Naturalism - What is it all about

[seafoid]

A lot of Ashkenazi Jews who survived the Shoah gave up on
God=good and
only religion= goodness
and you can't really blame them

They followed all the prayers and what good did it do ?
Very hard to try to explain to people that there was a hidden meaning in Auschwitz

[The Iceman]

A lot of Ashkenazi Jews who survived the Shoah gave up on
God=good and
only religion= goodness
and you can't really blame them

They followed all the prayers and what good did it do ?
Very hard to try to explain to people that there was a hidden meaning in Auschwitz

The existence of evil in the world does not disprove God's existence and does not by any means address my previous points.
Using it is an unsound deductive argument. Its unsound because it assumes the truth of a premise that can't be known. It takes for granted that an all powerful and all good God would not allow evil to exist, even for a time. And since Evil does exist then God cant..... Well if it is true than God would not or could not allow evil exist then that argument would work, but how does anyone know that God could have no possible reason for allowing evil to exist for a time? He could conceivably have a number of reasons for allowing evil to exist, and apparently He does!
It might be hard for us to understand why evil exists, but just because it does, does not prove the non-existence of God.

But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"

To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?

[Hardy]

But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"

To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?

I thought I addressed this, Iceman in reference to morality. I haven't seen your response to my point about the logical failure inherent in the god of the gaps argument.

[muppet]

The existence of perceived good and evil does not prove there is a God.

For start one man's good is another man's evil.
Secondly most people are good mainly because society punishes those who are evil. The definition of good and evil in this sense varies and is not a constant.

Thirdly our interpretation of good and evil changes. It has evolved, even within the Church, over the centuries:

'Have nothing to do with these heretics—curse them, hoot at them, spit in their faces—cut the sign of the cross in the air when you meet them, as you would against devils—throw stones at them—pitch them, when you have opportunity, into the bog holes—nay more than that, do injury to yourselves in order to injure them—don't work for them, though they pay in ready money—nay, don't take any medicine from their heretic doctor [Neason Adams], rather die first'.

This sermon, given in Mayo during the famine regarding Protestants offering soup during proselytizing, would be considered completely unacceptable nowadays, but it was normal at the time.

Finally, good and evil are man-made concepts. While there is occasionally consensus they are ultimately completely subjective and are in themselves do not proof of anything.

[The Iceman]

But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"

To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?

I thought I addressed this, Iceman in reference to morality. I haven't seen your response to my point about the logical failure inherent in the god of the gaps argument.

Hardy what I am concerned with are the holes in the Atheist worldview, we can address any perceived holes in the Theist worldview afterwards. Answering questions like Eamonn did on a previous thread with "I can't explain why but can you?" is not defending the Atheist Worldview.....

How can you even talk about logic and reason or even knowledge from an Atheist worldview? In the natural world you can't feel logic or touch reason. Hawking writes that "nothing can be known" and "all truth is relative" isn't that the case?
Our minds are just the product of an unthinking material universe. Our thoughts and beliefs are just 'excretions' of the brain, right?

[muppet]

But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"

To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?

I thought I addressed this, Iceman in reference to morality. I haven't seen your response to my point about the logical failure inherent in the god of the gaps argument.

Hardy what I am concerned with are the holes in the Atheist worldview, we can address any perceived holes in the Theist worldview afterwards. Answering questions like Eamonn did on a previous thread with "I can't explain why but can you?" is not defending the Atheist Worldview.....

How can you even talk about logic and reason or even knowledge from an Atheist worldview? In the natural world you can't feel logic or touch reason. Hawking writes that "nothing can be known" and "all truth is relative" isn't that the case?
Our minds are just the product of an unthinking material universe. Our thoughts and beliefs are just 'excretions' of the brain, right?

I see no logic or reason to your argument on this at all. Logic and reason are completely natural.

The animals can apply logic and reason at varying levels, but they don't have to go to mass.

[thejuice]

Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.

Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?

[seafoid]

Iceman

"Our minds are just the product of an unthinking material universe. Our thoughts and beliefs are just 'excretions' of the brain"

Our minds are products of God.  In what way ? Our thoughts and beliefs are influenced by God. How ?
And which god? Ganesh ? 

And why does God make people stupid ?

[The Iceman]

Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.

Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?

I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife.....  How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?

[Maguire01]

Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.

Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?

I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife.....  How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?

But if you argue that religion provides morals, then on what basis have people decided to adopt the good parts of the bible and ignore the bad bits?

[ludermor]

IM
Would you question other faiths and religions to the same extent you seem to question athiests ?

[The Iceman]

Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.

Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?

I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife.....  How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?

But if you argue that religion provides morals, then on what basis have people decided to adopt the good parts of the bible and ignore the bad bits?

I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.

[J70]

Of course it can. Human groups need rules and norms to function. Its arbitrary and dynamic, for sure, but so are supposedly religiously-based morals.

[thejuice]

Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.

Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?

I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife.....  How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?

As I said we were social creatures, collectively as a species we benefit from helping each other. It is wrong to break a promise because it hurts your relationships. Jumping queues is obviously wrong because queuing is a cooperative action where the benefits to all by maintain this action by are obvious. That said queuing is as much a cultural phenomenon that isn't present in all societies. It largely depends on the state of the surrounding environmental conditions.

Hurting ones own species is inherently wrong, as seen in nature too. It does happen though. Yet other other species that offer us some benefit are fair game. How bothered we are about animal suffering largely depends on culture.

Morals and motivation can change and shift with the changes in culture and living condition.

[The Iceman]

But there is no right or wrong in nature. There just "is".
There are no foundations on which to base your claims.
I don't know how you can argue with that, unless that is, that those arguing or debating it don't fully subscribe to the Atheist or Naturalist worldview?