1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

whose morality matters when everyone does what is right in their own eyes.  The universe does not care, nor do people care who are unconcerned about morals.  Maybe they are right or at least as right as you.  Just saying something about morals does not morals make.  Hitler is but one example of that.

[Vardarac]

Matters in what way and to whom? Why does it need to be more complicated than "what this Hitler guy is doing bothers me"?

[shadowhawk]

So, it doesn't bother him and he has as much authority as you do.  Don't tell me the mob makes right either, we have seen where that leads.

[Vardarac]

Civilization?

[shadowhawk]

Show me where a mob has produced civilization.  Give me some examples and the ethics they produced.  Also why are they right?

[Vardarac]

Show me where a mob has produced civilization.  Give me some examples and the ethics they produced.  Also why are they right?

 

So we're starting from the assumption that there is no god, right? It would follow that the mob must be responsible for civilization.

 

You keep asking, "why are they right?" That depends. Who are you asking? Why does anyone want it any such way? There is a general agreement enough to form cohesive groups.

Edited by Vardarac, 28 April 2015 - 04:41 AM.

[calyptus]

The consequence doesn't matter if there is no, "the good."  However Atheists often argue they can be moral and judge others based upon subjectivism.

 

And this is absolutely irrelevant, because now we're talking about secular morality, which is not the same thing as theistic morality. You're basing your terminology on (neo)-platonic forms/essenses, most secular moral systems don't.

 

This misunderstanding(or just plain dishonesty) is widespread among apologists, it's why we get this silly "what's your standard for absolute truth/justice/goodness"-nonsense.

 

As I've said before, I'm an intersubjectivist because that moral theory is more useful.

Edited by calyptus, 28 April 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Show me where a mob has produced civilization.  Give me some examples and the ethics they produced.  Also why are they right?

 

So we're starting from the assumption that there is no god, right? It would follow that the mob must be responsible for civilization.

 

You keep asking, "why are they right?" That depends. Who are you asking? Why does anyone want it any such way? There is a general agreement enough to form cohesive groups.

 

The topic is evidence for Atheism.  You have not given any evidence and I asked you for some.  You have made my point, it depends on who you are asking.  Everyone does what is right in their own eyes is your answer.  So there is no ethics given Atheism, it all depends on who you are asking.  You claim there is general agreement and have called it "civilization."  The mob produced it.  I asked you for examples.  None

[shadowhawk]

 

The consequence doesn't matter if there is no, "the good."  However Atheists often argue they can be moral and judge others based upon subjectivism.

 

And this is absolutely irrelevant, because now we're talking about secular morality, which is not the same thing as theistic morality. You're basing your terminology on (neo)-platonic forms/essenses, most secular moral systems don't.

 

This misunderstanding(or just plain dishonesty) is widespread among apologists, it's why we get this silly "what's your standard for absolute truth/justice/goodness"-nonsense.

 

As I've said before, I'm an intersubjectivist because that moral theory is more useful.

 

You have given no reason why it is irrelevant.  You admit also, given Atheism, there is no morality and each does what is right in their own eyes.  Given Atheism, each secular state does what is right in their own eyes as history shows and that can be anything.  You called me Neo-platonic, which I deny but then I will call you Machiavellian.

 

I suggest your self description as a intersubjectivist fits in nicely with each doing what is right in his own eyes.  That is just what I have been saying.  Certainly this is not evidence for Atheism.

[Vardarac]

Everyone already does what they think is right, whether they believe in a god or not. Even people that claim to adhere to some essential set of moral dictates will claim differently amongst themselves which set is correct or even which interpretation of which set is correct - and there really is no compelling basis on which to say which set and which interpretation is (individually - certainly not objectively), other than one's own feelings about the morals and their consequences.

 

What's left is ultimately a collection of varying moral opinions that tend to more or less agree enough to form civilization which, even if you believe there is a God, is exactly where you would start if you did not assume a God in the first place.

 

If the topic is evidence for atheism, then why bring up some fictitious moral quandary that you think atheism poses?

Edited by Vardarac, 28 April 2015 - 08:23 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Everyone already does what they think is right, whether they believe in a god or not. Even people that claim to adhere to some essential set of moral dictates will claim differently amongst themselves which set is correct or even which interpretation of which set is correct - and there really is no compelling basis on which to say which set and which interpretation is (individually - certainly not objectively), other than one's own feelings about the morals and their consequences.

 

What's left is ultimately a collection of varying moral opinions that tend to more or less agree enough to form civilization which, even if you believe there is a God, is exactly where you would start if you did not assume a God in the first place.

 

If the topic is evidence for atheism, then why bring up some fictitious moral quandary that you think atheism poses?

Not at all.  Most claim there is a basis for morality outside themselves because they recognize that everyone doing what is right in their own eyes is inadequate for making moral and ethical judgements.  The Tao is an example if such laws, often referred to as Objective.  Since this is not about God, I won't defend objective moral values here, thought I did in "Evidence for Christianity."  As far as bringing up ethics as a defense of Atheism, I didn't.

[Vardarac]

Not at all.  Most claim there is a basis for morality outside themselves because they recognize that everyone doing what is right in their own eyes is inadequate for making moral and ethical judgements.  The Tao is an example if such laws, often referred to as Objective.  Since this is not about God, I won't defend objective moral values here, thought I did in "Evidence for Christianity."  As far as bringing up ethics as a defense of Atheism, I didn't.

 

But that adherence to a "higher" external set of morals is itself a moral decision on the part of those adherents. In other words, they are making a moral decision both in deciding that they are unfit to make moral decisions and in selecting a prefab set of morals, which is for all intents and purposes no less subjective than trying to suss out a set of agreeable morals in the absence of a higher power dictating it for them on the basis of mutually agreeable feelings on the values and their consequences in practice.

 

If all you were trying to say was that atheism doesn't provide any objective way of measuring the validity of someone's ethics, then I'd agree with you, but I still think that doesn't carry any importance at all to considering one's set of ethical/moral values.

Edited by Vardarac, 28 April 2015 - 08:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Of course everyone decides if the sky is blue or not.  That does not mean it is subjective whether it is blue or not.  What kind of logic is this?  Morality either comes from each individual or from outside.  Here since the topic is Atheism, there is no outside.  Can this view defend morality or does each person do what is right in their own eyes?  In that case, there is no objective morality and anything goes.

[Vardarac]

Of course everyone decides if the sky is blue or not.  That does not mean it is subjective whether it is blue or not.  What kind of logic is this?  Morality either comes from each individual or from outside.  Here since the topic is Atheism, there is no outside.  Can this view defend morality or does each person do what is right in their own eyes?  In that case, there is no objective morality and anything goes.

 

 

It being fundamentally subjective doesn't mean that those with those subjective values ought to just give them up. Quite the opposite, actually.

[shadowhawk]

So you think you should not give them up?  Why not?  Each has equal authority to do what is right in their own eyes.  Tell that to Hitler.  He will follow your advice.

[Vardarac]

If you have a preference for a world less filled with conflict, suffering, distrust, and death, then it makes sense to have and follow values that you have reason to believe will create that result.

If you have a preference for the opposite, then it makes sense to have the according values.

 

What sense would it make to do something if it ultimately moves against your goals?

 

Evil people may follow that, but what good would my telling them to stop doing that if they were already aligned toward a poorer world to start with? What "shouldness", to them, is in a world they don't want? I personally would prefer if this Hitler guy stopped doing what he was doing - and from my point of view, he "should", because it results in a better world to me - but objectively speaking, it would make no sense for him to give up anything if his actions align with his goals.

 

But let's say that it were absolutely wrong, not just wrong to me and a few other million people, what he was doing. Note that appealing to a higher authority would still have no effect on pencil mustache, because he doesn't agree with my idea of what a higher authority wants in the first place (or cares more about what he himself wants).

Edited by Vardarac, 28 April 2015 - 09:55 PM.

[shadowhawk]

see it does not matter given Atheism, what you want or don't want.  You and Hitler have exactly the same basis for your morality.  YOU.  What ever you say is right is based on the same thing he says is right, namely yourself.  Your goals, His goals, who cares and they can be exactly the opposite.  No evidence for Atheism here.

[Vardarac]

see it does not matter given Atheism, what you want or don't want.  You and Hitler have exactly the same basis for your morality.  YOU.  What ever you say is right is based on the same thing he says is right, namely yourself.  Your goals, His goals, who cares and they can be exactly the opposite.

 

Right, according to whom? On the basis of what goals and on what consequences? It most certainly does matter to me if I have a preference which, being a human, I almost always do. So saying "it doesn't matter" holds no real significance to someone to whom it actually does. In other words, it doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to the universe, I'm still going to call Hitler evil and a good chunk of the world will understand and agree with why I say it.

[shadowhawk]

Right, according to whom?  Does it matter.    To you?  You are no different than anyone else and it does not matter to them.  No real significance.  It doesn't matter to anyone.  It is just dead matter.  It doesn't matter if you call Hitler evil or not because evil is just your baseless subjective opinion.  So you are going to try to discover meaning by an opinion poll?  Good thing the Nazis did not win or you may have lost.  Given Atheism it does not matter.  What is interesting is to see you act as if you have found a way to make it matter. 

[platypus]

How come the existence of Nazis is not evidence for the non-existence of benevolent gods? Why does the world appear not to have any nice gods? Isn't the simplest explanation that there simply are no gods? 

Edited by platypus, 29 April 2015 - 08:38 AM.

[Ark]

Because humanities use of free will is on us, not God.

[platypus]

Because humanities use of free will is on us, not God.

Sounds like a cop-out. To me the "problem of suffering" is evidence that there are no benevolent gods (if there were they would prevent bad shit from happening). 

[Ark]

I find it hard to grasp how you can come to the conclusions that God thinks as a human? Also I could argue that the same freewill the Nazis used, is being used by you and your freedom to deny God's existence. For those who don't believe no explanation is possible, and for those who do believe no explanation is necessary, yet the universe still lay unknown to us all.

Edited by Ark, 29 April 2015 - 10:31 AM.

[calyptus]

You have given no reason why it is irrelevant. 

 

It is literally right there: secular moral theories use different terminology theistic morality. If you want to criticize a secular moral theory, you need to criticize them by their definitions, not yours.

 

F.e.: to be moral is to do good, and to do good is to maximize happiness while limiting suffering for the greatest amount of people.(quantitative utilitarianism).

This is not the same thing as to do good is to do according to the essence/form of goodness part of the nature of god, which he commanded in scripture x(divine command).

 

 

You admit also, given Atheism, there is no morality and each does what is right in their own eyes. 

 

 

Atheism is amoral, it doesn't talk about morality, even under your definition of atheism. Which is why we're talking about secular moral theories, not atheistic moral theories.

The fact that,again, objectivism exists disproves that atheist cannot have objective morality under your definitions.

The fact that intersubjectivism exists, and intersubjectivists like me talk about societal ethics, shows that we don't act on what we personally believe is right, we allow for the society to decide. Aside from that, you ignore the difference between normative(what we ought to do) vs descriptive(what we currently do) ethics.

 

Now onto the big kicker, since we're both not solipsists, can we agree on the premise that society exists?

That's a necessary premise for my moral theory.

 

Now, for divine command theory, which you you try to push, it's required that the goodness is self-existent as an abstact object, in the platonic realm, and part of the mind of Christian God. If you don't agree, you might want to pick a better script, because neo-platonic conceptualism is the only thing that even tries to answer Euthyphro's dilemma.

Why should I believe there is such a platonic realm, that the Christian god exists, and that neo-platonic conceptualism is true?

 

If you understand that last question, you understand why most people who associate themselves with the term atheism(regardless of how you try to force your definition of atheism onto the conversation), and most philosophers, reject the existence of your God.

 

You make the positive claim, so you have the burden of proof, and if you can't get to your god by logical necessity, nor by evidence, all you have are assertions. The absence of evidence here, alongside the falsified natural claims on which the unfalsifiable supernatural claims are based on, is the evidence of absence and justification to make the claim that the fundamentalist's model of the Christian god doesn't exist.

 

Of course, answering this would require you to use your nogging, think and go off-script, which apologists are taught to never do.

 

Edited by calyptus, 29 April 2015 - 11:21 AM.

[platypus]

I find it hard to grasp how you can come to the conclusions that God thinks as a human? Also I could argue that the same freewill the Nazis used, is being used by you and your freedom to deny God's existence. For those who don't believe no explanation is possible, and for those who do believe no explanation is necessary, yet the universe still lay unknown to us all.

Ok, so the world looks like that there are no gods who are interested in human matters at any level. Nobody can rule out an impassive creator god who has done literally nothing after the moment of creation..

[Ark]

Giving humanity the chance to figure it out with minimal interference after inception of everything is actually just tough love which we learn and improve from now matter what you think God has to take into consideration all people in all possible futures and pasts, meaning the configuration of the universe is how it is because it is the ultimate expression of everything plus everything.

[platypus]

Giving humanity the chance to figure it out with minimal interference after inception of everything is actually just tough love which we learn and improve from now matter what you think God has to take into consideration all people in all possible futures and pasts, meaning the configuration of the universe is how it is because it is the ultimate expression of everything plus everything.

Who says there's only one god? I don't think this thread should discuss theology but I always wonder where people pull their assumptions about gods from. To me things look like gods do not interfere in human matters and people who claim so are deluded. To me that is evidence for atheism..

Edited by platypus, 29 April 2015 - 01:52 PM.

[calyptus]

Who says there's only one god? I don't think this thread should discuss theology but I always wonder where people pull their assumptions about gods from. To me things look like gods do not interfere in human matters and people who claim so are deluded. To me that is evidence for atheism..

Out of their ass for convenience. Most people think metaphysical possibility is an actual argument, when it's not, it's preaching to the choir.

 

My position takes into account poorly defined gods, such as deistic ones. Until a god is defined into coherent terms by a certain person, I stay theologically non-cognitivistic towards the concept of god. Which is a fancy term for "I don't understand the concept of god, so explain your model to me or I'll consider it meaningless".

Edited by calyptus, 29 April 2015 - 02:44 PM.

[Vardarac]

Right, according to whom?  Does it matter.    To you?  You are no different than anyone else and it does not matter to them.  No real significance.  It doesn't matter to anyone.  It is just dead matter.  It doesn't matter if you call Hitler evil or not because evil is just your baseless subjective opinion.  So you are going to try to discover meaning by an opinion poll?  Good thing the Nazis did not win or you may have lost.  Given Atheism it does not matter.  What is interesting is to see you act as if you have found a way to make it matter. 

 

Incredible. It's like you have absolutely no understanding of how humans value... Anything.

[Ark]

Giving humanity the chance to figure it out with minimal interference after inception of everything is actually just tough love which we learn and improve from now matter what you think God has to take into consideration all people in all possible futures and pasts, meaning the configuration of the universe is how it is because it is the ultimate expression of everything plus everything.

Who says there's only one god? I don't think this thread should discuss theology but I always wonder where people pull their assumptions about gods from. To me things look like gods do not interfere in human matters and people who claim so are deluded. To me that is evidence for atheism..

because the universe is full of endless examples of order in the universe, in the scheme of power it is no different. Everything started at 1 and this base value for the universe the force behind any example of God/forces of the universe. I don't see why you rage against the night when you have based your ideas on the preposterous that God is here to serve you. Just be happy you have a soul/consciousness and I think once you can do that, God will appear in some form to you.