these things that are meant to explain the moral rule really depend themselves upon a moral rule before they can even be uttered. Therefore, it can't be the explanation of morality. When I ask the question "Why ought I be concerned with the species?", the next answer ends the series. The answer is, "I ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then I will not survive. If the species is in jeopardy, then my own personal self interests would be in jeopardy."
Jose Thompson
I'm nihilist Atheism doesn't make sense because it rejects one metaphysical concept while turning around and embracing other metaphysical concepts. I like how you claimed I wasn't the same person because I debunked your "everyone is born atheist" mumbo jumbo
Aiden Myers
Ok but do you think it is immoral for an orangutan to rape another orangutan, I doubt you do, we base morals off society and laws put in place by the government, if humans were still living in nature without these advancements we’d be raping and beating each other, and that’s not to say society keeps us moral, that’s saying society keeps us believing that subjectively, morality is a “law” for lack of a better word, in the sense that morality is just a restriction society puts on people so that they will contribute to said society.
Blake Foster
So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes down to, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.
Jose Harris
No I think you have me crossed with someone else, I think everyone is born without a developed brain therefore they aren’t agnostic, athiest, nor religious, they simply do not have the mental capacity to grasp the concept of reality or how it was made
Blake Williams
See Morality doesn't exist If you can prove otherwise please feel free to back up your assertions with legit sources for your claims.
Eli Robinson
>No I think you have me crossed with someone else See >ok so first of all you just admitted that since told you how you were born, you are officially an atheist. I got the right person with the flawed logic. How about you elaborate how you came to that conclusion then turned around and gave another?
Elijah Brooks
You’re confusing nature, with human society, we are in no shape or form worried about survival of our species, we are past that, and so conveniently mixing nature and societal nature for the sake of your argument is just ridiculous.
Levi Morris
That's just humans being capable of running a model of a hypothetical event in their heads and asking themselves what they would do. The answers are still based what their instincts tell them.
Jayden Sanders
>See
So you agree with what I said, are you the nihilist?
Sebastian Edwards
>You’re confusing nature, with human society, we are in no shape or form worried about survival of our species Early man's civilization show otherwise. But for the sake of argument Elaborate your thought process. >we are past that This just goes to show you know you have no argument so you resort to a question begging epithet and dismiss without refuting anything.
Anthony Baker
Exactly I'm still waiting for your proof of morality by the way.
Jace Roberts
Oh, you’re a nihilist, well isn’t that convenient, nihilism is just a toxic belief that is impossible to refute.
William Young
>That's just humans being capable of running a model of a hypothetical event in their heads and asking themselves what they would do. The answers are still based what their instincts tell them. Why does any of that matter? If it was based on "instincts" why would stealing and raping be frowned upon? As a matter of fact who gives anyone authority to make laws and enforce them? Is it because of "morality" or might makes right?
Levi Butler
This is my response
Jace Stewart
I like how you ignored my question yet again and used ad hominem. Elaborate how it's "toxic".
Hudson Perez
See If you can't back up your assertions feel free to leave. I didn't force you into this thread.
Cameron Sanders
>if you're atheist and believe in morals you're a hypocrite 100% op is not a faggot
Brayden Ross
No shit early man civilization showed otherwise, with the advancements we have now, everything is societal, people live their entire lives to contribute to society, the only thing we still do is pass on our knowledge and societal gain to our children, we are nothing like any other species anymore, you know exactly what I’m talking about you just want to dodge my point.
Nathan Moore
>he’d just do it himself lots of assumptions there, buddy. are you aware of what His great plan may be or how His mind even thinks, faggot?
James Rogers
Ok, regarding nihilism I agree morality can not be proven, but that’s not to say that subjectively when you are talking to people who do have faith, nihilism is a toxic belief.
Tyler Perez
>No shit early man civilization showed otherwise, with the advancements we have now, everything is societal, people live their entire lives to contribute to society, the only thing we still do is pass on our knowledge and societal gain to our children, we are nothing like any other species anymore So you're going back on your earlier post? >You’re confusing nature, with human society, we are in no shape or form worried about survival of our species okay >you know exactly what I’m talking about you just want to dodge my point You have no point Your contradiction isn't a argument And I like how you accuse anyone of dodging a point when you resorted to ad hominem and dismissal without refuting. My next question is Why would this be?
Joshua Mitchell
Are you? And before you answer that question, think about how little your response matters, do you think that god put you here to argue on 4 Chan? Is that gods master plan, you know, the more I think about it the more your arguments are changing my beliefs, I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but I think he must be real, this is his master plan in action right now!!!!
Brayden Moore
Atheism is a lack of faith or belief. It actually makes sense that the religious would embrace morality because it's a metaphysical concept. They support the metaphysical. But for atheist it's baffling.
Daniel Jones
You keep making the assumption that everything must be following his plan. Did you have a fundamentalist father that beat you or something?
Dominic Reed
As a nihilist, you don’t have much to say, you know that nature is completely different than society right?
Levi Ortiz
A temper tantrum question begging epithet isn't a argument. Your hypocrisy is glaring. Let me ask you this. Do you think there is meaning to the universe? Can one create meaning?
Jace Peterson
>relativism
Who else /not hypocrite/ here?
Jason Sanders
You missed the point yet again, you are mad that even without faith, atheists play into society and practice morality, because as a nihilist you have a toxic mindset and can’t understand it.
Oliver Harris
How do you figure? Because I question your belief in the metaphysical? I want you to elaborate.
Kayden Reyes
God makes morals anything else is just subjective its 2018 . Is pirating stealing ? No its a copy , those bastards from hollywood have enough . In the eyes of God it is stealing because you use a product you did not pay for , while someone else wanted you to pay for the product
Zachary Gutierrez
OP is just taking it to its logical conclusion. Without God there can be no morality, any atheist that believes in morality is a hypocrite. It follows from this that meaning in the universe is also absent.
Andrew Bennett
>Why does any of that matter? Be more specific, why does any what matter. >If it was based on "instincts" why would stealing and raping be frowned upon? Those get the perpetrators kicked out of their group, if not killed and that drastically reduced the chance of reproduction of individuals that act against their group. As a matter of fact who gives anyone authority to make laws and enforce them? Is it because of "morality" or might makes right? The latter.
Zachary White
>do you think there is meaning to the universe
No I’m not a fucking idiot, especially if you’re talking about higher meaning.
> Can one create meaning
Be more specific in this part, I’m interested by what you mean here
Jose Fisher
>You missed the point yet again, you are mad that even without faith, atheists play into society and practice morality, because as a nihilist you have a toxic mindset and can’t understand it Sounds like another question begging epithet wrapped in a tu quoque. I'm still waiting for your elaboration on how nihilism is "toxic" As a matter of fact, elaborate what "toxic" is and how one can prove its not a metaphysical concept but has legit applications. Please provide sources for your claims.
Kevin Evans
You know that on either end neither of us can disprove the other or even make a valid argument, you are either on one side or the other, and both are correct
Henry Hughes
in the eyes of God if I upload the torrent of a beautiful movie or album and millions of poor people download it and it changes them positively then am i going to hell?
Lucas Edwards
Prove how nihilism isn’t toxic
Cooper Morgan
Yes this is definitely a sin , someone is not getting payed and you are the cause of it
Parker Gonzalez
>beautiful movie or album and millions of poor people
You put your own morals to justify your crime
Josiah Ortiz
>why does any what matter. It doesn't. >Those get the perpetrators kicked out of their group, if not killed and that drastically reduced the chance of reproduction of individuals that act against their group. See Is it selfishness? >As a matter of fact who gives anyone authority to make laws and enforce them? >Is it because of "morality" or might makes right? >The latter. So you agree there is no morality?
So you dont believe in a meaning but you believe in "morals"? >Be more specific in this part, I’m interested by what you mean here I'm referring to atheist existentialism.
Charles Cox
This is correct. "Absolute" morals don't exist, everyone just absorb morals from their environment (society, laws). If those two stopped existing right now, you know exactly what would happen, and that's why "absolute" morals don't exist and we still need society and laws to maintain order. Were you born in a different country, you'd believe in possibly a different set of values that may be completely incompatible with the ones you have. That's because this behavior is required for survival.
Morals systems are all relativistic.
Define "product".
Isaac Ortiz
Question deflection and dodging isn't a argument. You ignored all my questions. You brought up "toxic", now explain it. If all you have is "feelings" then dont bother responding.
Daniel Torres
>Define "product".
relevant , because ? Music ,video game , movie
Hudson Lee
Well, it's getting late. I'm gonna call it a night. Until next time.
Ethan Cooper
>So you don’t believe in a meaning but you believe in “morals”
Ding ding ding, guess that’s the difference between me and you, because let’s just say I end my life, I realize that it would negatively effect the loves of those around me, not that their lives have a higher meaning, it would just effect the simple lives of others, and that is why I would not do it, I think meaning goes as far as a 100 year life of emotions, but I care about those emotions, if that makes me believe in “morality” so be it, but I’m waiting for you to prove that subjectively, nihilism is not toxic, to other people who have faith.
Jordan Scott
>Neither of the two provide metaphysical outlooks on life that ultimately all humans intimately search for.
that's not why they exist, stupid.
Science and engineering exist to further our understanding of the physical world that we live in, in order to solve problems, you fucktard.
Jackson Perez
Can you justify this with scripture?
Aaron Morris
>Is it selfishness? It's reproductive rather than personal selfishness. >So you agree there is no morality? No. There is man made morality.
Lincoln Butler
A man can make a chair. He can put an idea into practice. But can cannot "create" an idea He cannot "create" a moral. But he can experience ego death, if even for a moment. And realize what was always true.
Brody Williams
>Question deflection and dodging isn’t a argument.
Coming from a nihilist, ooh the irony, of only you could see it.
>You brought up “toxic”, now explain it.
Toxic - very bad, unpleasant, or harmful.
I can feel your sheepish grin through my phone, you’re trying to set me up because as a nihilist you don’t believe anything is toxic because morals aren’t real blah blah blah but I’m curious, you said don’t BOTHER responding interesting choice of words, if nothing is real or nothing matters because morality isn’t real why would you use the word bother, I assume you meant bother, as in take the trouble to do something, do you believe in feelings, and that you can effect the way someone else feels, why would you care what bothers me? how far does your sense of “morality” go when partaking in a conversation?
Brandon Barnes
Atheist by itself just means "without a god," and how you apply "god" depends on your own definition. Stirner criticized atheists for being just being christians without christ, since they were too afraid of their own selves (ego) to make up their own minds. Needless to say, Stirner never envisioned his philosophy to be widespread or even applied by others. Everything he wrote was essentially shitposting and trolling other philosophers of his era, especially Marx. He's worth a read and makes good points but as far as "atheist philosophers" go I prefer Nietzsche
Christian Rivera
New American Standard Bible >"You shall not steal.
Aiden Reed
>Prove how nihilism isn’t toxic Your response >Question deflection and dodging isn’t a argument That looks like question deflection and dodging to me, baka.
Jack Carter
>Science will tell me HOW Wrong. Science will tell you HOW NOT. Empiricism is exclusive. You can only disprove a hypothesis, never prove. To accept a hypothesis is still a leap of faith.
Wyatt Cox
I did not take a man's livestock or his daughters, what more do you want? I am in a band and I sell plenty (rea:none) of records. I also put my own music on soulseek, a p2p.
Grayson Adams
If its legal then its not stealing ?
Carter Wright
fuck off Popper
Luis Cruz
You gave permission to sell your own music , or give away
steal stiːl/ verb gerund or present participle: stealing
1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return
