Morality exists without your God.

[MobBoss]

Ideas aren't physical.

Well, since technically , ideas are chemical reactions in the brain, they kinda are.

I can't touch morals.

I cant touch a lot of things that still exist.

Morality is made up of human interaction and is basically a simplistic slur word for a culture's codified conventions of what's ok to do, based on empathy. They're purely nonphysical and are therefore ideas. And ideas don't exist; they're illusional and made up by people. Like God is an idea that doesn't exist. Get over it.

Things non-physical can still be said to exist.

Of course ideas exist. If they didnt, no one would have any.

What do you think you do in nearly every thread which you respond towards many who disagree with you?

Mobboss. Showing yet again the word "hypocrisy" doesn't exist in his own personal dictionary since 2005.

Well, if you dont have new ideas, mimic those that do it seems.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, since technically , ideas are chemical reactions in the brain, they kinda are.

No, chemical reactions in the brain are chemical reaction in the brain.

 

[MobBoss]

No, chemical reactions in the brain are chemical reaction in the brain.

That create thought, memory, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Repeat question. 2 random people, both theists, do they or do they not always support the same morality?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, if you dont have new ideas, mimic those that do it seems.

You frequently "mimic" a "news source" that has perfected calling the opinions of others absurd by deliberately mischaracterizing them.

 

[MobBoss]

You frequently "mimic" a "news source" that has perfected calling the opinions of others absurd by deliberately mischaracterizing them.

So I say 'mimic' and then you say it.

What is that again?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Things non-physical can still be said to exist.

Of course ideas exist. If they didnt, no one would have any.

Your right, they do exist. When there are people to have them. How about the 3-4 billion years on this planet where life existed, but we did not?

Did God exist when no one had the idea that he might? I've pulled fossils out of rock formations that are far older than even the concept of god.

And biblical morality? Were the people who existed before the old and new testament immoral by definition because they didn't have 'foundational beliefs' or whatever?

What about the dinosaurs? Were they immoral too? They didn't have any ideas about your god, of that I'm sure.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So I say 'mimic' and then you say it.

What is that again?

Pointing out quite obvious hypocrisy?

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

There is no morality in the faith of the Old Ones!

PH'NGLUI MGLW'NFAH CTHULHU R'LYEH WGAH'NAGL FHTAGN!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Of course morality doesn't exist without god. It's like chairs, or horses, or Fanta. The idea is impossible without God.

 

[BvBPL]

It's like chairs, or horses, or Fanta.

Would Faygo exist without ICP?

 

[El_Machinae]

What about the dinosaurs? Were they immoral too? They didn't have any ideas about your god, of that I'm sure.

I don't think that dinosaurs became evil until after Eve ate the fruit.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Would Faygo exist without ICP?

Faygo has been in production since 1907, so it would seem to be. However, it pre-existed perceived reality in the mind of god.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't think that dinosaurs became evil until after Eve ate the fruit.

They weren't all evil...

 

[Traitorfish]

Albuquerque is the embodiment of God.

If God didn't exist, Albuquerque would have had to invent Him.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

If God didn't exist, Albuquerque would have had to invent Him.

What a coincidence! God was made in Albuquerque's image.

 

[peter grimes]

Sure we can. Pretty much any text from that age is filled with half truths and obvious exaggerations.

When some such text says a plucky army of 100,000 gloriously routed one of 500,000, we don't blindly believe them. But it's also a pretty good idea to think that a battle did happen between those parties, probably in the same place at the same time. The stated side almost certainly won, and it probably was a rout. Then you just toss the preposterous numbers out the window and call it a day.

I don't think this is correct. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if a battle of exaggerated scale is reported then the proper procedure is to assume that it didn't happen until corroborating evidence suggests otherwise.

If two or three texts all agree on the essential fact of a battle in roughly the same time and place, then we simply have more corroborating evidence.

But until we have physical evidence, I'm very wary of claiming that there was a battle at all.

In the context of the discussion, this would imply that - at best - we can say that there may have been a guy named jesus that had a certain message in his teachings. Full Stop.

For a more in-depth explanation of why I think this is the appropriate level of skepticism, please see:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham...icity-of-jesus-1-the-contamination-principle/

 

[Ajidica]

What a coincidence! God was made in Albuquerque's image.

God must be absolutely terrible then.

 

[Mark1031]

If this is anything like what I've previously heard Harris say on the topic, I'd hesitate to call it an "argument", let alone a "nice" one.

Perhaps it is not sufficiently philosophically baroque for some people’s tastes but I find it quite nice. It is essentially a utilitarian view toward maximizing well being of conscious creatures adding that modern neuroscience can contribute to the understanding of well being. What is wrong with that?

 

[Traitorfish]

That it's reductionistic crap?