Atheism and morality

[genkaus]

I said that divine command theory is compatible with each NORMATIVE moral theory. Moral subjectivism and cultural relativism are forms of metaethical theory!!

Both moral subjectivism and cultural relaivism address what the content of morality is - therefore, by your own definition, they are mormative moral theories.

The rest are normative moral theories and divine command theory is compatible with each of them. Twit.

None of the others is compatible with divine command theory. Moron.

[downbeatplumb]

I think you get some kind of perverse thrill out of using your stupidity to annoy people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abWi8RiR7FU

[fr0d0]

I am not a theist. I use the term 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the existence of a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good. THe god I believe in is NONE of those things.

I've been with you all the way here Inigo, but on this point I must depart.

"the god I believe in" is a god you believe in.

This far you have only asserted a possibility, one you were undecided upon. Has your position changed?

I believe in a fully moral, omnipotent omniscient God. Amongst other things, that makes me a Christian theist. Someone who believes in God -plus some refinements on that, as categorised widely and publicly as Christianity.

Just like the term atheism, theism is the position on deity. Nothing more. On those grounds, ones commonly accepted here on this forum, you are a theist.

[Simon Moon]

Here we go then......first, 'atheism'. I take atheism to be 'true' if there are no gods of any kind, and false if there are any gods (thor, Zeus, you name it). Ooo, that's got you hot under the collar hasn't it?? Yessss. You prefer an incoherent definition, that way you insulate your position against any possible refutation as one cannot attack fog.

The phrase "I take atheism to be 'true' if there are no gods of any kind, and false if there are any gods" is incoherent and reflects a very philosophically unsophisticated understanding of the term.

I use 'atheist'.....wait for it.....to refer to someone who believes atheism (see above) is 'true'.

Again, the phrase "atheism is true" makes no sense. It is true that I am an atheist because I do not accept that the claim that a god exists has met its burden of proof.

It sounds like you are trying to pass the burden of proof to atheists.

I use 'theism' to mean someone the view that a very specific kind of god exists, namely one that created the universe, is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good.

I have never heard the word 'theist' defined as such.

I don't understand why you feel the need to redefine words? Is it to obfuscate your lack of coherent arguments?

[fr0d0]

I am an atheist because I do not accept that the claim that a god exists has met its burden of proof.

I've never seen a claim that God exists. Care to point me to one?

(Mine and other theists claim of belief in God of course attracts no burden. So your atheism seems to be groundless)

[Silver]

I've never seen a claim that God exists. So your atheism seems to be groundless)

If there is no verifiable claim that god exists, theism is rather groundless.

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't the consistent diff between d and t gods that the t gods are personal wheras the d gods are not? Creator, omni-whatever, those would be down to the particular d or t god.

For example, many native american "gods" where definitely -not- omnipotent, -not- omniscienct, -not- pefrectly morally good (often quite the opposite or some blurring)*.....but they were definitely "t" gods though, as their interactions and personal interests in the affairs of men or particular men form the backdrop for their entire religious narrative and experience (including rituals rites and offerings).

Obviously, whatever you define to be a god is whatever would constitute a god for you, but in reverse fashion, Frodo, for example, could tally up all the ancillary attributes and the sum would not be "Yahweh". It's "Yaweh" first, then tally it up. No amounting of checking tally boxes makes one a christian - unless the "christ" box is tallied explicitly. Similarly, d and t gods may have long lists of disparate (or commensurate) ancillary attributes but the diff between the two seems to be an issue of just one box in that list.

(*late edit: also not creators)

[MindForgedManacle]

I am an atheist because I do not accept that the claim that a god exists has met its burden of proof.

I've never seen a claim that God exists. Care to point me to one?

(Mine and other theists claim of belief in God of course attracts no burden. So your atheism seems to be groundless)

Okay, unless you're referring to in this thread only, and you've managed to memorize hundreds of posts, you're lying when you say you've never encoumtered the claim that 'God exists'. I mean hell, one could just as easily plop open the Bible and find a verse clearly stating that God exists, such as when Paul refers to "God's glory and power have been clearly seen, so that they are without excuse" [for not believing].

[Bad Writer]

Even saying that you believe in God is a claim for a deity. Why sugarcoat your religion unless you're ashamed of it? And if you're ashamed of it, please look deep down for those reasons, for that is being honest with yourself.

[Inigo]

I am not a theist. I use the term 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the existence of a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good. THe god I believe in is NONE of those things.

I've been with you all the way here Inigo, but on this point I must depart.

"the god I believe in" is a god you believe in.

This far you have only asserted a possibility, one you were undecided upon. Has your position changed?

I believe in a fully moral, omnipotent omniscient God. Amongst other things, that makes me a Christian theist. Someone who believes in God -plus some refinements on that, as categorised widely and publicly as Christianity.

Just like the term atheism, theism is the position on deity. Nothing more. On those grounds, ones commonly accepted here on this forum, you are a theist.

Then we must part company on an irrelevant semantic issue. I, in common with, among others, professor Robin Le Poidevin use the term 'theist' to refer to what I have just said I use it to refer to.

I do this a) becusae this is how the term has been traditionally used. Some have only started using it more generally in order to make sense of 'a-theism'. that's all. After all, atheism is generally used to refer to the view that no god, of any kind, exists (not just the theistic god).

But anyway, I use the term 'theism' in its traditional sense because that's what I've always understood the term to mean, that's what it means in the philosophical community (see Prof Robin Le Poidevin for clarification) and furthermore I wish to distinguish myself from those who defend the Judaeo Christian god. And if you say you are a theist most people who were properly educated will believe you believe in the Judaeo Christian god or something damn similar. I don't.

Anyway, these are tedious semantic issues of no relevance to the credibility of the case I am making. It does not alter the validity of any argument I have made. All one has to do when I use the term 'theist' is remember that I use it in its traditional sense.

In fact, it doesn't matter what terms I use for anything. They're just labels. Some people here are more concerned with what to label themselves than anything else.