01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 826
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
 |
|
| 1062651stAvenue wrote: | | The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. Care to respond? |
What do you mean by moral truth? What is the common property of all 'moral' or 'immoral' things?
Fact: even Christians cannot agree how to interpret the bible (say to what degree the OT applies).
If morality were truths there would be an objective interpretation. Therefore there is not an iota of 'moral truth' in the bible. Really, 'moral truth' is just nonsense, Christian 'morality' is as subjective as any other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
luvsterriers
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Posts: 2099
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did anyone who is atheist go to a religious based school? If so, how did you like it?
Just wondering...
_________________
In memory of my beloved best friend in the whole world, my West Highland White Terrier, Timmy (Nov 24 2004-Sep 5 2011)
Anna
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| 01001011 wrote: | | If morality were truths there would be an objective interpretation. |
Not necessarily. For one, you have to establish a non-arbitrary standard for defining what truth is at all. And that is going to come down to what people are going to accept. It is possible, for instance, to only accept religious truth based on scripture-of-your-choice OR scientific method. Science is unable to externally establish itself, i.e. with non-scientific methodology. It depends on itself to establish itself. As long as science remains one choice of many, the decision to define something as true as long as it is scientifically true is itself an arbitrary decision. Therefore science in and of itself doesn't necessarily provide any objective interpretations since it is always possible (very likely) that the decision to base all objective measures of truth as scientific truth is based on some subjective sentiment.
Second, one can accept or reject even objective interpretations for all sorts of rational or irrational reasons. There very well could be an objective interpretation for a biblical measure of morality. The mere existence or even possibility of it may not be enough to convince someone who simply dislikes it. And personal preferences and biases against any given proscribed moral objective are themselves subjective opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | More insults... You're a 38 year old man? Are you sure about that?
I think its about time the mods had a word with you |
Well you did finally stop arguing about it. Sometimes one needs to slam down the gauntlet no matter the consequence. You know why Chinese master slap you in face? To push in the lesson. |
Apparently even mod warnings don't get through your thick skull. You basically just acknowledged you're wrong and the only way you know how to argue is to throw insults around. Not that this was not already obvious to anyone following your series of unfortunate posts in this thread. You have a sub-par intellect of extremely questionable value. I'm really, really glad I'm not you, cw10 
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Last edited by Vigilans on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I will out of necessity of communication sometimes speak as if I am certain of something, but even then I'm not completely certain of it. It's just practical to do so. Belief is silly, in my opinion, possibly even delusional. |
First, I think that usually when people say that they believe something, all of these quibbles are already included in their use of the word "believe". So maybe you're not really being more careful than anyone else, you're just labouring the point more.
Second, there are some things that you are completely certain about, such as that you exist and can make choices. |
I am certain of neither of those. Stop presuming to know my view on things (or the view of anyone else, in general). You will most likely be wrong when you do this, and make yourself look foolish in the process.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | Declension wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I will out of necessity of communication sometimes speak as if I am certain of something, but even then I'm not completely certain of it. It's just practical to do so. Belief is silly, in my opinion, possibly even delusional. |
First, I think that usually when people say that they believe something, all of these quibbles are already included in their use of the word "believe". So maybe you're not really being more careful than anyone else, you're just labouring the point more.
Second, there are some things that you are completely certain about, such as that you exist and can make choices. |
I am certain of neither of those. Stop presuming to know my view on things (or the view of anyone else, in general). You will most likely be wrong when you do this, and make yourself look foolish in the process. |
This seems to be the standard m.o. for theists... the unfortunate consequence of absolute, arrogant certainty about everything 
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 802
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| 1062651stAvenue wrote: | | The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. Care to respond? |
If morality comes from God, where does God get it from? If God merely decides it, then it's a subjective morality that we "borrow", and it may not be a good one (indeed, God's tendency towards genocide, torture and abuse while having no qualms about slavery or executions suggest it isn't). If God gets it from somewhere else, then God is beholden to a higher power - and, moreover, it isn't God we get our morality from. He's just the agent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 3997
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if God exists and his morality is absolute, we don't have full access to God's morality anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the bible is considered evidence of a moral absolute, this conversation is absurd anyway. My values are superior to those of the bible.
I don't believe in slavery and I don't believe in killing non-virgins, snotty kids or raped women who didnt "cry loud enough" to be heard. That's bronze age insanity smeared on a page by savage tribal thugs. They'd be arrested and tried as maniacs today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:49 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| Thom_Fuleri wrote: | | 1062651stAvenue wrote: | | The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. Care to respond? |
If morality comes from God, where does God get it from? If God merely decides it, then it's a subjective morality that we "borrow", and it may not be a good one (indeed, God's tendency towards genocide, torture and abuse while having no qualms about slavery or executions suggest it isn't). If God gets it from somewhere else, then God is beholden to a higher power - and, moreover, it isn't God we get our morality from. He's just the agent. |
It's not necessary for God to get it from anywhere. If God "gets" it from somewhere, it is from His very own nature.
If God decides it, which is how I feel about it, then it's objective since the source of a moral standard is God Himself. The only sense in which it is subjective is the sense in which we either fail to see and live God's standard to its fullest or we refuse to even try to see it at all. Moral laws are not the same as laws in a different sense because moral laws can be broken, ignored, or rationalized in the mind of the perceiver. You can rationalize breaking a rule to the point you become numb to it or even start to think that breaking a particular rule is actually a good thing.
You make a couple of errors here, the biggest one is your suggestion that God's morality may not be a good one and listing your personal grievances in support. The first glaring mistake is failing to understand why it is God would do anything. If morality comes from God, and if God is good and perfect, then it is not God who makes the mistake but rather the human beings who have been punished for their evil deeds. If God does it, it is inherently good due to the inherently good nature of God. The second obvious mistake is imposing your own subjective opinions on God. It is man who is subject to the power of God, not God subject to the power of man.
I think of our understanding of morality as a collection of varying views of the same thing. It never changes in spite of how we might change in relation to it. That there are a few things in which most people almost universally agree makes me tend to think that morality is much more objective than we're really willing to think it is. We may not all agree on what exactly constitutes murder. We agree that murder is any unjustified killing, while at the same time there are legitimate reasons for justified killing. We just disagree on what constitutes a justification.
Incidentally, it seems to me that any discussion on morality is ultimately going to have the appearance of an appeal to majority. The reason why is that for a moral rule to be detected, at least two people have to be involved--one person to do wrong, and a victim. If you want to make a case for objective morality, the best evidence you can get will be the actual cognitive and physical behavior of people acting in accordance to a specific moral objective. If you see commonalities among various people that apply almost globally for extended lengths of time, one possible conclusion from behavioral evidence is that an objective moral rule is being observed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
HerrGrimm
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 963
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:49 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | If there is one leader who really did hate theism and make a point to persecute it, it was probably Enver Hoxha of Albania, and strangely enough you guys never seem to mention him, instead going for the big cliche names who are themselves flawed arguments in this context. Showing how well learned and informed most willing to go down this road are  Hoxhaism involved active campaigns to combat religion in Albania. Even so, what he stands for is certainly not what I or other atheists stand for. |
Hoxha was Muslim, not an atheist. Albania was declared an atheist state, but Hoxha was not an atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| HerrGrimm wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | If there is one leader who really did hate theism and make a point to persecute it, it was probably Enver Hoxha of Albania, and strangely enough you guys never seem to mention him, instead going for the big cliche names who are themselves flawed arguments in this context. Showing how well learned and informed most willing to go down this road are Hoxhaism involved active campaigns to combat religion in Albania. Even so, what he stands for is certainly not what I or other atheists stand for. |
Hoxha was Muslim, not an atheist. Albania was declared an atheist state, but Hoxha was not an atheist. |
Really? I didn't know that... He went so far as to ban beards at some point as a method of preventing Islam being visible in society.
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
HerrGrimm
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 963
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | | HerrGrimm wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | If there is one leader who really did hate theism and make a point to persecute it, it was probably Enver Hoxha of Albania, and strangely enough you guys never seem to mention him, instead going for the big cliche names who are themselves flawed arguments in this context. Showing how well learned and informed most willing to go down this road are Hoxhaism involved active campaigns to combat religion in Albania. Even so, what he stands for is certainly not what I or other atheists stand for. |
Hoxha was Muslim, not an atheist. Albania was declared an atheist state, but Hoxha was not an atheist. |
Really? I didn't know that... He went so far as to ban beards at some point as a method of preventing Islam being visible in society. |
Yep. It happens in politics like that sometimes.
But I'm sure the Christians have something to say about the Iron Guard in Romania, the Utase regime in Yugoslavia, Mexico in the 1930s, and Franco's regime in Spain? I think half of Europe wasn't Christian during the 1930s and '40s (exaggeration of course). There were a LOT of posers and false believers on the continent at that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 802
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| AngelRho wrote: | | You make a couple of errors here, the biggest one is your suggestion that God's morality may not be a good one and listing your personal grievances in support. The first glaring mistake is failing to understand why it is God would do anything. If morality comes from God, and if God is good and perfect, then it is not God who makes the mistake but rather the human beings who have been punished for their evil deeds. If God does it, it is inherently good due to the inherently good nature of God. The second obvious mistake is imposing your own subjective opinions on God. It is man who is subject to the power of God, not God subject to the power of man. |
You're employing circular reasoning here. You're saying that God's morality is good, because God is perfect. But your concept of perfection comes from that morality. God can do no wrong because God defines what is wrong.
Your second mistake is in thinking that this makes morality objective. It does not. Objective morality would apply absolutely - no exceptions. And that includes God. An easy one for you - murder, say. We'd agree that was morally wrong, and indeed God says so himself (it's one of the commandments). And yet God breaks this law himself on countless occasions and, having given us mortality in the first place, is arguably indirectly responsible for every death throughout creation. Either murder is not absolutely immoral, or God is not perfectly good. God's morality is subjective, and must be so, because God has a viewpoint and a purpose, and is able to make decisions and take action and change his mind.
My opinions on God's specific morality are irrelevant. I do feel that any specific morality that has been ascribed to God is really the work of man. This would make far more sense of why this "absolute" morality is both so easily discarded and so prone to change over time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1654
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I am certain of neither of those. |
When you're doing mathematics, and you think that you have proven a theorem T, but you notice that T would imply 2+2=5, then you should probably look at your work. There's probably a mistake in it.
When you're doing philosophy, and you start claiming that you are not certain that you exist, it might be a good time to think about how you got backed into this corner. You must have made a mistake somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
