Atheists delusional?

[abucs]

I think the loss of seeing Creation as coming from God is the beginning of seeing everything as subjective and also the beginning of insanity both on a personal and societal level.

If there is no objective standard or base to reality then reality itself becomes what you want to “make it” which is another way of describing insanity.

 

[rossum]

Try giving a $1 bill for a $100 debt and see how far that thinking takes you.

Objectively a $100 bill is a piece of paper with some ink applied to it. It has very little objective value. Subjectively, it may have a larger value to some people; the value of paper money is subjective and essentially arbitrary.

You might want to find a better example of non-subjective value.

rossum

 

[SuperLuigi]

Atheists it seems to me are capable of finding meaning and value and purpose to life on this earth without professing a faith by caring about their fellow man and woman, the poor, the sick and others Christ talked about.

As a lot of them think they are helping by pulling the lever for the big government and not doing much else?

Guess you’re right that they are ahead of Christians, though. A lot of them also fight for our freedoms while our fellow Christians (anyone you know?) try and subdue them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The more I see atheism in action, the more my Faith is confirmed.

Non-Catholics and those who don’t practice Catholicism just seem unhappy.

 

[pocaracas]

The more moral, the wiser and the more attuned to beauty a person becomes, the better they are able to discern the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

Very similar to how the more expert a person becomes in any area, the better – all things being equal – they can discern the objective truth of things.

So, are you saying that the world outside humanity is objective? Rocks are what they are; biology is what it is; we are what we are.

You example of the beauty in music still relies on the fact that music is a human invention. All the study of musical theory is man made, hence subjective… subjective to a society of musicians, not to an individual musician, but still subjective. We have different styles of music that cater to different tastes ’ from Classical to Metal, from Jazz to Pop, each with it’s own beauty.

As for morals, I see those reflected in the laws of a country, as the society’s rules. Certainly, some moral rules don’t become encoded into law, as there’s no perceived necessity. “Thou shall not kill”, as a particularly nasty example for society, does get encoded.

Thus far, at most, the only objective standard you’ve brought forward was the underlying physics of the world. With that, I agree.
Goodness can be universally agreed upon, but it doesn’t make it any less subjective.
Truthfulness is uncalled for, I think, as I think it pertains to the quality of a statement - true or false - in agreement with reality or not. Many statements can be made for which we have no way of discerning it’s truth quality. At best, one can accept them as true, on faith or trust towards the person making those statements… and we do this all the time. There are some issues, however, where it might be worthwhile to not just play along.

If there is no God and no after-life? … I want to die - asap.

Interesting take on it… why would you want to die?
I know I want to enjoy my life while it lasts and I hope it lasts for a long long time with minimal health related problems.

 

[abucs]

Objectively a $100 bill is a piece of paper with some ink applied to it. It has very little objective value. Subjectively, it may have a larger value to some people; the value of paper money is subjective and essentially arbitrary.

You might want to find a better example of non-subjective value.

rossum

The value of money is an accepted portion of the wealth of a country agreed to by the citizens who live within that country.

I value $100 the same as the shop keeper I give the bill to. Therefore it is wrong to say that value is ALWAYS subjective. The key word there is ‘ALWAYS’.

You may value it differently. That doesn’t mean the shop keeper and I don’t value it in the same way. It is wrong to say it is ALWAYS subjective.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS was the quote.

Currency is not supposed to be arbitrary. It is supposed to be a sub section of wealth of a country.

Although especially (but not confined to) Left wing politics tries really hard to ignore this, to our detriment. As reality always catches up to the subjective mindset such as in the deluded Venezuelan Left wing political socialist view about money and currency.

You can’t just wish value on such things and expect objective reality to follow along with you.

There is an objective value.

If there are only 100 $1 bills in a country then the $1 bill is its own numerical value divided by the total number of currency divided by the total wealth of the country. In this case 1% of the wealth of a country.

Now it is true that the government (especially Left wing governments) could say print another 100 $1 bills.

The value of the $1 bill is still its own numerical value divided by the total number of currency divided by the total wealth of a country. In this case it is 0.5% of the wealth of a country.

The value has changed but it is not subjective.

The problem with Left wing politics is that it tries very hard to break this objective rule and it always goes wrong because of it.

Which to bring the post back to the thread topic is the new Godless Left’s insanity of believing it can give subjective value to a country’s wealth and create a utopia by distributing it in accordance with politically correct tenets.

Reality, especially when it comes to finances has an objectiveness to it. The danger of imposing a subjective view on this in accordance with a compassion that is itself a manufactured morality of Left wing philosophy is incredibly dangerous.

And it is objectively wrong in that it futilely tries to wish away a reality which will always have the last laugh.

 

[rossum]

I value $100 the same as the shop keeper I give the bill to. Therefore it is wrong to say that value is ALWAYS subjective. The key word there is ‘ALWAYS’.

Try spending a $100 bill in a country that does not accept dollars. In the UK the vast majority of shops will not accept it, just as almost all US shopkeepers would not accept a £50 note.

The value is subjective because there is no objective value, beyond a piece of paper.

rossum

 

[abucs]

Try spending a $100 bill in a country that does not accept dollars. In the UK the vast majority of shops will not accept it, just as almost all US shopkeepers would not accept a £50 note.

The value is subjective because there is no objective value, beyond a piece of paper.

rossum

The UK shops understand that the US$100 bill has a value beyond that of paper and ink.

Which UK shopkeeper would not exchange a £1 ice block/pen/paper etc for a US $100 note?

It has objective value.

What encourages the shopkeeper not to exchange is the time taken to go down to the bank and receive it’s objective value. That inconvenience is factored into the decision whether or not to take the US$100 bill, not that the US$100 does not have an objective value.

In the above example of a £1 pen for a US$100 note the inconvenience is worth it to the shop keeper.

The original claim that the value is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS subjective is incorrect.

My previously explained response especially addressed this by referring to an example of a country that accepts such an agreed currency. (I myself am not American, nor do I live in America. The example holds true for any currency that is agreed upon).

When someone claims something is ALWAYS (times 5) a certain thing, I only need one example to the contrary to show the statement is incorrect.

 

[PickyPicky]

The value of money is an accepted portion of the wealth of a country agreed to by the citizens who live within that country.

Actually the value of money usually is what it will buy, which may vary from minute to minute and circumstance to circumstance, but it may also be relative to the needs of its holder. Not only do prices differ between outlets for the same goods, but they vary over time without there being any reformed agreement by citizens as to the proportion of the nation’s wealth (of which, incidentally, there is no agreed objective measure) the unit of currency represents. Moreover the value is not the same to the shopkeeper and the customer: if I am rich and the shopkeeper poor, the value is quite different. If I have an outstanding and pressing debt of 100 dollars, a hundred dollars takes on a very special value.

 

[abucs]

Yes I understand that but the currency has an objective value. The people give authority to certain bodies to regulate money supply and accept the rules on international trading which affect currency prices.

Two aspects of your response - The circumstances may vary because the objective reality that the currency is based on is underpinned by changing circumstances, but the currency does have objective value. For example money supply will determine value of currency. Money supply may vary which changes the face value of the currency but at any particular point in time the underlying value of a currency will have an objective value.

People may ‘value’ the currency differently but that doesn’t mean it has a subjective value. If the objective value is 1.00 and I pay 0.95 for it then I will benefit all things being equal because over time it’s objective value will be realised. Likewise if someone subjectively ‘valued’ the currency at 1.05 then over time they will lose because there is indeed an objective value. The more you move away from this objective value and overestimate its actual value, the more you will lose.

To the second aspect. There is the objective value of money and there is the valuing of money which I believe are two different things.

So in the example of $5 buying you a kilo of bananas in one store and $6 buying you a kilo of bananas in another store. So there is so much that could potentially be going on in such a situation. It may look like you are simply buying bananas but actually you are buying not just bananas but their packaging, their transport, their availability to the store owner, their position in the cycle of ripeness verse degeneration etc etc. This will be different between bananas themselves and between the different processes involved in selling them and the shopkeeper etc. The shopkeeper for example might have a ton of bananas out the back and so to avoid spoilage wants to sell as many bananas as possible and so drops the price. In affect you are getting a good deal because you are paying below the objective value of bananas because someone at the store over ordered bananas. But you are getting a good deal precisely because there is an objective value of bananas. The price displayed is not the objective value, it is the shop keeper trying to not lose as much as he would if he offered the objective price and still had half a tonne of bananas left at the end of the week.

cont. below.

 

[pocaracas]

Yes I understand that but the currency has an objective value.

Is it an objective value? Or a value that society agrees upon?
It may seem objective to an individual, but is that value independent of human beings?
How valuable will such money be after Trump presses his bigger button and obliterates all human life on Earth? How valuable will it be to the cockroaches? Even here, I’m giving you a subjective view - that of the cockroaches… I can’t fathom money with objective value… amazing!

 

[abucs]

Let me give an analogy. When I am four and sick in bed with the flu my mother may take care of me, feed me, love me, make allowance for me, sacrifice for me etc. That caring has objective value. Value to me; value to the family; and value to the society. Now like many 4 year olds I might not value it (subjectively) so highly. I might take it for granted a little bit because that’s what mums are supposed to do.

When I am 14 and that happens perhaps I am valuing it more. When I am 24 perhaps more still or perhaps I have my own family to take care of me and have fallen out with my mother and don’t want her bothering etc. (to my loss). There is the objective value of my mother’s caring and there is my realisation of that value which is subjective.

Likewise to a poor kid who ‘values’ lollies a certain way because he has one a week from his parents. A rich kid might have his parents own a lolly store and so he ‘values’ lollies differently. But I would argue one’s own circumstance and the relation to something like lollies (or a mother’s love) is separate from the value in of itself.

If you like, being spoiled doesn’t change the intrinsic value of something but changes your relationship to it.

Bottom line I guess is that there is a difference between the objective value of something and the subjective valuing of something.

It can sometimes be very difficult to know the objective worth of something and so therefore easier to just go along with what other’s subjectively value things at. People who can actually stand outside of that and value things truly, be that currency, houses, stocks or bananas have a great advantage and tend to be experts in their fields and make lots of wealth between others subjective valuing and the actual objective value which always reasserts itself at some stage.

 

[HarryStotle]

So, are you saying that the world outside humanity is objective? Rocks are what they are; biology is what it is; we are what we are.

You example of the beauty in music still relies on the fact that music is a human invention. All the study of musical theory is man made, hence subjective… subjective to a society of musicians, not to an individual musician, but still subjective. We have different styles of music that cater to different tastes ’ from Classical to Metal, from Jazz to Pop, each with it’s own beauty.

As for morals, I see those reflected in the laws of a country, as the society’s rules. Certainly, some moral rules don’t become encoded into law, as there’s no perceived necessity. “Thou shall not kill”, as a particularly nasty example for society, does get encoded.

Thus far, at most, the only objective standard you’ve brought forward was the underlying physics of the world. With that, I agree.
Goodness can be universally agreed upon, but it doesn’t make it any less subjective.
…

You are begging your own question by defining “objective” as that which is necessarily external to human experience. However, the theorems and laws which are used to describe physics and biology are not outside the human mind, they are formed by minds and applied to what is consistently observable.

By making only external, observable things the “reality” by which you determine objectivity, you necessarily rule out the possibility that abstract or “subjective” reality can be objective in any sense at all. By making only third party observable reality the only standard for “objectivity” you have created a question begging scenario.

“Objective” is only what is visible because only visible (to anyone) things can be reliably agreed upon. The point I made, however, is that visible things can be more easily agreed upon but that doesn’t mean that with better knowledge of invisible (spiritual or abstract, etc.,) those couldn’t also be consistently agreed upon.

High level theoretical physics or pure mathematical formulations are not grounded in any observable reality, by the way, and exist only subjectively in the minds of those capable of forming the conceptual strata to comprehend them. They are purely abstract and most people would not agree with them. The vast majority of people wouldn’t even understand them nor have the capacity to dispute them. That doesn’t make theoretical physics or pure math any less true. It takes a certain level of expertise to even have the competence to grasp the ideas in the first place.

Morality, aesthetics and metaphysics (including theology) might be similar to that, but not merely involving the mind or mental capacities. These might be more integral to the whole person, where one would need to be highly attuned and competent, not just using some intellectual capacity or other, but in one’s whole being – one’s very existence – because that is where we not only intellectually grasp reality but are united to it at the level of being itself.

 

[abucs]

I can’t fathom money with objective value… amazing!

Money value is tied to the money supply and the wealth of a country. Both of these have objective values even if each person will try their best subjectively to understand what those values are and what they will be in the future

 

[pocaracas]

ok, I see you’re applying subjectivity to the individual alone.
If something is defined by a group of people, it’s defined as objective… like the amount of money in circulation of a particular monetary denomination ($ € £).

I was going more for the case where, even if it’s determined by everyone on Earth, it’s still subjective to the human group.

 

[abucs]

If ever there is trade between the people of earth and an alien civilization, there will have to be an agreed currency exchange. There will also be an objective value for each currency that is something different. A fair trading exchange would be where the agreed conversion rates equals as closely as possible to the objective value of the currencies defined by circulation and wealth creating ability of each civilization.

That is assuming the big red button has not been pressed in the meantime and the aliens have only the cockroaches to encounter.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes I know some.

 

[HarryStotle]

ok, I see you’re applying subjectivity to the individual alone.
If something is defined by a group of people, it’s defined as objective… like the amount of money in circulation of a particular monetary denomination ($ € £).

I was going more for the case where, even if it’s determined by everyone on Earth, it’s still subjective to the human group.

That would also be true of, say, mathematics and laws of physics. What other group besides a human group is there to point to to claim these are “objective” beyond the human group? Objectively speaking there is none.

So your bitter pill is that by claiming “subjective to the human group” necessarily implies “not objective,” you are making ALL human knowledge relative and NOT objective, according to your own definition.

One could argue that moral principles apply to any moral agent whether or not they happen to be human or not. Isn’t that the underlying assumption by which atheists try to hold God morally accountable?

Are you ready to permit that human morality doesn’t apply to God and he can do as he wills; much like crushing ants or spiders isn’t a problem as far as subjective human morality is concerned? Ergo, wiping out large numbers of humans shouldn’t be a problem for God – who is infinitely beyond human subjectivity. If using pesticides to orchestrate a genocide of insect pests is not morally problematic for humans, why should it be problematic for God who stands in much the same (actually infinitely greater) relationship to humans as we do to say locusts, mosquitoes or tent caterpillars? He may operate by his own “subjectivity,” so our rules don’t bind him. Are you ready to go there?

Or do you still want your cake and the ability to eat it, along with the ability to eat fruit, grains, etc., too?

 

[IWantGod]

God…even if He exists…can’t place an objective value upon anything.

This clearly is just an assumption based on your concept of value and your failure to have a modicum of understanding about what God is in relation to the world.

 

[abucs]

I think on the levels of the individual and that of a civilization it is tremendously important for people to constantly work to better themselves morally.

This only makes sense if there is an objective morality, otherwise people are not bettering themselves they are simply conforming to the standard around them.

Much of the improvement and cohesion of the world is based on the realisation of an objective morality. Recent ideas of only a subjectivity of morals would take us back to the comprehension of the lower animals. That is, crudely, there is only my wants and my needs in competition with the wants and needs of others.

I think the acceptance or rejection of God is intimately bound up with which path one (or a civilization) ultimately follows.