L
larkin31
Guest
These are strong points.
- Status
R
Rocinante
Guest
that’s my point. agreement is beside the point. don’t tell me. tell tonyrey.to be consistent, i think you would have to say that catholics can’t claim to have an objective basis for morality since there is no agreement that catholicism is the one correct religion.
Catholics do agree that theirs is the one true religion, or why would they be Catholics?
They can also claim to have an objective base for morality. Why can’t they? Because those outside the religion don’t believe in their objectivity? That’s like saying science has no objective base for relativity because most people cannot even understand the theory, never mind agree with it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*perhaps you can explain why this is any more of a problem for objectivity of morals for atheists than the fact that people don’t agree on what is demanded by the will of god is a problem for theists? *
For the theist objective morality comes from God. There can be no other morality that comes from God, because God is truth. God tells us how we ought to behave, and how we ought not to behave. Atheism can tell us no such thing, because atheism is simply the denial of God. By telling us there is no God, it leaves no other choice but to view either the intelligence or the **will **as the source of what we ought to do or ought not to do. However, since there is no agreement among atheists as to what we ought to do or ought not to do, never mind agreement between atheists and theists about what we ought to do or ought not to do, atheistic morality tends ultimately to be subjective, based on each person’s perception of right and wrong. While reason is a tool for finding objective morals, it is no guarantor of finding them because passions will interfere and subject reason to their will. As every man has different intellectual powers, so also every man has different passions. There is no coherent moral glue to bring all morality into common consensus except obedience to the will of God. If God suddenly became irrelevant to all the world, moral chaos would ensue, and it could only be overcome by the power of the mightiest army, which itself might be terrifyingly corrupt since it would impose its own particular brand of morality on everyone.
This happened during the Weimar Republic in Germany. Secular morality became so rampant (for example, during the 1920s Berlin was known as the homosexual capitol of the world) that the Germans were ready for anyone willing to seize the reins of power and restore social order. When that someone appeared in 1932 and dictated German morality for twelve agonizing years, the Germans got more order than they wanted, and got yet another case of subjective morality gone berserk.
For the theist objective morality comes from God. There can be no other morality that comes from God, because God is truth. God tells us how we ought to behave, and how we ought not to behave. Atheism can tell us no such thing, because atheism is simply the denial of God. By telling us there is no God, it leaves no other choice but to view either the intelligence or the **will **as the source of what we ought to do or ought not to do. However, since there is no agreement among atheists as to what we ought to do or ought not to do, never mind agreement between atheists and theists about what we ought to do or ought not to do, atheistic morality tends ultimately to be subjective, based on each person’s perception of right and wrong. While reason is a tool for finding objective morals, it is no guarantor of finding them because passions will interfere and subject reason to their will. As every man has different intellectual powers, so also every man has different passions. There is no coherent moral glue to bring all morality into common consensus except obedience to the will of God. If God suddenly became irrelevant to all the world, moral chaos would ensue, and it could only be overcome by the power of the mightiest army, which itself might be terrifyingly corrupt since it would impose its own particular brand of morality on everyone.
This happened during the Weimar Republic in Germany. Secular morality became so rampant (for example, during the 1920s Berlin was known as the homosexual capitol of the world) that the Germans were ready for anyone willing to seize the reins of power and restore social order. When that someone appeared in 1932 and dictated German morality for twelve agonizing years, the Germans got more order than they wanted, and got yet another case of subjective morality gone berserk.
T
Touchstone
Guest
If God is mind and will, this statement contradicts itself.
Truth can obtain subjectively. If all reality proceeds from the mind of God, all reality obtains subjectivity. The truth is “true”, but it’s all subjective. Saying “God is truth” does not tell us that reality or morality is objective. As above, if one supposes that God is mind and will, it cannot be objective.
Contrast what you said here, with how we use objective. The power amounts stored in the bonds of a hydrogen atom obtain objectively. The bonds exist as they do no matter what anyone thinks ought to exist or ought to be. But the application of that fact gives rise to subjective claims – this power *ought *to be used for nuclear power plants, or this power *ought *to be used to enable weapons of mass destruction, or this power ought not be harnessed at all. You are invoking subjective language here even as you try to claim the mantle of objectivity.
Right. All morality is ontologically objective. But epistemically, objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand, for example) recognize no God and yet affirm moral realism – the idea that objective moral truths are just brute facts of nature that all reasonable observers will agree to if examined. And while I don’t agree with that conclusion, I don’t find them mangling the language and concepts in a self-serving way as you are doing here; when they espouse the idea of ‘objective morality’, their terms and concepts are at least clean and consistent. You’re hell-bent on confusing and conflating objectivity with subjectivity here, apparently. It’s not even a matter of getting at the truth. We are now beset by confused and self-contradictory terms and concepts that prevent us from even getting to that point.
Lack of agreement or consensus is not a test for subjectivity or objectivity.
And neither is the presence or absence of a guarantee a factor.
Why wouldn’t the will of Ayn Rand do just as well (a prospect hardly more comforting that the dystopia of a world united under the will of God)? This doesn’t speak to objectivity or subjectivity, but just power and politics. If the pope is sufficient as the autocrat, so is Ayn Rand. Unanimity is unanimity.
God never mattered to Japan, for example, and it did not develop as you say. Man does not need the Christian God or any god for moral order and social structure. This is a Christian conceit, and one that obtains on ignorance of how the world has developed.
This is the kind of ignorance in which those kinds of conceits grow. Fertile ground. Yeah, it was homosexuality that was the key, there. Sheesh.
-TS
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Touchstone
*
This is the kind of ignorance in which those kinds of conceits grow. Fertile ground. Yeah, it was homosexuality that was the key, there. Sheesh.*
No, it wasn’t the key. But You noticed, didn’t you, that Hitler made sure plenty of homosexuals went to the death camps.
The rest of your post was unintelligible.
I wish I had been able to teach you how to write and think before somebody else got to you and ruined you. Sheesh!
*
This is the kind of ignorance in which those kinds of conceits grow. Fertile ground. Yeah, it was homosexuality that was the key, there. Sheesh.*
No, it wasn’t the key. But You noticed, didn’t you, that Hitler made sure plenty of homosexuals went to the death camps.
The rest of your post was unintelligible.
I wish I had been able to teach you how to write and think before somebody else got to you and ruined you. Sheesh!
R
Rocinante
Guest
there is at least as much disagreement about how we ought to behave and how we ought not behave among those who believe in god as there is among those who do not believe in god.
the problem amount to the same thing for those we agree that we ought to obey the will of god: there is no agreement on what the will of god is.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
*
there is at least as much disagreement about how we ought to behave and how we ought not behave among those who believe in god as there is among those who do not believe in god.*
How do you know this? Have you read a statistical survey, or are you just making this up out of thin air? Even if it were so, it would not impact upon whether one of those views is objectively right and all the others are objectively wrong. For example, Catholics who believe that abortion should be legal are not really in tune with true Catholic teachings on abortion. They have chosen the subjective path of their own personal preference based upon their own misguided power of reasoning … more often than not shaped by a secular media and academia who have lost touch with God and have adopted moral relativism as their cause celebr]e.
In that respect, even among atheists there is division. I know some atheists who abhor the idea of abortion. However, for the most part atheists defend it for various reasons. I think the reason most of them defend it is that they do not regard the fetus as anything more than an unwanted mass of living tissue, rather than a human being. This is clearly a subjective whim, rather than an objective fact. Every fetus is an individual organism with different DNA than either parent. You and I were in that position before we were born. But for the desire of our parents to save our lives, we might have perished under the abortionist’s knife.
the problem amount to the same thing for those we agree that we ought to obey the will of god: there is no agreement on what the will of god is.
On the contrary. There is considerable agreement, even if it is not unanimous. The Ten Commandments, for example, are honored by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You will find that in every religion there is a common consensus on most fundamental issues. If there were not, there would be little reason to meet in the same building Sunday after Sunday. The cohesive character of religion must be opposed to the individualistic (sometimes anarchistic) morality that is a consequence of atheism. The thing that mainly unites atheists is not their common morality. It is their common hatred for religion.
However, Ayn Rand, an atheist, was severely distressed when someone informed her that her belief in objective ethics was close to the teachings of the Catholic Church. So there are strange bedfellows everywhere!
*
there is at least as much disagreement about how we ought to behave and how we ought not behave among those who believe in god as there is among those who do not believe in god.*
How do you know this? Have you read a statistical survey, or are you just making this up out of thin air? Even if it were so, it would not impact upon whether one of those views is objectively right and all the others are objectively wrong. For example, Catholics who believe that abortion should be legal are not really in tune with true Catholic teachings on abortion. They have chosen the subjective path of their own personal preference based upon their own misguided power of reasoning … more often than not shaped by a secular media and academia who have lost touch with God and have adopted moral relativism as their cause celebr]e.
In that respect, even among atheists there is division. I know some atheists who abhor the idea of abortion. However, for the most part atheists defend it for various reasons. I think the reason most of them defend it is that they do not regard the fetus as anything more than an unwanted mass of living tissue, rather than a human being. This is clearly a subjective whim, rather than an objective fact. Every fetus is an individual organism with different DNA than either parent. You and I were in that position before we were born. But for the desire of our parents to save our lives, we might have perished under the abortionist’s knife.
the problem amount to the same thing for those we agree that we ought to obey the will of god: there is no agreement on what the will of god is.
On the contrary. There is considerable agreement, even if it is not unanimous. The Ten Commandments, for example, are honored by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You will find that in every religion there is a common consensus on most fundamental issues. If there were not, there would be little reason to meet in the same building Sunday after Sunday. The cohesive character of religion must be opposed to the individualistic (sometimes anarchistic) morality that is a consequence of atheism. The thing that mainly unites atheists is not their common morality. It is their common hatred for religion.
However, Ayn Rand, an atheist, was severely distressed when someone informed her that her belief in objective ethics was close to the teachings of the Catholic Church. So there are strange bedfellows everywhere!
T
tonyrey
Guest
R
Rocinante
Guest
how do you not know this?
what is it you think that all theists broadly agree about that all nontheists don’t broadly agree about?
theists and nontheists all pretty much agree that thou shalt not kill, we shouldn’t steal etc, and have just as much disagreement on the rights of the unborn, unbridled capitalism, and lots of other issues. what is it you think that religious people all tend to agree on where nonreligious people tend to disagree?
by the way, nontheists tend to agree with one another that no particular religion is likely to be true and that masturbation is not immoral and on lots of issues where you’ll find no agreement among religious folks.
but as i keep saying, agreement is entirely beside the point.
T
tonyrey
Guest
R
Rocinante
Guest
to defend your claim that agreement is a problem for atheists but not for theists you’ll have to explain how this translates into morals that theists tend to agree upon but atheists tend to not agree upon.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
*by the way, nontheists tend to agree with one another that no particular religion is likely to be true *
That has nothing to do with moral judgments but with truth.
*
and that masturbation is not immoral and on lots of issues where you’ll find no agreement among religious folks.*
All religious people in this country agree on the Ten commandments, not to mention other moral positions mentioned in the Bible. Whereas Christians generally disapprove of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, gay marriage etc., atheists have no consensus among them that I know of on any of these issues. If anything, they are more likely to approve than disapprove for the simple reason that most of them do not believe in objective ethics.
*but as i keep saying, agreement is entirely beside the point. *
No it isn’t. If a politician running for office was to say he was an atheist, how many votes do you think he would get? Our representatives in government should agree with religious voters or they will rightly be suspected of being moral anarchists and enemies of religion.
Why do you think Hitler lied to the German people and professed himself to be a Christian when he was really an atheist and enemy of religion all along? Do you think he would have been elected if he had made known his true intention to create moral anarchy in Europe and persecute the Jews, the Catholics, and even the Protestants?
*by the way, nontheists tend to agree with one another that no particular religion is likely to be true *
That has nothing to do with moral judgments but with truth.
*
and that masturbation is not immoral and on lots of issues where you’ll find no agreement among religious folks.*
All religious people in this country agree on the Ten commandments, not to mention other moral positions mentioned in the Bible. Whereas Christians generally disapprove of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, gay marriage etc., atheists have no consensus among them that I know of on any of these issues. If anything, they are more likely to approve than disapprove for the simple reason that most of them do not believe in objective ethics.
*but as i keep saying, agreement is entirely beside the point. *
No it isn’t. If a politician running for office was to say he was an atheist, how many votes do you think he would get? Our representatives in government should agree with religious voters or they will rightly be suspected of being moral anarchists and enemies of religion.
Why do you think Hitler lied to the German people and professed himself to be a Christian when he was really an atheist and enemy of religion all along? Do you think he would have been elected if he had made known his true intention to create moral anarchy in Europe and persecute the Jews, the Catholics, and even the Protestants?
R
Rocinante
Guest
like i said, atheists also think that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc.
theists agree among themselves that blasphemy is a sin
atheists agree among themselves that it is not a sin
so the ten commandments just don’t work as an example of something about which there is more agreement among theists than among atheists.
can you cite any support whatsoever for this claim other than you think it ought to be true? i think it ain’t true and you are just making this up.
of course no matter group you want to look at they are either mostly this or mostly that. but there is no broad consensus on these matters among believers any more than there is a broad consensus on these matters among nonbelievers.
so like i said, what is moral as “the will of god” is nothing that religious people tend to agree about anymore than non religious people tend to agree on morals.
we aren’t talking about politics. we are talking about having a on objective basis for morals. whether or not everyone agrees is irrelevent to the question of whether your basis is objective. for example, the fact that most people do not believe in catholicism has nothing to do with whether or not catholicism offers an objective basis for morality. lack of agreement doesn’t count against catholicism. why would it count against any other claim for an objective basis for morality?
L
larkin31
Guest
Isn’t that how religious truth works? Unidirectionally? From God to member of “chosen” group?
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
so the ten commandments just don’t work as an example of something about which there is more agreement among theists than among atheists.
To the extent that they agree, and they certainly don’t agree with all the ten commandments, they might do so because they have lived in the Judeo-Christian milieu much of their lives. After all. many atheists were reared as Christians, and those who weren’t imbibed the ten commandments just by hearing about them from others. If it were not for the Ten commandments, would they believe the commandments?
can you cite any support whatsoever for this claim other than you think it ought to be true? i think it ain’t true and you are just making this up.
If you think I’m making it up, offer proof to the contrary. I think you are making up your position. Where is your proof?
so like i said, what is moral as “the will of god” is nothing that religious people tend to agree about anymore than non religious people tend to agree on morals.
You’re making up this too.
we aren’t talking about politics. we are talking about having a on objective basis for morals.
You lost track of what we are talking about. Agreement on morals is important. It’s because atheists don’t agree on morals that they can only with the greatest difficulty form political associations grounded in very definite moral principles. And because they are suspect of having no clearly defined moral principles as a group, the religious majority will never elect them to office since it realizes that the only thing they really have in common is hatred for religion. That is why only an atheist who is a fool would announce himself as an atheist when running for office.
Politics is the art of achieving agreement without resorting to violence. At that game, the atheists will score hardly any points in the shaping of public policy unless they do so by cleverly hiding their true personae. That means they have to lie to achieve their ends. That’s breaking another of the commandments you say they agree with.
so the ten commandments just don’t work as an example of something about which there is more agreement among theists than among atheists.
To the extent that they agree, and they certainly don’t agree with all the ten commandments, they might do so because they have lived in the Judeo-Christian milieu much of their lives. After all. many atheists were reared as Christians, and those who weren’t imbibed the ten commandments just by hearing about them from others. If it were not for the Ten commandments, would they believe the commandments?
can you cite any support whatsoever for this claim other than you think it ought to be true? i think it ain’t true and you are just making this up.
If you think I’m making it up, offer proof to the contrary. I think you are making up your position. Where is your proof?
so like i said, what is moral as “the will of god” is nothing that religious people tend to agree about anymore than non religious people tend to agree on morals.
You’re making up this too.
we aren’t talking about politics. we are talking about having a on objective basis for morals.
You lost track of what we are talking about. Agreement on morals is important. It’s because atheists don’t agree on morals that they can only with the greatest difficulty form political associations grounded in very definite moral principles. And because they are suspect of having no clearly defined moral principles as a group, the religious majority will never elect them to office since it realizes that the only thing they really have in common is hatred for religion. That is why only an atheist who is a fool would announce himself as an atheist when running for office.
Politics is the art of achieving agreement without resorting to violence. At that game, the atheists will score hardly any points in the shaping of public policy unless they do so by cleverly hiding their true personae. That means they have to lie to achieve their ends. That’s breaking another of the commandments you say they agree with.
R
Rocinante
Guest
oops. my mistake. i thought i was having a rational discussion with someone who would at least try to back up his claims.so the ten commandments just don’t work as an example of something about which there is more agreement among theists than among atheists.
To the extent that they agree, and they certainly don’t agree with all the ten commandments, they might do so because they have lived in the Judeo-Christian milieu much of their lives. After all. many atheists were reared as Christians, and those who weren’t imbibed the ten commandments just by hearing about them from others. If it were not for the Ten commandments, would they believe the commandments?
can you cite any support whatsoever for this claim other than you think it ought to be true? i think it ain’t true and you are just making this up.
If you think I’m making it up, offer proof to the contrary. I think you are making up your position. Where is your proof?
so like i said, what is moral as “the will of god” is nothing that religious people tend to agree about anymore than non religious people tend to agree on morals.
You’re making up this too.
agreement on morals is important, but it is not the topic of this thread. you should know of all people.
people who are not religious don’t think of themselves as a group any more than people who don’t collect stamps think of themselves as a group. it is you who thinks of them as a group.
but this is all just getting dumber and dumber. if you are unwilling to back up you claims that theists as a whole have more agreement on morals than non religious people as a whole, then you ought to back down. if you are unwilling to do either, as you clearly are, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
R
Rocinante
Guest
oh, and just to prove that you are making things up, you said…
Charlemagne II;7199854Whereas Christians generally disapprove of abortion said:
L
larkin31
Guest
atheists believe that life is a gift of nature. We value it no less. You’re simply assuming that value must come from God.
L
larkin31
Guest
As I said before, you are exercising great patience with this poster. I don’t bother any more.
- Status