How can people find atheism intellectually satisfying? [Spirituality & Religion]

@SW-User ok. What is your foundation of morality?

@Gouzi Genetics and evolution. We exist to perpetuate ourselves. This is the true meaning of life. Everything you do serves this end. Even your religion exists to offer you a community so that you can make connections, and find work, love, etc. You exist to produce and reproduce, and there's no escaping it.

Since we exist to perpetuate ourselves, anything that deviates from this goal should be considered immoral. Murder takes away one more worker, one more mother or father, and is therefore immoral. I could go on and on with it.

@Gouzi your answer presumes the need for your type of foundation is paramount and yours is flawed.

@SW-User Wrong.

You can't draw a should be from a is. That human beings developed in a certain way and are draw to certain kinds of behaviour doesn't mean they should do that. There is no morality in nature.

That wolves hunt in packs doesn't mean they should hunt in packs. They just do.

That human beings tend to pursue certain things doesn't mean they should pursue the things they tend to.

You can't derive values and great purposes from the scientific world view. It describes what the world is. It does not tell us how it should be.

Basic philosophy.

@MasterLee So, if there is no foundation to our moral judgements, then we have no reason to claim they are really right or wrong. Isn't that need enough?

@Gouzi [quote]There is no morality in nature[/quote]
This is wrong. And I've already explained why. Morality doesn't come from nothing. It comes from what's best for man and his path forward. To deny this is to deny your own reality. Read Schopenhauer

@Gouzi morality is governed tribally not collectively.

@SW-User I am not claiming that our concept of morality comes from nothing. I am claiming an evolutionary foundation for morality is contradictory. Since the scientific world view only presents and is and not an ought.

doubt you read.

@Gouzi [quote]I am claiming an evolutionary foundation for morality is contradictory[/quote]
Prove it.

[quote]doubt you read[/quote]
I probably read more in a week than you will in a lifetime.

@SW-User I did just prove it. Read David Hume's is to ought criticism.

@Gouzi You've made no coherent arguments. You've only told me that I'm wrong, which I am not. Everything I talked about is observable in the real world. God is nothing more than an abstraction for these concepts, whether you like it or not.

@SW-User >.<

My argument is based upon what by definition morality should be. & You can make inferences from there. Key point: morality presents what is right and wrong. Hence, is something is right we should do it. If something is wrong, we shouldn't do it.

Then we can reflect upon the nature of scientific knowledge. It describe sthe world as it is. In this case, its describing human nature or human behaviour.

Scientific knowledge can only describe what humans being do. They can not say that because we do something it is morally right to do that thing. They are restricted to sociological claims. This is different from moral claims.

If you don't get this, its because you're ignorant. Really.

@Gouzi What's right and wrong is based on what furthers the evolution and technological advancement of man. If something is bad for society, it's deemed immoral. It's really that simple. Not sure what you don't understand here. Calling me names doesn't make what I say any less true.

@SW-User That may be sociologically true. Yet, that doesn't make it morally true.

Also, i do not think what we consider right and wrong is necessarily what is best for "technological" advancement, or what "furthers evolution. If this were sociologically true, then every belief would have to further those causes throughout history.They obviously don't.

If you're saying waht is morally right is what furthers evolution and tecehnological advancement, then this is just an assertion and not an argument for why this is the basis of what is right and wrong. Its not self-evident.

@Gouzi It is self-evident. If I told you that you were in denial you'd spout off about a river in Africa.

@SW-User Well, at least we discover everyones dogmaticism eventually.