Morality, Religion and Atheism

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Grobie

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

That's the point - outside of religion, which establishes the value system (among other things), any relativism eviscerates morality as a concept.

A person without essentially religious beliefs cannot introduce the concept of morality and cannot justify a system of behavioral restraints because someone else can use similar relativism to introduce a completely contradictory value system. If relativism can be used to escape religious constraints, it can be used to escape any other constraints, whether we call them "moral norms" or something equally fancy.

It's akin to saying that anarchy is a system of very strict laws, but where every person creates his own law. Not something that I would try to frame as a law-based society. Laws are to anarchy what morality is to atheism, or so it seems.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Grobie

Society as whole, regardless of religious views or lack thereof, has at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist.

And this would be the source of the today's cultural divide in the USA.

A group of dancers, prancers, jesters, announcers and politicians trying to control "society as a whole" or trying to define some new, non-Christian arbitrary "set of guidelines" that they want to force on the rest of the society.

The meltdown we've seen during Trump years, the TDS, is likely because they had a perception of losing this control to enforce their "values" and "views," a control they really never had. The first amendment is there to protect everyone from these types of people, even if they don't realize they are trying to control the society.

We also see this attempt at control through a small group of people trying to redefine the language. In the online world, if a reputable source chooses to change the definition of a word, it seems to appear to lend the new definition some special authority. In reality, just because someone changed the definition in the free dictionary or thesaurus, it doesn't mean anything for the rest of us. The words such as "marriage" or "gender" come to mind - just because some online sources want to hijack those words, doesn't mean they have the capability.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

Something to consider: is human morality derived top-down (moral codes given by a divine or other structure & then we adopt them)? Or bottom-up (naturally part of our social nature & only spelled out by religion)?

Either way it requires some authority that is NOT either "science" or "nature," which seems to rule out atheists as being able to use the concept without violating their own tenets.

[Barang]

Godly based morality is fixed in the hearts of christians around the world. but faithless morality varies in different countries due to customs and traditions.

[Gundiver]

Some sick fugggs believed in something enough to build a child sacrifice temple on Epstein island. I’d say if THEY have a God you damn Better have one too.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Then we get into the concept of right and wrong. This is a human construct because ultimately what is right and wrong is dictated by the society in which a person exists.

What if we live in the same society, say US, but we disagree on this human construct? Who wins? And, more importantly, if we cannot define a homogenous society that agrees on values, can a concept of morality even exist? If everyone does what they like, a hedonism approach, what's the place for "good" or "bad" if one can simply say "what you see as bad I see as good?"

Since inception the US was based on Judeo-Christian values and morality. Then, a segment of society used "moral relativism" to evade the religious moral constraints and used the first amendment to enforce their choice. As this segment grew, they realized that it would be very convenient to be able to declare their "moral relativism" as "the morality" and enforce it on other people. Now, they don't even understand that when Christians are fighting for their rights under protection of the first amendment, they are actually fighting against being forcefully converted.

For example, look at the word "marriage." It's just a word. It has been hijacked by part of the society to mean something that it doesn't. At least not to a huge segment of the population. Why not simply acknowledge that the word means different things to different groups of people? Why try to force a "new and improved" (sarcasm) meaning on everyone, as if the group who redefined the word has the authority to define the language? More specifically, why is it a problem if a group of people think that homosexuality is a sin and another group thinks it's a virtue? And it clearly IS a problem because anyone who dares to violate "the new moral norms" is viciously attacked, not unlike heretics of the past.

[bugsy714]

I would post to all of you that societies like everything else on this planet adapt and change over time. Nothing stays fixed and societies adapt to the environment in which they operate.

In the universe there is but one constant and that is change



With regard to those lamenting the acceptance of homosexuality and the degradation of their religious position I would posed to you that you are experiencing the same thing these people have been forced to experience for centuries. The way you feel is the way that they felt forced to live their life’s in a manner that did not feel right to them under laws and practices imposed by people who did not feel the way that they felt

It’s an interesting perspective to feel as if you have been wrong by being forced to live in a society that does not except your feelings and beliefs. Some thing that homosexual persons can definitely relate to but no longer have to live with

[bugsy714]

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by Gundiver

Some sick fugggs believed in something enough to build a child sacrifice temple on Epstein island. I’d say if THEY have a God you damn Better have one too.

See above


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

With regard to those lamenting the acceptance of homosexuality and the degradation of their religious position I would posed to you that you are experiencing the same thing these people have been forced to experience for centuries. The way you feel is the way that they felt forced to live their life’s in a manner that did not feel right to them under laws and practices imposed by people who did not feel the way that they felt

Not lamenting anyone's acceptance, merely pointing out that different groups of people can disagree about what is and isn't moral, so the dominant group cannot force their view of morality on the minority.

What you're doing is condoning the version of reverse-discrimination, which is actually the point I'm making. It's a fundamentalist approach towards the people who are different, where you justify the persecution by simply saying that they are a minority. And "the different" in this case are the religious people who don't accept your version of neo-morality.

I don't think you thought this one through...

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

I don't think anyone with moral compass has ever said that this was virtuous or that it wasn't a sin. People doing people things is sort of the idea behind having a moral compass so that the society can tell when something is going astray.

Having a moral compass doesn't mean going in the direction of the needle at all times. It just means there is a direction to which the needle points so one can know the direction in which a road leads, whether he decides to take that road or not.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

1. Priest sexual abuse is ghastly.

2. On your view, there is nothing actually wrong with child sexual abuse. You only believe it is wrong based on the fact that it disrupts social harmony. And if society decided that there was nothing wrong with sex abuse, then, on your view, it would become right.

3. Implicating Christianity for the gross misconduct of some priests, when sexual perversion is explicitly forbidden by the Bible and church teaching, is at best an oversimplification and at worse a straw man. The foundation of Christian thought is predicated on moral failure, which is dealt with through the cross. The presence of hypocrisy is not a doctrinal failure, but a failure of character.

4. On the objectivist view, the moral code is what it is even if no one follows it. Again, hypocrisy does not nullify the code; 2+2 would still equal 4 even if everyone had the wrong answer. Unless mathematics is also socially constructed on your view.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gundiver]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

Congratulations you’ve won the argument and successfully defended Jeffery Epstein and every elite billionaire that ever abused a child while simultaneously hoarding everyone’s wealth.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Grobie

This applies to 1911Ronin too.
Both of you apparently misunderstand me. Refer to my earlier statement, "..society at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist." Society essentially dictates morality. Whether or not religion had any influence on it is irrelevant. But to answer your question, it is possible for someone to believe that killing me or or my family isn't wrong. Obviously, society has agreed that is morally wrong.(At least in the US and amongst our close allies) Now, if someone deemed it right and had intent to harm me or my family, I in turn will find it morally right to defend myself even at the cost of killing said person(s). Others may disagree and say the taking of a life under any circumstance is immoral.. so again I say, subjective. And I repeat religion and (good) morals ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

I do not know if you were misunderstood but I think we are on the same page. As Samuel L. Jackson said in Rules of Engagement, WTMFs. It is irrelevant to me whether my conduct is deemed moral or not by others.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by Gundiver

Congratulations you’ve won the argument and successfully defended Jeffery Epstein and every elite billionaire that ever abused a child while simultaneously hoarding everyone’s wealth.

It’s all indefensible the point being that none of this is exclusive to one group as morality is also not exclusive to one group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

I don't think anyone with moral compass has ever said that this was virtuous or that it wasn't a sin. People doing people things is sort of the idea behind having a moral compass so that the society can tell when something is going astray.

Having a moral compass doesn't mean going in the direction of the needle at all times. It just means there is a direction to which the needle points so one can know the direction in which a road leads, whether he decides to take that road or not.

Agreed and I think it’s pretty much universally understood by humans that abusing children sexually is not to the benefit of society.

We have instinctual tendencies to protect not only our own offspring but the offspring of fellow humans


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

did you know there is another religion with much more abuse that you probably have not heard about?

all religion is flawed because all men are flawed.

[CAL.BAR]

Originally Posted by sonofeugene

I, too, do not believe in god. But you would find me a very moral person. Religion is not necessary.

Nailed it! The question for the OP is why do YOU have to be TOLD by someone else what YOUR morals (and behavior) should be? Especially when those "morals" come from such an ancient and apocryphal source.

Read, study, live and experience and figure our for YOURSELF what is right and what is wrong and how to live a just and moral life without creating an unprovable story about devine beings etc.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

1. Priest sexual abuse is ghastly.

2. On your view, there is nothing actually wrong with child sexual abuse. You only believe it is wrong based on the fact that it disrupts social harmony. And if society decided that there was nothing wrong with sex abuse, then, on your view, it would become right.

3. Implicating Christianity for the gross misconduct of some priests, when sexual perversion is explicitly forbidden by the Bible and church teaching, is at best an oversimplification and at worse a straw man. The foundation of Christian thought is predicated on moral failure, which is dealt with through the cross. The presence of hypocrisy is not a doctrinal failure, but a failure of character.

4. On the objectivist view, the moral code is what it is even if no one follows it. Again, hypocrisy does not nullify the code; 2+2 would still equal 4 even if everyone had the wrong answer. Unless mathematics is also socially constructed on your view.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1 we agree completely on this it’s wrong on so many levels from the priest doing it to the management covering it up.

2 this is a matter of perspective. We are both people that were brought up with certain beliefs with regard to human rights. If we were raised in a society in which this was normalized we would not be encumbered by the same beliefs and in that sense we would not have a sense that itis abhorrent behavior. To that point it’s almost impossible to separate what is wrong from what we have been raised believing is normal it’s all a matter of perspective

3 yep hypocrisy and an interesting game of the Emperor wears no clothes


4 your sense of morality is dictated by how you were raised what society you grew up in etc. but ideas you have been exposed to all that jazz. In that sense there is no absolute there is only the perception of what is and is not acceptable as viewed through the lens that you have

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

Not lamenting anyone's acceptance, merely pointing out that different groups of people can disagree about what is and isn't moral, so the dominant group cannot force their view of morality on the minority.

What you're doing is condoning the version of reverse-discrimination, which is actually the point I'm making. It's a fundamentalist approach towards the people who are different, where you justify the persecution by simply saying that they are a minority. And "the different" in this case are the religious people who don't accept your version of neo-morality.

I don't think you thought this one through...

Maybe I misunderstood you on that other post my friend :-) I’m having a good time here by the way I like that this hasn’t evolved to throwing poop and calling each others faces :-)

I just thought it was a bit ironic that yes the persecuted group has now become the empowered group and the group that is currently being persecuted or feeling persecuted or under mind it’s getting a little taste of their own medicine

Society is changing normal is changing it’s in the nature of those who are conservative leaning to want to keep things the same as change can’t he’s scary and the unknown makes them uncomfortable

Then the other group of people embrace the unknown and welcome it in as perhaps the change will be better than what they currently have

My brother who is way smarter than me had a thesis on this but if you look at a group of humans as a whole their decision making process and actions are almost in discernible from the individual members.

If we look at humanity as a whole and understand that we are most likely to send it from primates he liked to use the analogy that the conservatives among us are closely tied to the part of the brain that grasps at a known good branch while the liberals amongst us are most closely minded with the part of the primate that swings forward feeling for the next new branch. In that sense we are both part of the same bigger organism and are all acting in its best interest whether we land on the conservative or a liberal side of that equation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by CAL.BAR

Nailed it! The question for the OP is why do YOU have to be TOLD by someone else what YOUR morals (and behavior) should be? Especially when those "morals" come from such an ancient and apocryphal source.

Read, study, live and experience and figure our for YOURSELF what is right and what is wrong and how to live a just and moral life without creating an unprovable story about devine beings etc.

you might actually believe you came up with it all by yourself, but you will never know for sure because you were raised by people that were raised in a culture founded on judeo-christian beliefs, along with their parents and so on (or some other religion). we know for a fact that when you remove accountability, humans are capable of great evil. this accountability that religion implies, is what has saved us from self extermination a long time ago.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by theLBC

you might actually believe you came up with it all by yourself, but you will never know for sure because you were raised by people that were raised in a culture founded on judeo-christian beliefs, along with their parents and so on (or some other religion). we know for a fact that when you remove accountability, humans are capable of great evil. this accountability that religion implies, is what has saved us from self extermination a long time ago.

Organisms tend to make decisions that lead to self sustaining and breeding. The ones that don’t are no longer with us no religion necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

I’ve got one for you guys

There was a time in this society when slavery was acceptable normalized and not a sin or in moral

It was condoned by the church and the government

Do we as modern humans feel that this was a moral or wrong based on our societal norms?

Did the people doing it feel as if they were immoral or wrong for doing it when societal norms were different?

Both of them follow the same Judeo Christian values and biblical teachings so this negates the hypocrisy angle

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's the point - outside of religion, which establishes the value system (among other things), any relativism eviscerates morality as a concept.

What? You can define the concept of morality any way you choose. Discussion only requires you to set forth your definition so all are on the same page.

A person without essentially religious beliefs cannot introduce the concept of morality and cannot justify a system of behavioral restraints because someone else can use similar relativism to introduce a completely contradictory value system.

Of course they can but so what? How does the lack of religious beliefs preclude others from proposing or justifying a system of behavioral restraints or preclude or curtail meaningful discussion on their merits?

If relativism can be used to escape religious constraints, it can be used to escape any other constraints, whether we call them "moral norms" or something equally fancy.

What religious constraints? For atheist there are no religious constraints so this is simply meaningless nonsense. Furthermore, this in no way establishes that atheist do not observe some behavioral constraints, despite the fact that it appears that you do not want to call them moral constraints.

It's akin to saying that anarchy is a system of very strict laws, but where every person creates his own law. Not something that I would try to frame as a law-based society.

While I suppose that it could be framed that way, it is generally accepted that anarchy is a system without laws.

Laws are to anarchy what morality is to atheism, or so it seems.

While I agree that anarchy is, by definition, contrary to a law-based society, how does this support or confirm your claim that atheism is contrary to morality? Morality is only contrary to atheism if you expressly define morality that way and, if so, discussion and debate are a frivolous and total waste of time.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I’ve got one for you guys

There was a time in this society when slavery was acceptable normalized and not a sin or in moral

It was condoned by the church and the government

Do we as modern humans feel that this was a moral or wrong based on our societal norms?

Did the people doing it feel as if they were immoral or wrong for doing it when societal norms were different?

Both of them follow the same Judeo Christian values and biblical teachings so this negates the hypocrisy angle

A common thread in your responses is the confusing of ontology with epistemology.

Example: at one point, many believed in a geo-centric view of the cosmos. Via the work of Copernicus, that theory was shown to be false. Now, was the statement "earth is the center of the solar system" ever true? If we applied the concepts of your moral view here, the answer would be yes, because that is what they believed at the time. It is a matter of perspective. And it would be of further interest to know if you believe all truth to be a matter of perspective, which I find self-referentially incoherent.

On my view, the answer to the above is no, because the proposition "earth is the center of the solar system" does not correspond to reality. It never did. People may have believed it was true, when in fact it was false. They did not know it at the time.

Similarly, an invisible moral order (IMO) may exist and we can fail to know it to some degree, thus the reason why there are some differences across time and cultures. Additionally, the fact that we acquire all of our moral knowledge through experience and social conditioning fails to negate the possibility that there is such a moral order. There is no logical contradiction in holding to both ideas. And to press the point further, there is no such thing as moral knowledge or progress if there isn't in some sense a set of norms that can be known.

To answer your question, what the Christians at the time of slavery believed and felt is irrelevant to our present line of inquiry. It is perfectly plausible that they were out of step with the IMO even if they thought they were. And it is perfectly plausible that we are, at this moment, also out of step with such and order, but this does nothing to negate the possibility that such an order exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

A common thread in your responses is the confusing of ontology with epistemology.

Example: at one point, many believed in a geo-centric view of the cosmos. Via the work of Copernicus, that theory was shown to be false. Now, was the statement "earth is the center of the solar system" ever true? If we applied the concepts of your moral view here, the answer would be yes, because that is what they believed at the time. It is a matter of perspective. And it would be of further interest to know if you believe all truth to be a matter of perspective, which I find self-referentially incoherent.

On my view, the answer to the above is no, because the proposition "earth is the center of the solar system" does not correspond to reality. It never did. People may have believed it was true, when in fact it was false. They did not know it at the time.

Similarly, an invisible moral order (IMO) may exist and we can fail to know it to some degree, thus the reason why there are some differences across time and cultures. Additionally, the fact that we acquire all of our moral knowledge through experience and social conditioning fails to negate the possibility that there is such a moral order. There is no logical contradiction in holding to both ideas. And to press the point further, there is no such thing as moral knowledge or progress if there isn't in some sense a set of norms that can be known.

To answer your question, what the Christians at the time of slavery believed and felt is irrelevant to our present line of inquiry. It is perfectly plausible that they were out of step with the IMO even if they thought they were. And it is perfectly plausible that we are, at this moment, also out of step with such and order, but this does nothing to negate the possibility that such an order exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You cannot compare something subjective like morality to something objective like science or math. You’ve done that a few times now

We can test to know objectively where the earth lies within our own solar system. The testing has improved with our access to technology to a degree of certainty

There is no such testing for something subjectiveSuch as morality. If we were to discover other cultures on other planets who shared that morality then you might have more of an objective case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

You cannot compare something subjective like morality to something objective like science or math. You’ve done that a few times now

We can test to know objectively where the earth lies within our own solar system. The testing has improved with our access to technology to a degree of certainty

There is no such testing for something subjectiveSuch as morality. If we were to discover other cultures on other planets who shared that morality then you might have more of an objective case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This misses the points and deflects from your proffered case. I’m illustrating a basic philosophical distinction. You assume that moral differences across time and culture necessitate that there is no invisible moral order. This is false as I have shown above. So, arguments for a subjective moral order are unsuccessful. I was not making a positive case for my own position.

I would also add that, while there is no definitive argument for either view, your view flies in the face several aspects of common sense moral experience.

1. As part of our moral experience, we know that some things are in fact wrong. “Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong” is either a basic moral truth or a matter of perspective. Only one of these comports with common sense.

2. We have moral disagreements and they are meaningful. On your view, moral disagreement is impossible.

3. Moral reformers are important and progress can be made. On your view both are useful social fictions. MLK jr. appealed to an IMO to call forth our better selves, not the values of his time.

4. Moral disagreements should not be settled via power. On your view, because reasoning about morality is impossible, a Nietzschean will to power becomes a legitimate method, which is perfectly consistent with your anthropological claims to this point.

My view has none of the above problems. Additionally:

5. Your commitment to philosophical naturalism creates a number of problems in the realm of ethics, epistemology, consciousness as well as mathematics (Naturalism cannot explain why mathematics, an acultural discipline, applies so readily and accurately to the world. Mathematical concepts are created, not discovered, on your account, which beggars credulity).

While you may thing that theism is either laughable or implausible, there are serious problems in your own view that need attention.

Thank you for your time, interest and energy. I’ll let you have the last word.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DB>]

There seems to be much confusion about the difference between OBJECTIVE/absolute and SUBJECTIVE/relativist world views. I see it as the "front lines" in a spiritual war... so I'll add my thoughts to an "interesting" discussion about "interesting times".

We are living in the chaos of relativist "my truth", having abandoned the idea that there are immutable truths as being too uncomfortable and inconvenient. Those who cried "you're judging me" are now the judges (and executioners)... ain't it grand?

It's easier to say "there is no god", as that leaves any accountability for one's opinions and feelings on an infinitely movable scale.

IF one accepts that there is a "higher power" (in a Judeo-Christian context) that is absolutley GOOD, and that ALL men are "sinful" in the context of good and evil, it becomes uncomfortable. The relativists have discovered how easy it is to accuse others of "sin", yet they themselves are as dirty as those they accuse... and thus we have quite the mess. "Holiier than thou" or "cancel culture", just differing expressions of the same judgemental morass.


If one takes the Biblical view (however "apocryphal" you may regard it), GOD created a "good" world. The knowledge of good and evil was introduced, and we've been sinning every which a way since... When you KNOW about something, it's TEMPTING!

The 10 Commandments (or some variation thereof) have long been accepted as part of an orderly "society", lest people "doing unto others", whether in the quest for supremacy, or revenge, or whatever... burn everything to ashes. Still there has been conflict, strife, mischief, and mayhem in humans... nothing really all that new today, we just have social media to spread it around faster!

Whatever one may think about Jesus, he narrowed it down to "Love God...., and love your neighbor as yourself" - This was sufficiently unpopular with the authorities that He was killed. It broke the control/fear model most if not all "religion" is based upon.

The first concept, that one could have a relational connection with a GOOD GOD, who actually cares aobout fallen/broken humanity, rather than a capricious "god" is foundational to the idea that there is an absolute morality. The second idea that one should strive to treat others as you would want to be treated shouldn't have been so hard, but if everyone is "doing what seems right to them", it's practically impossible. There is a requirement that there is an objective standard of good/evil, right/wrong, moral/immoral. When one is faced with that, one quickly will struggle with the sad realization of how often they are on the "wrong side" of the equation despite their best efforts and intentions. Our "goodness" ain't so good, being that we are human. Yet within each of us is "hard wired" a "sense" of what is right and true and good.

We can switch the line of thought to the idea/concept of forgiveness and grace if the above makes you uncomfortable. Whatever your "beliefs".... we're all '"sinners" here, right?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Agreed and I think it’s pretty much universally understood by humans that abusing children sexually is not to the benefit of society.

Are you implying that if a group of people decided it was to the benefit of the society, and you were a minority around that group, that you would simply join the majority in considering it acceptable?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Society is changing normal is changing it’s in the nature of those who are conservative leaning to want to keep things the same as change can’t he’s scary and the unknown makes them uncomfortable

If different sub-groups of the society are changing in different directions and each one considers what they do "normal," which one group wins the ideological war AND gets the right to FORCE the rest of the groups to conform?

Isn't this precisely what first amendment protects against, i.e., a majority (or most vocal) group declaring what "normal" or "moral" is, then *forcing* it on the rest of the society under pretext of "progress?"

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

Are you implying that if a group of people decided it was to the benefit of the society, and you were a minority around that group, that you would simply join the majority in considering it acceptable?

Are you implying that everybody in a society must be 100% on board with everything that happens?

If you take the example of slavery above I am sure there are plenty of decent people who understood this was just flat out wrong but we’re outnumbered by the masses and driven to silence by social pressures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

1/2 the country likes to kill babies.

the idea that humans have some inherent moral traits is laughable.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

If different sub-groups of the society are changing in different directions and each one considers what they do "normal," which one group wins the ideological war AND gets the right to FORCE the rest of the groups to conform?

Isn't this precisely what first amendment protects against, i.e., a majority (or most vocal) group declaring what "normal" or "moral" is, then *forcing* it on the rest of the society under pretext of "progress?"

If we use the example of slavery again as the most extreme example of two ideological views that this country has faced. Well you saw how that was resolved

If the issue can be managed through the democratic process then I suppose the will of the masses will prevail

Please use the example of the pilgrims once there was a large enough segment of the population to form its own satellite population that’s how the issue was addressed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by theLBC

1/2 the country likes to kill babies.

the idea that humans have some inherent moral traits is laughable.

Or perhaps their definition of a baby varies from the other half’s. It’s a baby a baby ones that can exist outside of the mother on its own? Or is it a baby as soon as that conglomeration of cells has been initiated? Not everyone thinks the same way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

This misses the points and deflects from your proffered case. I’m illustrating a basic philosophical distinction. You assume that moral differences across time and culture necessitate that there is no invisible moral order. This is false as I have shown above. So, arguments for a subjective moral order are unsuccessful. I was not making a positive case for my own position.

I would also add that, while there is no definitive argument for either view, your view flies in the face several aspects of common sense moral experience.

1. As part of our moral experience, we know that some things are in fact wrong. “Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong” is either a basic moral truth or a matter of perspective. Only one of these comports with common sense.

2. We have moral disagreements and they are meaningful. On your view, moral disagreement is impossible.

3. Moral reformers are important and progress can be made. On your view both are useful social fictions. MLK jr. appealed to an IMO to call forth our better selves, not the values of his time.

4. Moral disagreements should not be settled via power. On your view, because reasoning about morality is impossible, a Nietzschean will to power becomes a legitimate method, which is perfectly consistent with your anthropological claims to this point.

My view has none of the above problems. Additionally:

5. Your commitment to philosophical naturalism creates a number of problems in the realm of ethics, epistemology, consciousness as well as mathematics (Naturalism cannot explain why mathematics, an acultural discipline, applies so readily and accurately to the world. Mathematical concepts are created, not discovered, on your account, which beggars credulity).

While you may thing that theism is either laughable or implausible, there are serious problems in your own view that need attention.

Thank you for your time, interest and energy. I’ll let you have the last word.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think what you’re trying to do here is put words in my mouth

No I cannot prove empirically that there is no invisible order just like you cannot prove empirically that there is one

If more evidence comes to light then we can revisit the issue but until then it’s a moot Point or an opinion or a theory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by DB>

There seems to be much confusion about the difference between OBJECTIVE/absolute and SUBJECTIVE/relativist world views. I see it as the "front lines" in a spiritual war... so I'll add my thoughts to an "interesting" discussion about "interesting times".

We are living in the chaos of relativist "my truth", having abandoned the idea that there are immutable truths as being too uncomfortable and inconvenient. Those who cried "you're judging me" are now the judges (and executioners)... ain't it grand?

It's easier to say "there is no god", as that leaves any accountability for one's opinions and feelings on an infinitely movable scale.

IF one accepts that there is a "higher power" (in a Judeo-Christian context) that is absolutley GOOD, and that ALL men are "sinful" in the context of good and evil, it becomes uncomfortable. The relativists have discovered how easy it is to accuse others of "sin", yet they themselves are as dirty as those they accuse... and thus we have quite the mess. "Holiier than thou" or "cancel culture", just differing expressions of the same judgemental morass.


If one takes the Biblical view (however "apocryphal" you may regard it), GOD created a "good" world. The knowledge of good and evil was introduced, and we've been sinning every which a way since... When you KNOW about something, it's TEMPTING!

The 10 Commandments (or some variation thereof) have long been accepted as part of an orderly "society", lest people "doing unto others", whether in the quest for supremacy, or revenge, or whatever... burn everything to ashes. Still there has been conflict, strife, mischief, and mayhem in humans... nothing really all that new today, we just have social media to spread it around faster!

Whatever one may think about Jesus, he narrowed it down to "Love God...., and love your neighbor as yourself" - This was sufficiently unpopular with the authorities that He was killed. It broke the control/fear model most if not all "religion" is based upon.

The first concept, that one could have a relational connection with a GOOD GOD, who actually cares aobout fallen/broken humanity, rather than a capricious "god" is foundational to the idea that there is an absolute morality. The second idea that one should strive to treat others as you would want to be treated shouldn't have been so hard, but if everyone is "doing what seems right to them", it's practically impossible. There is a requirement that there is an objective standard of good/evil, right/wrong, moral/immoral. When one is faced with that, one quickly will struggle with the sad realization of how often they are on the "wrong side" of the equation despite their best efforts and intentions. Our "goodness" ain't so good, being that we are human. Yet within each of us is "hard wired" a "sense" of what is right and true and good.

We can switch the line of thought to the idea/concept of forgiveness and grace if the above makes you uncomfortable. Whatever your "beliefs".... we're all '"sinners" here, right?

Yes it is a bit like Coke and Pepsi. A re-branding of the same old BS just with a different group of people at the helm

Religion has been dominating the world for thousands of years now and I think people are ready to try some thing, anything different and see where it goes

So I guess the question is do you have faith in humanity to self govern or does it need an overseer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

What? You can define the concept of morality any way you choose. Discussion only requires you to set forth your definition so all are on the same page.

What if all are NOT on the same page? Who decides on whose version prevails?

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Of course they can but so what? How does the lack of religious beliefs preclude others from proposing or justifying a system of behavioral restraints or preclude or curtail meaningful discussion on their merits?

Because virtually none would admit two things: (1) If they came up with a set of rules on their own, it's completely arbitrary as seen by someone else, and (2) (IMPORTANT) these "new and improved" self-rules cannot be forced on others.

Specifically, no such "morality" can be used to force *others* into acceptance or compliance. For example, if someone thinks that "protecting the Earth" is a virtue and someone else doesn't, buys a bunch of jet fuel and burns it just for fun, there is no argument to be had whether this is good or bad. The same goes for destroying the rain forest or nature around San Francisco.

Originally Posted by BAJ475

What religious constraints? For atheist there are no religious constraints so this is simply meaningless nonsense. Furthermore, this in no way establishes that atheist do not observe some behavioral constraints, despite the fact that it appears that you do not want to call them moral constraints.

How does an atheist justify these constraints to someone else? A flying spaghetti monster told him those are the correct constraints?

It's not about having constraints, it's about determining what the authority for those constraints is. If it's just "I think so," then it's not much of a constraint. Worse, anyone else who says "I don't think so" and does what the first person thinks unthinkable, has the same valid argument of simply "well, these are my constraints and they are different."

Originally Posted by BAJ475

While I agree that anarchy is, by definition, contrary to a law-based society, how does this support or confirm your claim that atheism is contrary to morality? Morality is only contrary to atheism if you expressly define morality that way and, if so, discussion and debate are a frivolous and total waste of time.

If an atheist cannot define morality other than "I feel this way" then it's a stretch to call it "morality" simply because it's a set of (arbitrary) restraints. Again, if I believe that murder is moral if I don't get caught, or that having sex with little boys is moral if he didn't fight too hard, how would you object to my moral compass if I defend myself with "well, these are MY values?"

What is getting lost in this discussion is that we live at a time where the secular urban dwellers deeply and zealously believe they hold the moral high ground and they want to FORCE others to conform. It's no longer "we think it's okay to have homosexual relationship," but it's now "we think that everyone should think it's okay." Let's skip Christians and white males (the boogiemen) and look at, e.g., Muslims - if it comes to competing beliefs of "homosexuality is a virtue" and "homosexuality is a sin" which of the two groups do we proverbially burn, the gays or the Muslims? Or, do we allow the competing values to coexist and leave both groups alone, so they can live according to their religion and their values?

Remember, the modern left does NOT allow for difference of opinions and values and will want to burn one of the groups, usually the one that is less aligned with their pseudo-values.

[bugsy714]

What I see above is that there is no acknowledgment for natural constraints. If you burn down the trees that provide you the food that you need to survive then you will not survive. There is no morality involved in that in the classical sense that God told us not to do it but rather common sense that if we do it we can’t eat

I post to you that these are the motivations of humans when you removeThe concept of god


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Or perhaps their definition of a baby varies from the other half’s. It’s a baby a baby ones that can exist outside of the mother on its own? Or is it a baby as soon as that conglomeration of cells has been initiated? Not everyone thinks the same way

Why don't we just call it "a baby," which is a matter of semantics, and have you justify the other half. Why would it be bad to "kill a baby" if morality is relative and one can just say "I condone killing babies?" Why even the need to dehumanize before destroying? We don't have to do that in wars, we just kill, right?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

If you burn down the trees that provide you the food that you need to survive then you will not survive.

I've burned down some trees and I have survived. Actually, I ate well some grilled meat as the product of that burning, which was more important for my survival at the time.

You won't be able to insert science into discussion of morality because science has no morality of its own. I could equally well say that I won't survive anyways, or that I don't care whether I survive if I get my gratification in the moment. All valid positions if I am allowed to make them up arbitrarily.