Objective Morality

[inocente]

I’m not sure this is possible when the secular authority interferes and creates laws that annihilate religion’s proscripts. Is it?

Doesn’t the Church already have stricter rules than the state on who it will marry?

Well, if that’s the case, then society might just as well make legal, or, at least decriminalize most - or, better yet - all of the other laws pertaining to sex in society

Slippery slopes have been tried but don’t work. Pedophilia does outrageous harm to children, animals don’t have the ability to give consent (as you said) and so on. But also, there are only gay rights marches. If there were protests for something else, it would be for society to decide (by my lights), and society wouldn’t want to go there.

But there is sufficient cause. Except that those who are affected by the rule don’t like it. I’m sorry, I definitely hate driving at any speed less than 65.

The energy imparted on a pedestrian by a car traveling at 40 is almost double than 30 (4040 / 3030 = 1.8). At 65 it’s almost 5 times. Slowing us down in pedestrian zones definitely reduces harm, whether we (subjectively ) like it or not. Agreed?

Do Los Gris still exist? Do the Guardia Civil still wear those green uniforms? And the Grays, do they still look like they’re from Hitler youth camps?

The Grays must be before my time. The two main police forces are the Local, who look like cops everywhere, and the Guardia, who still wear green (but the silly hats are now reserved for ceremonial occasions). Everything in my tale of the gay Guardia is true in principle. A lot of Amercians seem to have an unnamed fear that civilization will end tomorrow (forgetting perhaps that the US has less than 5% of the world population). I originally invented the tale to show them how it will happen, as they love feeling icky.

Dogs? What breeds and how many?!

Three rescues – Tofé the female Pointer boss, José the Alsatian cross, and Ringo the mongrel that I found on a track as a puppy and is now as big as my wife when stood on his hind legs. And yours?

 

[inocente]

I fail to see how my response was instinctive in any way… please explain the context for your commentary.

You were discussing how citizens are treated differently (the Senate, teachers, etc.) but I was saying there is sufficient cause in those cases. The argument made in my country was that there is not sufficient cause to treat homosexuals differently.

So, gays should be helped because gays are good., while brothers who want to get married shouldn’t be helped because they are bad? Explain the logic, if you will…

According to Wikipedia the laws and morality of what constitutes incest vary (forth degree etc.). If there were protests in the streets in favor of a change then society would need to review it like we did here in response to gay rights marches, but I doubt any arguments would convince anyone.

He must be right because he contradicted himself? How did you reach that conclusion? Pray tell…

Well, I was expecting you both to start from one or more objectively timeless morals and give similar decisions. You didn’t, and when C II thought about it some more he came to a different conclusion. Whether or not I was right about downloading being bad, we all seem to have used exactly the same process, by making subjective value judgments.

Another example: Paul says “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” – Rom 14:5 NIV

He says both men are right to act in conscience, and he’s definitely talking about moral actions in this chapter as he says for example “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” – Rom 14:23.

How do you argue that both men are right? Do they have different sets of eternal truths?

 

[inocente]

She repudiated her son as a “post-natal abortion” when he became a Baptists minister.

God works is strange ways - rubbish parent, outstanding son.

By the way, what are all these good things that have come about since the rise of atheism?

As an example of how complicated it is to work out, see this unicef report (pdf) on child well-being. Unicef is trying to work toward a benchmark so that national politicians can decide where to make improvements. Note the number of factors included, some objective, others subjective. Note also the apparent lack of correlation between atheism, Catholic/Protestant, relative wealth, etc. and the position of nations In the table. Were they right to put the US near the bottom?

Whatever, labels aren’t much use. You may as well blame the Third Reich on blue eyed blonds, or the increased number of suicides at Christmas on Jesus. Stuff happens, and some of the stuff starts with labels. Is that being tolerant , relativistic, Spanish, materialistic, subjective, objective?

 

[dskysmine]

wanstronian

Only an utter fool would infer a causal link, and only an even bigger fool would proclaim one publicly. Enter the theist.

*Now, the paucity of critical thinking and logic skills of theists doesn’t bother me per se, *

More ad hominems. A desperate maneuver. This technique wins you no points anywhere.

Are you kidding? Improvements in health care and longevity, in standards of living, in racial tolerance, in morality (ironically enough), in social equality, in environmental safety… the list goes on.

I’m not kidding, but you surely are. It’s a whole lot of blah, blah, blah that you offer here.
I haven’t seen any atheist hospitals (Christian and Jewish ones can be found everywhere). Haven’t seen any atheist orphanages or soup kitchens. Haven’t seen any atheist foundations working among the poor as we have Christian organizations and missionaries all over the world.

I have… That is not to say that atheists do not do good things… the problem is that they are doing it in a way that may be considered irrational according to their view. Why would an atheist help another person and lose “precious” time? I guess it’s just another subjective value… they just “happen” to like helping or something like that. It’s not like they are brothers and stuff…

 

[inocente]

Haven’t seen any atheist foundations working among the poor as we have Christian organizations and missionaries all over the world.

Not sure about all of these, but there’s Action Against Hunger, Action Aid, Care International, International Medical Corps, Medair, Médicos Sin Fronteras, Oxfam, Save the Children, UNHCR, Unicef, United Nations World Food Programme, World Health Organization, World Vision …

What flows from atheism is a certain attitude toward everything … most often a contempt for all objective values and those who hold them, which is the majority of the human race. That’s a world view.

Steady on you guys, we seem to be drifting toward ban territory.

 

[inocente]

That is not to say that atheists do not do good things… the problem is that they are doing it in a way that may be considered irrational according to their view. Why would an atheist help another person and lose “precious” time? I guess it’s just another subjective value… they just “happen” to like helping or something like that. It’s not like they are brothers and stuff…

Atheists can’t be compassionate? Whatcha talking about dude?

 

[dskysmine]

Slippery slopes have been tried but don’t work. Pedophilia does outrageous harm to children, animals don’t have the ability to give consent (as you said) and so on. But also, there are only gay rights marches. If there were protests for something else, it would be for society to decide (by my lights), and society wouldn’t want to go there.

So you mean to say that rights are to be given to people who ask for them? Long live ignorance?

The energy imparted on a pedestrian by a car traveling at 40 is almost double than 30 (4040 / 3030 = 1.8). At 65 it’s almost 5 times. Slowing us down in pedestrian zones definitely reduces harm, whether we (subjectively ) like it or not. Agreed?

How does the “possible” harm of another person (who would apparently be incurring in an unlawful act like jay-walking) “hurt” me if I am obligated to “lose” time to reach my destination?

You were discussing how citizens are treated differently (the Senate, teachers, etc.) but I was saying there is sufficient cause in those cases. The argument made in my country was that there is not sufficient cause to treat homosexuals differently.

Why is there sufficient cause for treat citizens differently in one case and not another?

According to Wikipedia the laws and morality of what constitutes incest vary (forth degree etc.). If there were protests in the streets in favor of a change then society would need to review it like we did here in response to gay rights marches, but I doubt any arguments would convince anyone.

So you are assuming that incestuous marriages are “bad” regardless of arguments?
Please explain…

Well, I was expecting you both to start from one or more objectively timeless morals and give similar decisions. You didn’t, and when C II thought about it some more he came to a different conclusion. Whether or not I was right about downloading being bad, we all seem to have used exactly the same process, by making subjective value judgments.

Where was my value assertions made using subjective value assumptions?
Reason was not created by me. Righteousness was not impaired by me or any Catholic. I am not “lord” of the Holy Spirit.

Another example: Paul says “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” – Rom 14:5 NIV

Don’t read what is not written… we are talking about personal values, not moral values. If one man likes Bach and the other one likes Mozart one is not “better” than the other.
It is through the Spirit how we find out if our actions are moral or not.

He says both men are right to act in conscience, and he’s definitely talking about moral actions in this chapter as he says for example “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” – Rom 14:23.

How do you argue that both men are right? Do they have different sets of eternal truths?

I never said that “both men are right” and neither does Paul. Personal value is how we are different from each other… not moral value. If one man finds abortion “valuable” and the other one doesn’t does it make both of them right?
If I listen to Mozart and not Bach it is because I value Mozart over Bach, not because Mozart is better than Bach. If I listen to Mozart for 8 hours a day instead of working to feed myself and my family I am making a “wrongful” act. This does not come from me or my intentions, it comes from the Spirit that loves all of us, including me with my “love” for Mozart.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Pedophilia does outrageous harm to children, animals don’t have the ability to give consent (as you said) and so on.

Hmmm. Is that an objective truth or a subjective truth?

Not sure about all of these, but there’s Action Against Hunger, Action Aid, Care International, International Medical Corps, Medair, Médicos Sin Fronteras, Oxfam, Save the Children, UNHCR, Unicef, United Nations World Food Programme, World Health Organization, World Vision …

Surely these do not constitute atheist organizations.

Whatever, labels aren’t much use.

If I call Hitler a Nazi, the label is very useful in that “Nazi” summons up a host of traits, none of which are flattering.

 

[JDaniel]

This is just my take on all of this. Some of what I’m about to say is clearly nondiscursive, nonlogical and non-scientific. It derives, I believe, from plain common sense, and, hopefully, I have a tiny amount of that stuff.

There is a recurring topic that seems to undulate through these posts, from time to time, regarding the “moral” behavior, or misbehavior, of atheists-of-power and that such behavior is attributable to their disbelief in God. It is my belief, though I can’t prove it, without a great deal of effort that atheists are prone to being devoid of that moral thing that would tend to prohibit many of them, but not all, from performing immoral acts. That said, I’m sure it is not universal. Thus, there aren’t millions of Hitlers and Pol Pots running around.

Rather, I think, the mindset can form a predisposition, in a percentage of atheistic people, that tends towards certain morally devoid actions. I believe that historical people, such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., were extraordinarily malevolent and that their malevolence was heightened by their low regard for the value of human life and human rights due precisely to their disdain for religion or God – in other words, their “atheism.” To assert otherwise is to be purely argumentative.

Now, the tried-and-true atheist will argue that the deeds of such men have nothing to do with their god-belief preferences. They will argue that religionists have visited their own share of immoralities on men of lesser power and means. But, despite that there have been impious men operating under the guise of piousness, the religious mindset is a prohibitive factor to appalling behavior not a provocative factor.

The rights of men is a good that arises from the primordial awareness of good and bad and the reciprocity that is due one another because of that respect that emanates from a pious belief in God. Where that belief is in place, the vast majority of the possessors will have no problem doing the right thing. All argumentation notwithstanding, this is inarguable.

Sincerely religious people are beyond any shadow of a doubt much more prone to fairness, justice, charity, charitableness, sensitivity, honesty, kindness, goodness than those who aren’t. But, people who deem themselves to be anti-theists may have this same propensity. I believe this propensity was acquired a priori to their conversion to atheism, while they were naturally inclined and, perhaps, schooled in or with religious notions.

Hollywood loves to depict the Southern religionist as someone whose blind faith causes them to act irrationally and commit bad actions. That stereotype gives viewers an unreasonable outlook on religious people. Add to that a few RINO’s (religious-in-name-only) types and call them Catholics, or whatever, and, Voilà!, you have an arguing point.

jd

 

[dskysmine]

Atheists can’t be compassionate? Whatcha talking about dude?

Never said they couldn’t… but they have no “good reason” for it.

 

[JDaniel]

This is just my take on all of this. Some of what I’m about to say is clearly nondiscursive, nonlogical and non-scientific. It derives, I believe, from plain common sense, and, hopefully, I have a tiny amount of that stuff.

There is a recurring topic that seems to undulate through these posts, from time to time, regarding the “moral” behavior, or misbehavior, of atheists-of-power and that such behavior is attributable to their disbelief in God. It is my belief, though I can’t prove it, without a great deal of effort that atheists are prone to being devoid of that moral thing that would tend to prohibit many of them, but not all, from performing immoral acts. That said, I’m sure it is not universal. Thus, there aren’t millions of Hitlers and Pol Pots running around.

Rather, I think, the mindset can form a predisposition, in a percentage of atheistic people, that tends towards certain morally devoid actions. I believe that historical people, such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., were extraordinarily malevolent and that their malevolence was heightened by their low regard for the value of human life and human rights due precisely to their disdain for religion or God – in other words, their “atheism.” To assert otherwise is to be purely argumentative.

Now, the tried-and-true atheist will argue that the deeds of such men have nothing to do with their god-belief preferences. They will argue that religionists have visited their own share of immoralities on men of lesser power and means. But, despite that there have been impious men operating under the guise of piousness, the religious mindset is a prohibitive factor to appalling behavior not a provocative factor.

The rights of men is a good that arises from the primordial awareness of good and bad and the reciprocity that is due one another because of that respect that emanates from a pious belief in God. Where that belief is in place, the vast majority of the possessors will have no problem doing the right thing. All argumentation notwithstanding, this is inarguable.

Sincerely religious people are beyond any shadow of a doubt much more prone to fairness, justice, charity, charitableness, sensitivity, honesty, kindness, goodness than those who aren’t. But, people who deem themselves to be anti-theists may have this same propensity. I believe this propensity was acquired a priori to their conversion to atheism, while they were naturally inclined and, perhaps, schooled in or with religious notions.

Hollywood loves to depict the Southern religionist as someone whose blind faith causes them to act irrationally and commit bad actions. That stereotype gives viewers an unreasonable outlook on religious people. Add to that a few RINO’s (religious-in-name-only) types and call them Catholics, or whatever, and, Voilà!, you have an arguing point.

jd

There are other arguments that might turn an atheist mindset but, this is not a good one.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Doesn’t the Church already have stricter rules than the state on who it will marry?

No doubt; usually. But, that does not mean that secular governments haven’t overturned them. It’s happening in America every day.

Slippery slopes have been tried but don’t work. Pedophilia does outrageous harm to children,

Well, according to gays in other parts of the world, they’re pushing for a reduction of the age of consent to 14 years old. Their argument is that gay sex causes no harm to such sub-adults.

The Grays must be before my time. The two main police forces are the Local, who look like cops everywhere, and the Guardia, who still wear green (but the silly hats are now reserved for ceremonial occasions).

I think that “The Grays” was a nickname given to what you are calling the “local police force.” They controlled the towns and cities, while the Guardia Civil took care of the countryside.

A lot of Amercians seem to have an unnamed fear that civilization will end tomorrow (forgetting perhaps that the US has less than 5% of the world population). I originally invented the tale to show them how it will happen, as they love feeling icky.

Three rescues – Tofé the female Pointer boss, José the Alsatian cross, and Ringo the mongrel that I found on a track as a puppy and is now as big as my wife when stood on his hind legs. And yours?

Unfortunately none right now. My last one was a white Shepherd-mix, which we just gave away - to a relative.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

God works is strange ways - rubbish parent, outstanding son.

As an example of how complicated it is to work out, see this unicef report (pdf) on child well-being. Unicef is trying to work toward a benchmark so that national politicians can decide where to make improvements. Note the number of factors included, some objective, others subjective. Note also the apparent lack of correlation between atheism, Catholic/Protestant, relative wealth, etc. and the position of nations In the table. Were they right to put the US near the bottom?

Whatever, labels aren’t much use. You may as well blame the Third Reich on blue eyed blonds, or the increased number of suicides at Christmas on Jesus. Stuff happens, and some of the stuff starts with labels. Is that being tolerant , relativistic, Spanish, materialistic, subjective, objective?

You must never forget one thing: Regardless of any benefits bestowed upon the populations of a place like America, our Churches do more to help the under-cared-for than does the government. By the time all of the government officials take theirs, there’s not much left to distribute. Now, the churches might “collect” somewhat less, but, the churches don’t have thieves in control, so virtually all of it gets distributed.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel

There is a recurring topic that seems to undulate through these posts, from time to time, regarding the “moral” behavior, or misbehavior, of atheists-of-power and that such behavior is attributable to their disbelief in God. It is my belief, though I can’t prove it, without a great deal of effort that atheists are prone to being devoid of that moral thing that would tend to prohibit many of them, but not all, from performing immoral acts. That said, I’m sure it is not universal. Thus, there aren’t millions of Hitlers and Pol Pots running around.

Excellent point, long overdue to be made.

Well, according to gays in other parts of the world, they’re pushing for a reduction of the age of consent to 14 years old. Their argument is that gay sex causes no harm to such sub-adults.

In this part of the world there is a group called NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). They accept for membership people from all walks of life, including clergy, physicians, lawyers, etc. Their motto is, “If not by eight, it’s too late.” What does this mean if not that Male adult homosexuals intend to convert heterosexual children to homosexuals while they are not yet sexually self defined?

 

[wanstronian]

Actually they do… haven’t you heard thousands of times atheists calling on Inquisition as example of “evil”?

The inquisition was formed by Catholic monarchs with the explicit motive of enforcing Catholic orthodoxy. They used torture to enforce this orthodoxy. This is not a valid comparison with claiming that Stalin’s evil acts were a result of his atheism, let alone implying that atheism itself mandates evil acts.

It is the moral view that there is no objective morality because they believe there is no God.

Ah, okay, I see what you mean when you put it like that. It’s a fair comment.

You really can’t separate religion from morality.

Of course you can - atheists do just that, with no ill effects

No religion asserts for a source of morality outside of that religion.

Of course not - that would be rather self-defeating. That doesn’t mean that any religion is correct in claiming to be the source of morality.

Which is exactly what I said… relative morality is an assertion on morality. That is why atheism is also a moral assertion.

Okay - it’s implicit. It’s not, in itself, a moral stance, which is what I inferred you were saying.

It’s easier not to answer the arguments the other person uses and just deem them “bad”.

That’s another way of putting it, yes. It’s a common theist approach.

He didn’t correlate completely different subjects… moral relativism, which the foundation for atheism is exactly why he can state that there is no morality per se. After all, one would think that a “law” would influence some one else other than one person.

Well actually, he did - by implicity (and subjectively) declaring that morals are a product of religion, further implying that moral standards have declined, and pointing the finger directly at an atheist as a contributing factor. Logic and observation shows that there is no causal link between religious belief and morality, other than the smug piousness of theists who claim there is.

You are certainly welcome to try it… but that doesn’t make you right.

Well the problem is that they won’t admit to the demonstrable logical fallacies they are committing. If they would only be honest with themselves that would be a start!

Imagine that was a Catholic answer to one of your assertions and answer it back…

Okay: “How is embracing the scientifically proven truths of the universe; of discarding the demonstrably incorrect ‘history’ laid out in the bible; of taking real action rather than just praying for things to get better - how is that holding back the progression of the human race?”

So it is your assertion that instead of “might” makes “right” is that “you” makes “right”?
mmm… wonderful worldview…
We just have to figure out how to make 6 billions of “you”.

Not at all. The fallacies are well documented and universally accepted. But theists seem to think that such fallacies don’t apply to their religious assertions. I simply recognise that they do - that religious belief doesn’t deserve exemption from critical analysis. And when it is exposed to such analysis, it fails comprehensively. This is not just my opinion!

What I am saying is that Catholic morals are objective and that being objective you can argue if a Catholic was “good” or “evil”, you have the moral laws written down. For an atheist you can’t do that because anything he might have done could be in accordance to his own subjective morality so you can never state that an atheist is “evil” or was “evil”.

Yes, you can judge Catholics against a documented moral code. But because they’re documented, that doesn’t make them objective. They were written by people.

And it’s a fallacy to imply that individual atheists have their own subjective individual moral code that could be wildly different to the population at large, any more than theists do. Atheistic morals are largely the same as theistic morals, the only difference is that atheists don’t believe that the moral code by which we all live our lives, was written by God. That clearly doesn’t mean that atheists are any less moral. To imply otherwise is just plain wrong.

Reason tells me that atheists “know” they are always right because their morality is their own and no one else’s. That’s it…

If that’s what your ‘reason’ tells you, then your ‘reason’ is badly flawed. Just take a look around you. Open your eyes and look.

You stated that Hitler was “evil”… but you provided no evidence of it. He had his subjective morality that what he did was “morally good”…

You seem to think that I, and other atheists, believe that individual random morals are rife amongst atheists. This is clearly rubbish. Therefore your question is invalid. Hitler’s actions are evil by the standards of modern societally evolved morality - to which atheists subscribe, just like theists do.

 

[wanstronian]

More ad hominems. A desperate maneuver. This technique wins you no points anywhere.

It’s not an ad hominem. Look it up. It would only be an ad hominem if I was discarding theistic arguments on non-theological grounds. I’m actually expressing an opinion based on the clear intellectual failings of the theistic arguments I see.

I’m not kidding, but you surely are. It’s a whole lot of blah, blah, blah that you offer here.
I haven’t seen any atheist hospitals (Christian and Jewish ones can be found everywhere).

Oh - do they use special Christian or Jewish medicines there? Or do they simply add provably ineffective prayer?

I think you’ll find that all non-religiously affiliated hospitals are atheist by definition. But of course, because atheism isn’t a positive belief system, there’s no signage or symbology. The hospitals just get on with the business of curing people, without all the pointless religious trappings.

Haven’t seen any atheist orphanages or soup kitchens. Haven’t seen any atheist foundations working among the poor as we have Christian organizations and missionaries all over the world.

Then you’re not looking. Ever heard of Amnesty International? GVI?

It is a world view. It is the negation of all absolutes. What flows from atheism is a certain attitude toward everything … most often a contempt for all objective values and those who hold them, which is the majority of the human race. That’s a world view.

Well, you seem to have all the answers. Shame they’re the wrong ones.

It gets quite frustrating when theists tell me what my atheism is - even more so when they ignore my corrections. What makes them think they know atheism better than an atheist!? You’d think they’d actually listen to all the atheists on this forum who try to explain the facts, but no. That would reduce their ability to batter the straw men they create.

It’s just arrogance, pure and simple. Worse - it’s unjustified arrogance.

 

[wanstronian]

I have… That is not to say that atheists do not do good things… the problem is that they are doing it in a way that may be considered irrational according to their view. Why would an atheist help another person and lose “precious” time? I guess it’s just another subjective value… they just “happen” to like helping or something like that. It’s not like they are brothers and stuff…

Wow. You really don’t understand at all, do you?

You believe that atheists are just selfish individuals who don’t care for others?

Where do you get your freaky ideas from? It can’t be from exposure to atheists. Do you live in a commune, or somewhere atheists are unlikely to ‘come out’ for fear of reprisals? I can’t believe you don’t know any, and I know for sure that any you do know, don’t act the way you suggest.

Or are you just kidding around?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

Oh - do they use special Christian or Jewish medicines there? Or do they simply add provably ineffective prayer?

At this point it seems truly useless to talk to you. Your anger, arrogance, and silliness defeat you on almost every point. Please ignore all my posts, as I intend to ignore yours. Thank you!

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

At this point it seems truly useless to talk to you. Your anger, arrogance, and silliness defeat you on almost every point. Please ignore all my posts, as I intend to ignore yours. Thank you!

I accept your withdrawal from the discussion, and note the bluster behind which you hide your reasons for doing so.

Perhaps we can re-engage when you have learnt to think clearly rather than dogmatically; but I won’t hold my breath on that score.

 

[wanstronian]

What a strange vow, that is broken by almost half the people who in fact commit to it…

Just spotted this post.

Did you take the trouble to look into Christian divorce rates, before you posted?

Surprise - they track the national average, just like divorce rates from civil marriages.

Given the supposed Christian morality, and sacredness of Christian marriage, you’d expect Christian divorce rates to be significantly lower than average, wouldn’t you?

How do you explain it?