This is one of the biggest problems I have with religious beliefs.

[Omega]

Omega you seem to have quite a dillema here

1. You do not believe atheists have any REASON to act morally
2. Atheists are acting morally.
3. You don't believe their reasons.
4. Atheists still acting morally.



So why do you think they act morally? And don't say you don't know, or else you wouldn't shoot down every argument, you clearly have an idea.

This is a false dilemma, born out of a misunderstanding of the argument. I frankly don't know where or how to begin to address this post.

Point is that in atheism, moral values are merely subjective, arbitrary, illusory and therefore meaningless. Nothing is obligatory and nothing is prohibited. Sure, actions such as murder or theft or charity may be either convenient or inconvenient to society and to other peoples, but under this worldview, that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong or good. There would be nothing morally prohibiting me, for example, from stealing someones' wallet if I knew I could get away with it except perhaps inconvenience if I was caught. Yet inconvenience wouldn't equal objectively immoral.

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory. - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.

Just look up the last, closed thread on morality for a sneak peek on what the answer is going to be.

Yes, by all means, everybody, look up that thread. It was closed for illegitimate reasons.

[Omega]

I missed the word "objectively" being introduced that early. You were on the mark.

Please, if have nothing intelligible to add...

[orcus116]

I was merely making an observation.

[ehra]

Point is that in atheism, moral values are merely subjective, arbitrary, illusory and therefore meaningless. Nothing is obligatory and nothing is prohibited. Sure, actions such as murder or theft or charity may be either convenient or inconvenient to society and to other peoples, but under this worldview, that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong or good.

"The atheist view that morals are subjective can't be right because that would mean morals aren't objective."

[Adami]

I know I'm being an idiot for continuing on this horrible, pointless and somewhat insulting discussion, but...

Omega, if you somehow found out 100% (just for the sake of argument) that there is no god or objective morality or anything....would you continue to be moral at all? I expect a half page response about how you aren't going to respond, but I'd REALLY appreciate a yes or no before you begin to rant. Thanks.

[Omega]

Point is that in atheism, moral values are merely subjective, arbitrary, illusory and therefore meaningless. Nothing is obligatory and nothing is prohibited. Sure, actions such as murder or theft or charity may be either convenient or inconvenient to society and to other peoples, but under this worldview, that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong or good.

"The atheist view that morals are subjective can't be right because that would mean morals aren't objective."

That is not at all the point of the statement. I'm merely describing the atheistic worldview. Why atheists are disagreeing with me for describing their moral landscape is frustrating.

The point of that statement is

1.) Atheists do not live consistently with their worldview

2.) If all morals are subjective, no action is absolutely moral or immoral. What is right to you may be wrong to me. What is wrong to you may be right to me. "Rape may be wrong to you, but that is just your subjective opinion, man."

[ehra]

Two is right, one isn't. Government law doesn't equate to a proclamation of objective morality. I'm not atheist.

[Omega]

I know I'm being an idiot for continuing on this horrible, pointless and somewhat insulting discussion, but...

Omega, if you somehow found out 100% (just for the sake of argument) that there is no god or objective morality or anything....would you continue to be moral at all? I expect a half page response about how you aren't going to respond, but I'd REALLY appreciate a yes or no before you begin to rant. Thanks.

Largely, no.

To elaborate, I'd act immorally whenever I was convinced that I could get away with it. Why not make my finite, meaningless life one of maximum prudent hedonism? Why not manipulate the fact that most people, deluded with thought of moral grandeur, and utilize morality as a tool to further my interests? I'd play nice and according to society's illusory moral code whenever it would act in my self-interest. But the point is that I would act morally when it conveniences me, immorally when it conveniences me.

[rumborak]

Is it such a disconcerting thought for "absolutists" that there can be a stable moral network simply based on reciprocity?

This whole discussion has a striking similarity with the discussion of gold-standard vs. floating currencies. There too you have people essentially arguing that there can not be a stable network of interlocking currencies that keep each other in check, but that the only "true" currency standard is the supposed eternal gold standard, even though it is equally as arbitrary.

rumborak

[Adami]

Ok, that summed up everything for me.


You lack an internal moral compass. You are not a moral person on your own, and you can't understand how other people can just be decent human beings without fear of punishment. In this case, you're just not going to get it man, it's cool though. Just accept that it's happening and move on. Nothing we say, under any circumstance will convince you of anything.

[rumborak]

To elaborate, I'd act immorally whenever I was convinced that I could get away with it. Why not make my finite, meaningless life one of maximum prudent hedonism? Why not manipulate the fact that most people, deluded with thought of moral grandeur, and utilize morality as a tool to further my interests? I'd play nice and according to society's illusory moral code whenever it would act in my self-interest. But the point is that I would act morally when it conveniences me, immorally when it conveniences me.

I can only conclude that you have almost no human interaction.
What you describe is called "being an asshole". In the real world, assholes are shunned and punished. Your "amoral scheme" would work for a short time, and then you're screwed.

Ah, the internet, where one has to explain human interaction.

[Omega]

Two is right, one isn't. Government law doesn't equate to a proclamation of objective morality. I'm not atheist.

That's not the contradiction.

The contradiction is this:

(As you agree with my second bullet) Atheists assert subjective morality and then go on to condemn other acts as moral or immoral.

For Example:

Person: "Rape is right to me, man."

Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. Rape is wrong."

Person: "Pushing my views down someone else's throat is right to me."

Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. You can believe anything you want just don't push your views upon me, because pushing your views upon me would be objectively immoral."


So, you see, in moral subjectivism, no action can be objectively condemned as moral or immoral. You might with the might-makes-right argument and respond: "But wait, man, morals are selected by the majority of a society." Apply that to Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, etc. Just because a majority of people assert a moral value doesn't mean that that value is objectively right or wrong.

[Omega]

You lack an internal moral compass. You are not a moral person on your own, and you can't understand how other people can just be decent human beings without fear of punishment. In this case, you're just not going to get it man, it's cool though. Just accept that it's happening and move on. Nothing we say, under any circumstance will convince you of anything.

Please, I was speaking hypothetically in the shoes of an atheist-me.

Of course I have an internal conscience. We can all intuitively recognize what actions are morally good and what are morally abhorrent. I would still have a conscience as an atheist-me, I'd just have no good reason to follow it other than self-interest.

[Adami]

You lack an internal moral compass. You are not a moral person on your own, and you can't understand how other people can just be decent human beings without fear of punishment. In this case, you're just not going to get it man, it's cool though. Just accept that it's happening and move on. Nothing we say, under any circumstance will convince you of anything.

Please, I was speaking hypothetically in the shoes of an atheist-me.

Of course I have an internal conscience. We can all intuitively recognize what actions are morally good and what are morally abhorrent. I would still have a conscience as an atheist-me, I'd just have no good reason to follow it other than self-interest.

You clearly don't dude. Sorry. But it's ok, you'd probably make a great business man.

[Omega]

To elaborate, I'd act immorally whenever I was convinced that I could get away with it. Why not make my finite, meaningless life one of maximum prudent hedonism? Why not manipulate the fact that most people, deluded with thought of moral grandeur, and utilize morality as a tool to further my interests? I'd play nice and according to society's illusory moral code whenever it would act in my self-interest. But the point is that I would act morally when it conveniences me, immorally when it conveniences me.

I can only conclude that you have almost no human interaction.
What you describe is called "being an asshole". In the real world, assholes are shunned and punished. Your "amoral scheme" would work for a short time, and then you're screwed.

Ah, the internet, where one has to explain human interaction.

As I sated to Adami, I was merely speaking in the shoes of an atheist-me. And don't take my word for it, but I actually do have plenty of human interaction (although how this is relevant to the topic is beyond me).

And also, under that hypothetical atheist-me, of course I would be an asshole. Yet I would do everything in my power to maintain the illusion of a moral and caring human being for my self-interest. I'd go to any lengths in that hypothetical atheist-me scenario to ensure that my true self is never revealed.

Regardless, calling my hypothetical atheist-me an "asshole" (while I would wholeheartedly agree with) does nothing to lessen the point I've been trying to make. Nothing that resembles an effective argument can be found in this heap of text.

[Omega]

You clearly don't dude. Sorry. But it's ok, you'd probably make a great business man.

I hope that is a facetious remark (which if it is, is quite amusing).

If it's not though...
Let's not even pretend to know my conscience.

[Adami]

Well you guys enjoy this endless debate, not sure why it's allowed to continue despite clearly not going anywhere, ever.'


I learned what I need to know, and now it all makes sense, so I'm out. Have fun Rumby, you have my sympathies.

[ehra]

Two is right, one isn't. Government law doesn't equate to a proclamation of objective morality. I'm not atheist.

That's not the contradiction.

The contradiction is this:

(As you agree with my second bullet) Atheists assert subjective morality and then go on to condemn other acts as moral or immoral.

For Example:

Person: "Rape is right to me, man."

Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. Rape is wrong."

Person: "Pushing my views down someone else's throat is right to me."

Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. You can believe anything you want just don't push your views upon me, because pushing your views upon me would be objectively immoral."


So, you see, in moral subjectivism, no action can be objectively condemned as moral or immoral. You might with the might-makes-right argument and respond: "But wait, man, morals are selected by the majority of a society." Apply that to Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, etc. Just because a majority of people assert a moral value doesn't mean that that value is objectively right or wrong.

So basically you're complaining that people don't say "in my opinion" before saying they think something is terrible, which should be implied anyway when you've already established that they view morals as objective. What is this, general music?

The entire basis of your argument hinges on some elusive strawman that has no idea what the words subjective and objective even mean.

[yeshaberto]

time to move this thread back to a discussion of a topic rather than each other

[rumborak]

Well you guys enjoy this endless debate, not sure why it's allowed to continue despite clearly not going anywhere, ever.'


I learned what I need to know, and now it all makes sense, so I'm out. Have fun Rumby, you have my sympathies.

Nah, I'm just glancing over posts at this point. It's like explaining colors to a blind man. Either you see it, or you don't. I guess not much in-between.

rumborak

[Omega]

So basically you're complaining that people don't say "in my opinion" before saying they think something is terrible, which should be implied anyway when you've already established that they view morals as objective. What is this, general music?

The entire basis of your argument hinges on some elusive strawman that has no idea what the words subjective and objective even mean.

This will likely be my last post on the matter (wouldn't want to get banned, now, would I), but I've made my point fairly clear. It is insulting to be repeatedly misrepresented or misunderstood with such consistency. And let's not pull out the dictionary on "subjective" and "objective" again, shan't we?

[Adami]

Anyway,


I say that I respect people who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. Expecting big things of others is usually what we see in people with strong faiths, but when you can really "walk the walk" as they say, that's real commitment.


Sure, I don't agree with JW's in a religious way, but I respect the ones who are willing to sacrifice for what they believe is right. (provided no one else gets hurt.....I threw this in before anyone brought up suicide bombers)

[rumborak]

It's always a trade off really. To exhibit the passion necessary to do many of those things, one needs to have a certain amount of blinders on. Kinda like that saying "monomania is the secret to success" (probably the main reason why I'll never be famous)

rumborak

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

It's always a trade off really. To exhibit the passion necessary to do many of those things, one needs to have a certain amount of blinders on. Kinda like that saying "monomania is the secret to success" (probably the main reason why I'll never be famous)

rumborak

When I concerned myself with moral therapeutic deism I felt I needed blinders.  When I concerned myself with Christ, I began to feel free.  The difference for me was that the former encouraged rule following, and the other encouraged love and fostered that great desire to pursue the God I believe in freely, without fear of failure.  I'm still learning this now.  Basically, as a kid, I was taught that being a Christian was just following rules, and then you get to heaven to be with your dead family and friends.

I'm learning that it is more than that, though I still have a massive tendency to slide back in to moralistic rule following, though I'm extremely bad at it.

[rumborak]

Frankly, I honestly think it's because Christian morality, I.e. the NT type one of love, is much closer to human nature anyway. And I would argue that that was also the reason for Christianity's rise. Any theology that is in line with basic human nature will fare better than one that goes against it.

rumborak

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Frankly, I honestly think it's because Christian morality, I.e. the NT type one of love, is much closer to human nature anyway. And I would argue that that was also the reason for Christianity's rise. Any theology that is in line with basic human nature will fare better than one that goes against it.

rumborak

That's very interesting, because the Christian Bible would say that human nature is the polar opposite of what you have just described.

[rumborak]

Well, that's part of the trick though. Christian theology first convinces you you are sinful piece of sh*t, and the leads you (through Christ) to being a normal human being. With the end result that you are essentially just a plain person who lives normally, but the trick is that you think Christian theology led you there.
 Christianity could never have become a mass religion if its desired code of conduct massively deviated from normal human behavior.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

sorry, rumby, I am not following.
the standard of Christianity at its core is completely opposed to our natural human tendencies and behavior.
the beatitudes of the sermon on the mount are the polar opposite of what human nature follows, for one example.
though "Christianity" may be popular in a generic sense (ie. enjoying the fruits of its benefits), the call of complete surrender in order to receive those benefits is hardly popular and rarely truly practiced

[jammindude]

Well, that's part of the trick though. Christian theology first convinces you you are sinful piece of sh*t, and the leads you (through Christ) to being a normal human being. With the end result that you are essentially just a plain person who lives normally, but the trick is that you think Christian theology led you there.
 Christianity could never have become a mass religion if its desired code of conduct massively deviated from normal human behavior.

rumborak

I've never...EVER...thought of myself as a "sinful piece of sh*t"... nor have I ever heard that teaching.

What is actually taught:  I am a masterpiece that was damaged through no fault of my own....God loves me so much that he was willing to spare no expense (not even the life of his son) to restore the masterpiece.    But I must submit to his direction in order to be "rescued" from my current state.

[the Catfishman]

That's exactly what rumbo said only in milder wording. 

[hefdaddy42]

This will likely be my last post on the matter

Good.  Just drop it, because this clearly a conversation that ONLY YOU want to have.

You admitted yourself that you have a moral conscience, a sense of right and wrong.  You have answered your question, because so do atheists.  Now, ENOUGH.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Well, that's part of the trick though. Christian theology first convinces you you are sinful piece of sh*t, and the leads you (through Christ) to being a normal human being. With the end result that you are essentially just a plain person who lives normally, but the trick is that you think Christian theology led you there.
 Christianity could never have become a mass religion if its desired code of conduct massively deviated from normal human behavior.

rumborak

This is probably an entirely different thread, but I'm not seeing the trick.  Basic human instinct is to preserve self and to act on selfish desires.  Jesus' teachings would have one move beyond that.

[the Catfishman]

.  Basic human instinct is to preserve self and to act on selfish desires.  Jesus' teachings would have one move beyond that

What makes you say that? There is no good reason to assume this (except by reading the Bible)  in non-Christian societies and even animal societies there is (at least) equal empathy / not acting purely out of self interest compared to the average Christian society. 

[rumborak]

I've never...EVER...thought of myself as a "sinful piece of sh*t"... nor have I ever heard that teaching.

What is actually taught:  I am a masterpiece that was damaged through no fault of my own....God loves me so much that he was willing to spare no expense (not even the life of his son) to restore the masterpiece.    But I must submit to his direction in order to be "rescued" from my current state.

That's exactly what rumbo said only in milder wording. 

Yup, indeed. Jammin, the teaching sets out with you, as an otherwise innocent infant, having an inborn guilt that in the eyes of God makes you unworthy to have an afterlife. Sounds pretty bleak to me.
From there on you are led to essentially being a normal person, i.e. the same life you - in reality - would have led with or without Christ anyway (since non-Christian cultures around the world do so). But the trick is that you don't think that way; you think without Christ you never would have ended up in having that normal life. Look at Omega and how stuck he is thinking that without Christ he and others would rape and pillage through the streets. There is no reason to believe even in the slightest that that would happen, but Christianity was once again successful in making a person think so.
I'm not saying this accounts for every Christian out there, but I think a HUGE percentage nonetheless.

rumborak

[Ħ]

There's plenty of moral decisions that Christians make that others can't. Loving God is called the most important commandment. You completely submit to his will for your life. That's not what society considers 'normal'. You're probably thinking of lukewarm Christians that try to appease everyone. But try constructing a model Christian based on biblical commands. That's not going to give you a normal person.