Questioning his Behaviour - Page 5

i think summit means, becuase you cancreate it from what you have destroyd it into your not really losing anything. kinda like water evaporates, and turns into water. so your not really losing anything. other wise, we'ed be screwed.
are we screwed? i hope not.

Okay, this may sound pretty lame, but I can't help but mention it.

I've been trying to understand the logic behind the initial post of this thread and the more I read it, I think the second sentence seems to break the line of reason.

quote:

---

"it is not whether [God] exists that one should try to examine... proving anything true is impossible... but that you should justify the reasoning behin believing in him or not."

---

Aside from the other arguments in the post this one has a serious flaw. It claims that "proving anything true is impossible", and at the same time assumes truth exists. Underlying this statement is the claim that reason for belief should be justified. This seems to be a play on terms. Justifying the reason for a person's claim of truth is in fact trying to prove the truth of something - the existence of logical reasoning. So, if it is impossible to try and prove anything, why try to justify anything with reason if it can be written off as being "beyond consciousness?"

It would be one thing if this thread was just a random posting of belief statements/worldviews without any argument involved to break or defend their claims. But clearly it is not since every argument for or against a claim assumes truth exists.

If you can't claim truth (or in essence show truth exists), why bother?

Also, I am a Christian, and I believe truth is self evident. Truth reveals itself when you are conscious.

quote:

---

I know what he is trying to say but I want him to say it right.

---

what have I said incorrectly?

quote:

---

The descruction of matter is the release of energy.

---

sleepingwraith: Matter cannot be destroyed nor can it be created.. What you should've said is- energy is released when matter is broken down. It can be broken down, but can never be destroyed.

Strongclad: You don't have to determine and reduce anything down to an absolute logic. Your don't have to rationalize anything. You don't have to determine yourself that universal truth can be found. You don't have to bother at all. However, just realise, that some bother to question because we are curious animals. All I can advise is; let your individual truth give you reasoning, independent of others.

quote:

---

Matter cannot be destroyed nor can it be created.. What you should've said is- energy is released when matter is broken down. It can be broken down, but can never be destroyed.

---

That is what was said Matter changes form. At least at the molecular level. molecules can be broken down separated into it's elements & the elements can reform the molecules.

we all get the science. its not hard.

Trying to get back to the original question:

How does an athiest define good and bad?

To help answer you question Petesmith:
Athiest ethics usually boils down to 'Me first, always!' ideology. Atheists may have exactly the same views about what counts as good and bad, and may behave just as well, or as badly, as theists. The most plausible theory concerning the basis of ethics leaves no room for God to play any significant role in the explanation of moral value. Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior. The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species. Athiests are faced with the realization that there is a standard of goodness independent of a 'god' and they admit that 'god' cannot be the source of morality. In their quest for the good, they can bypass the god and go to his source- the human individual. When the Atheist approaches the problem of finding natural grounds for human morals and establishing a nonsuperstitious basis for behavior, that it appears as though nature has already solved the problem to a great extent. Indeed, it appears as though the problem of establishing a natural, humanistic basis for ethical behavior is not much of a problem at all. Traditional moral codes are not of necessity. So the 'wrongness' of an act is simply the disposition of the act to cause a feeling of revulsion in us.

quote:

---

The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species.

---

Exaclty why Atheists also are subject to the moral code created by God, unless you are implying that atheists are not human.

quote:

---

The most plausible theory concerning the basis of ethics leaves no room for God to play any significant role in the explanation of moral value

---

What is this 'plausible theory'?

we simply do not beleive in good and bad... well no, that was a stupid thing to say, i do not beleive in an absolute good and bad. i think that things, particular subjects, qualify as good and bad, but that is only because the english language does not have the right word for it. the athiest beleife is that we are free to have our own beleifes, whatever they might be. so some athiest might define them one way, and anothe athiest another way. the "athiest" that say we all think the same thing, do not know what an athiest is. and that is the best answer i can give you, and probably the best answer any atheist can.

summit- you are wrong about the "me first" thing. every athiest i know and have sat down and talked to is always willing to help others when they get nothing in return, but then again i have never met an "evil" person.

Awaken, you have already told me before that you only do what you do out of selfishness. So as far as you are concerned Summit is right

yes. i would not do it if i got nothing out of it, but when i put someone else first i feel like s "good" person, and that is enough, and becaause it is so small i didnt really count that as a sibsataintal "gain" and as such regarded it as nothing. i am sorry. i retract nothing and replace it with very, very, very little. happy?

Very well then we agree that you have a "me first' mentality

but it is "good" in nature and you make it sound so bad.