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

[Chino]

Why is keeping our society running smoothly important?

Because people want life to be easy and to not die when they're 30...

[Ħ]

Who cares what people want?

[ehra]

People?

[Ħ]

And there's where we get into a circle.

[Sigz]

H, this is absurd. You're trying to ascribe some objective cosmic truth to human society when there's no reason to believe one exists.

[Omega]

Jesus, this has been covered a million times. I can condemn murder the same I can say that Awake is a terrible album - by acknowledging it's just my opinion. The reason the guy who gets off on killing people should be locked up has nothing to do with what's 'moral' and everything to do with keeping our society running smoothly.

As H has pointed out, you are quite basically saying that keeping society running smoothly is a morally "good" goal.

Yet why would keeping society running smoothly be characterized as a moral improvement over not keeping it running smoothly rather than as a mere descriptional difference?

[Ħ]

H, this is absurd. You're trying to ascribe some objective cosmic truth to human society when there's no reason to believe one exists.

You can't think of one good reason?

[Omega]

Besides, all sorts of actions could and should be taken if our ultimate goal is to make society run as smoothly as possible. For example, genocides to decrease overpopulation would be warranted, as would eugenics and forcible genetic modifications, etc.

[Ħ]

Criminals should be killed. No rehabilitation

[Chino]

Besides, all sorts of actions could and should be taken if our ultimate goal is to make society run as smoothly as possible. For example, genocides to decrease overpopulation would be warranted, as would eugenics and forcible genetic modifications, etc.

Don't forget creating a master race.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Wow, that puzzles me. Putting religion out of anyone's life is just... wow. Any religion that could cause the death of another just puzzles me.

[ehra]

And there's where we get into a circle.

No it's not.

"You agree to not kill anyone else and everyone else will agree to not kill you. If you break this agreement, we will imprison/kill you."

There's your reason. It's a lot easier for humans to live in a group than alone. It's even easier to live in a group if everyone abides by an agreed upon set of rules. Even if there were no such thing as "objective morality," there's still a completely pragmatic reason to follow those rules.

[Sigz]

I have no idea what more you guys want. You're looking for universal objective truths, and I don't believe they exist. I don't see what more can be said.

[rumborak]

Yet why would keeping society running smoothly be characterized as a moral improvement over not keeping it running smoothly rather than as a mere descriptional difference?

Because ........... you might have to live in it?
People like stuff as having food every day, not being afraid of dying, all that stuff. Only a smooth society with provide that.
And no, genocide can mean you are the one being killed, so people clearly don't want that danger looming over their head.

This actually needs to be explained? I can see how a Bible might be of value to you.

rumborak

[Chino]

I have no idea what more you guys want. You're looking for universal objective truths, and I don't believe they exist. I don't see what more can be said.

You could thank Plato for that one. It's his fault that this entire argument arose in the first place.

[Omega]

"You agree to not kill anyone else and everyone else will agree to not kill you. If you break this agreement, we will imprison/kill you."

There's your reason. It's a lot easier for humans to live in a group than alone. It's even easier to live in a group if everyone abides by an agreed upon set of rules. Even if there were no such thing as "objective morality," there's still a completely pragmatic reason to follow those rules.

See, it would be more accurate to say "If you break this argreement and you are caught, we will imprison / kill you."

So anything is permissible unless you are actually caught.
Besides, the "agreement" that would be agreed upon would nevertheless be entirely subjective and arbitrary.

[yeshaberto]

once again this thread is approaching the line.

am I missing something, or is there irony in the fact that we are each calling the other wrong in a discussion that there is no absolutes?

[Zook]

Sorry guys...

[Omega]

Please clarify, what line is being neared?

What am I (or are we) doing wrong or against the rules?

[yeshaberto]

the line of criticizing the person rather than the argument

[Omega]

the line of criticizing the person rather than the argument

I'm not sure I'm seeing this.

[Omega]

Yet why would keeping society running smoothly be characterized as a moral improvement over not keeping it running smoothly rather than as a mere descriptional difference?

Because ........... you might have to live in it?
People like stuff as having food every day, not being afraid of dying, all that stuff. Only a smooth society with provide that.
And no, genocide can mean you are the one being killed, so people clearly don't want that danger looming over their head.

This actually needs to be explained? I can see how a Bible might be of value to you.

rumborak

Having food every day, not dying or "all that stuff" do not serve as reasons for why such a society would be a moral improvement over the other. Inconveniences to the people living in such a society? Sure. Moral improvements in a worldview void of moral truths? No.

Addressing the Bible comment would only be a waste of my time.

[rumborak]

Having food every day, not dying or "all that stuff" do not serve as reasons for why such a society would be a moral improvement over the other.

Not to you? I think we get it.
To me it does.

What you completely ignore in your rant against our worldview is, we atheists live in a happy, stable and moral world. You personally seem to live in that world constantly at the edge of moral decay, where only your Bible is keeping you from falling off that edge.
It strikes me as weird that you're trying to argue your world is superior to ours.

rumborak

[ehra]

"You agree to not kill anyone else and everyone else will agree to not kill you. If you break this agreement, we will imprison/kill you."

There's your reason. It's a lot easier for humans to live in a group than alone. It's even easier to live in a group if everyone abides by an agreed upon set of rules. Even if there were no such thing as "objective morality," there's still a completely pragmatic reason to follow those rules.

See, it would be more accurate to say "If you break this argreement and you are caught, we will imprison / kill you."

So anything is permissible unless you are actually caught.
Besides, the "agreement" that would be agreed upon would nevertheless be entirely subjective and arbitrary.

Yes, no duh. The thing is, you can't magically know no one will ever catch you. Someone else could just as well say to you "what if you could kill someone. no one else would know, and God would be all 'I'm alright with this'?" There's no point in arguing about things that will never happen.

And, yes, the agreement is subjective. That's the entire point of this conversation; that society would or wouldn't delve into chaos if there were no such thing as "objective morals." I'm arguing that morality is subjective, of course my example of how subjective morality "works" is based on something that's subjective. You complain that atheists apparently "contradict" themselves by claiming it's all subjective while supposedly claiming their morals are objectively superior, but then twice now in this thread your issue with an argument for subjective morality has been "but that's subjective." What else would it be?

[Omega]

Having food every day, not dying or "all that stuff" do not serve as reasons for why such a society would be a moral improvement over the other.

Not to you? I think we get it.
To me it does.

What you completely ignore in your rant against our worldview is, we atheists live in a happy, stable and moral world. You personally seem to live in that world constantly at the edge of moral decay, where only your Bible is keeping you from falling off that edge.
It strikes me as weird that you're trying to argue your world is superior to ours.

rumborak

I do not claim to derive my moral landscape from the Bible. If I were so inclined to, I guess I'd have to beat homosexuals and debt evaders to death. I don't. And atheists living happy has nothing to bear with the issue here.

See I am merely asserting that it is quite clear that morals are objective. Child molestation, for example, is objectively wrong. I'm sure you'd agree with me saying that the Inquisition, the Crusades and bishops molesting children were and are all objectively wrong actions. If you assert moral subjectivism, then you have no grounds to claim that any of these actions are truly wrong. Everyone here desperately seeks to assert that the existence of objective moral values, yet in a vain attempt to deny the existence of a God you either

1.) Posit that objective morals simply exist with no foundation (Moral Platonism)

or

2.) Posit that morals are completely subjective and then go on to either make claims on how a certain action (say slavery) is objectively wrong or live according to an objective set of moral values and duties that they themselves intuitively recognize yet deny them in order to cling to atheism.

[Chino]

Omega, im not tareting or baiting, I think a response to these questions might help me better understand where youve been coming from. I'm curious as to how you categorize humans beings and their origin. Do you believe that god created us as well as everything else in nature as separate entities? Do you believe in the 6 day reation? Did everything in nature first take its course, and then have humans thrown into the mix by god? Or, do you believe humans are just as much a species as everything else in nature that underwent the exact same processes, which could have been by god's guiding hand from the beginning?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When I look at human being's decisions and actions, I can't help but think they are to a large degree embedded in our instincts. They seems really complicated, but that's because our brains can think about their thoughts to an insane degree. Throughout nature, you see social structure and certain behaviors that are distinct to each species. However, one common trend throughout the animal kingdom is the grouping of like species, and survival in numbers. Even in carrying intelligence levels, we see the same pattern repeated time and time again. African cats, elephants, primates, whales, turtles, alligators, wild dogs, birds, the list could go on and on. It's not hard to imagine that something as smart as a whale or an elephant could reason that if it attacked a like member, it would be retaliatted against. But birds probably wouldn't even care to notice. I look out my window every morning and see dozens of robins. If one day one of them decided to peck another one to death, I'd be willing to bet the rest of the robins would just keep gathering worms. What drives this consitent, non hostile, adventageous behavior? It certainly cant be absolute moral, they're birds. What this says to me, based on what we see throughout nature, things that we may consider to be moral actions or society driven agreements, may actually just be highly evolved instinctive behaviors. In nature you occasionally see back lash or unexpected behaviors, and we see this in humans as well.

[rumborak]

Child molestation, for example, is objectively wrong.

Is it objective, really? Was Joseph a child molester when he had intercourse with the (most likely) 12-13 year old Mary?

Moral standards change. I would argue that 50% of the stuff you view these days as permissible would have been decried as cause for death sentence by people 500 years ago.

rumborak

[Omega]

Child molestation, for example, is objectively wrong.

Is it objective, really? Was Joseph a child molester when he had intercourse with (most likely) 12-13 year old Mary?

rumborak

This is the same type of reasoning when someone says: "Well not all murder is unjustified. Like imagine if you had to kill someone in self-defense!" That's not really a pre-meditated, malicious taking of a human life - murder - then, is it? It's an unfortunate killing to save or protect yourself.

Let us not remember the time context in which Mary and Joseph existed. In their time, marriage at such a young age was rather commonplace. And all details indicate that Mary consented.

How discussing the age of consent and legally recognized marriage of a civilization that existed 2000 years ago is relevant to the topic we are discussing eludes me, though.

Yet I also note that you didn't disagree that the Crusades, etc, were objectively morally wrong acts.

[rumborak]

How discussing XYZ  is relevant to the topic we are discussing eludes me, though.

You are talking about a supposedly objective moral standard of yours, I'm pointing out it is not. Marriage age is a societal standard agreed upon. Everything under it is child molestation, and thus dependent on the arbitrary line of what constitutes a child.

rumborak

[Omega]

Omega, im not tareting or baiting, I think a response to these questions might help me better understand where youve been coming from. I'm curious as to how you categorize humans beings and their origin. Do you believe that god created us as well as everything else in nature as separate entities? Do you believe in the 6 day reation? Did everything in nature first take its course, and then have humans thrown into the mix by god? Or, do you believe humans are just as much a species as everything else in nature that underwent the exact same processes, which could have been by god's guiding hand from the beginning?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Do you believe that god created us as well as everything else in nature as separate entities?"

or

"6 day reation?"

Yet I agree with this: "Humans are just as much a species as everything else in nature that underwent the exact same processes, which could have been by god's guiding hand from the beginning."

When I look at human being's decisions and actions, I can't help but think they are to a large degree embedded in our instincts. They seems really complicated, but that's because our brains can think about their thoughts to an insane degree. Throughout nature, you see social structure and certain behaviors that are distinct to each species. However, one common trend throughout the animal kingdom is the grouping of like species, and survival in numbers. Even in carrying intelligence levels, we see the same pattern repeated time and time again. African cats, elephants, primates, whales, turtles, alligators, wild dogs, birds, the list could go on and on. It's not hard to imagine that something as smart as a whale or an elephant could reason that if it attacked a like member, it would be retaliatted against. But birds probably wouldn't even care to notice. I look out my window every morning and see dozens of robins. If one day one of them decided to peck another one to death, I'd be willing to bet the rest of the robins would just keep gathering worms. What drives this consitent, non hostile, adventageous behavior? It certainly cant be absolute moral, they're birds. What this says to me, based on what we see throughout nature, things that we may consider to be moral actions or society driven agreements, may actually just be highly evolved instinctive behaviors. In nature you occasionally see back lash or unexpected behaviors, and we see this in humans as well.

Are an animal's actions ever considered to have a moral dimension? When a lion kills a zebra, is the lion "murdering" a zebra? When a cat kills an animal for mere pleasure, is the cat sadistic? When a male shark forcefully impregnates a female shark, is the male shark raping the female shark?

In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.

[Omega]

How discussing XYZ  is relevant to the topic we are discussing eludes me, though.

You are talking about a supposedly objective moral standard of yours, I'm pointing out it is not. Marriage age is a societal standard agreed upon. Everything under it is child molestation, and thus dependent on the arbitrary line of what constitutes a child.

rumborak

  at the image. There's that characteristic wit I like.

Discussing XYZ that are completely irrelevant to the topic

 



But say the marriage age is 16 in the society I live in and I, with consent, marry and impregnate a 15 year old (not something I would ever do). Does that mean that I am an immoral person? If there is a law that states that discriminating against Jews is permissible and I refuse to, does that make me an immoral agent?

Political laws have no obligation to uphold any moral truths.

[Adami]

once again this thread is approaching the line.

am I missing something, or is there irony in the fact that we are each calling the other wrong in a discussion that there is no absolutes?

Yesh, you know I love you like a sister, and I'm not questioning your mod abilities.....but isn't there a point where constantly telling us to get the convo back on track (I think this is the 3rd time for this argument, at least) is futile? I say grab your dick, and smack us in the face with it.

[yeshaberto]

 

I will consider your advice next time

[hefdaddy42]

I don't see what any of this bullshit that Omega is rambling on about has anything to do with the thread topic.

Drop it, or start your own thread about that.  Anyone else that wants to discuss this crap with him, do it in that thread.

I mean it.

[orcus116]

To be fair we did have a thread on morality that got closed pretty quickly.