Religion and Morality

[John Dibble]

Option 2.

[John Dibble]

'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

[John Dibble]

'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

[John Dibble]

'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

[John Dibble]

'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Those are acessory beliefs.
Atheism simply means that one belives there is no God(s).
the rest may come in addiction.

Well, having just done some reading, your claim on Buddhism and Jainism having no gods isn't true anyways - I believe what they deny is a supreme creator God(big G), but there are numerous smaller gods.

Buddhism just doesn't have an explicit God(though some variations worship Buddha as one), though they don't deny the existence of gods either - so really they are more agnostic than atheist.

On Jainism http://www.angelfire.com/co/jainism/jaingods.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here.

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

[John Dibble]

Everyone should try to shorten these quotes when they become too long.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here.

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

Don't get all technical on me. You know I meant that we don't have a belief in a divine entity and whatnot, not no beliefs whatsoever.

Not having proof something exists doesn't mean it does not exist. You can explicitly prove things either way in many cases, so the burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a claim either way. If you claim there is no Loch Ness monster the burden of disproving its existence lies upon you and if you claim there are unicorns at the North Pole then the burden of proving their existence lies upon you as well.

Let's look at a better example. Say I am a scientist, and I make the claim that black holes don't exist. There is already evidence that they do. Other scientists still claim they exist. So, for my claim to have any credibility, I have to disprove the proof and prove my own claim as well. So, as I said, the burden of proof goes both ways. In trying to get the truth, you can't just search for what is not true or just what is true - you have to work towards both ends if you want to be successful.

[John Dibble]

Not having proof something exists doesn't mean it does not exist. You can explicitly prove things either way in many cases, so the burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a claim either way. If you claim there is no Loch Ness monster the burden of disproving its existence lies upon you and if you claim there are unicorns at the North Pole then the burden of proving their existence lies upon you as well.

Let's look at a better example. Say I am a scientist, and I make the claim that black holes don't exist. There is already evidence that they do. Other scientists still claim they exist. So, for my claim to have any credibility, I have to disprove the proof and prove my own claim as well. So, as I said, the burden of proof goes both ways. In trying to get the truth, you can't just search for what is not true or just what is true - you have to work towards both ends if you want to be successful.

Ah, but the point is, if two people make claims to the contrary - if I claim one thing and another claims the opposite, where does the burden of proof lie? With the positive claim (that X exists) or the negative claim (that X does not exist). Are we to believe something exists until it is disproven? Surely the automatic setting would be non-existence rather than existence. A lack of evidence for something's existence can be taken as evidence that it does not exist.

No, we remain skeptical and hope to find out one way or the other - we don't discount something off the bat due to lack of evidence, but we don't automatically believe it simply because someone claims it does or doesn't exist. If we wanted to disprove the existence of something, we would still require some means of proving it - for instance, if something exists, it must have some tangible effect on other things, so you look for evidence of it's effects. For your unicorns at the North Pole, all we'd have to do is go there - if we can't find them, we look for effects we'd expect them to leave(poo, tracks, whatever), and if we have searched sufficiently and turned up no evidence we can say with relative certainty that there are no unicorns at the North Pole.

Now, that's not to say we should actually go to the North Pole to search for your unicorns - I would say it isn't unreasonable to ask the person making the claim to show at least some evidence supporting their claim. For instance, a scientist would need to present some research to back up a hypothesis to show it merits further investigation. Still, as I said, I don't believe it matters whether or not the claim is negative or positive - anyone who makes a claim should try to prove their claim is the truth.

[John Dibble]

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Actually we know people just rot in the ground - we have dug them up before.

Can you prove nothing happens to our conciousness, our inner being(for lack of a better word, soul)?

No, we remain skeptical and hope to find out one way or the other - we don't discount something off the bat due to lack of evidence, but we don't automatically believe it simply because someone claims it does or doesn't exist. If we wanted to disprove the existence of something, we would still require some means of proving it - for instance, if something exists, it must have some tangible effect on other things, so you look for evidence of it's effects. For your unicorns at the North Pole, all we'd have to do is go there - if we can't find them, we look for effects we'd expect them to leave(poo, tracks, whatever), and if we have searched sufficiently and turned up no evidence we can say with relative certainty that there are no unicorns at the North Pole.

Now, that's not to say we should actually go to the North Pole to search for your unicorns - I would say it isn't unreasonable to ask the person making the claim to show at least some evidence supporting their claim. For instance, a scientist would need to present some research to back up a hypothesis to show it merits further investigation. Still, as I said, I don't believe it matters whether or not the claim is negative or positive - anyone who makes a claim should try to prove their claim is the truth.

Generally we do discount something due to a lack of evidence in our society though. We require some form of proof or else we will not accept it - especially in the scientific world.

The point is, if someone comes along and makes a claim of existence of X and up until this point there has been no knowledge of X, no mention of it, not even a single thought of it. Would it not be reasonable in this case to say X does not exist, if you wish us to believe, you have to prove it.

Read the bolded section above again, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if there's no way to prove it, then by your earlier statement society would have discounted the notion, now wouldn't they have.   (actually, I find that many people will accept certain things as truth with no proof whatsoever, simply because they want to believe it's true or even that they are afraid it is true)

As far as God's tangible effects - well, look around you. If God is the creator, he did create all and we wouldn't exist without him. Now, that's not to say we can't mistake an effect of one thing for the effect of another(in some cases, something entirely false) - something else could have brought about the universe, after all. Basically, the notion arose from a question - what created the universe? For some people, the universe existing is sufficient proof that God exists, while for others it is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

[John Dibble]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

[John Dibble]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.

Actually, no it doesn't - it can trend either way, really. There are degrees of skepticism, afterall.