RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
March 5, 2020 at 5:32 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2020 at 5:57 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 5, 2020 at 5:20 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I am aware that atheism simply means the lack of believing in god. But this position has consequences, namely, that an atheist can't adhere to any moral system based on religious premises. My claim is that atheism can't have a coherent moral system. Atheists can of course endorse any moral statement, but that doesn't mean they can justify it.No moral system is based on any religious premise. Religious premises are added as relevant purported facts to moral systems open to all human beings regardless of their beliefs.
For example, a person who believes that right and wrong are based on gods will and a person who believes that right and wrong are based on how happy something makes them.... are subjectivists.
Quote:Grounded in subjectivism, yes. If god said otherwise, would it be otherwise? As a person who refers to moral facts, I don't think so. What is good is good no matter what anyone has to say on the matter, and what is wrong is wrong no matter what anyone has to say on the matter. That's bound up in what it means for something to be a fact.(March 5, 2020 at 4:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why do you think generosity is good? Chances are I would refer to the same things.
I actually don't know why, maybe because making other people happy increases my happiness myself. But this cute metric obviously falls apart on more subtile examples;
Generosity is good because god said so is at least a grounded response, although it seems like an "overkill".
Quote:(March 5, 2020 at 4:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why would it be meaningless? The statement means the same thing to me in a world with or without a god. IDK, it may not mean the same thing to you, depending on whether there is or isn't a god..but it's a fair bet that it would still mean something.
Don't you think?
This something you're talking about is what I already refered to as the inherent moral compass. You know, the thing that prevents you from going out now and stabbing anyone walking, and it's generally more than just being afraid of cops. This thing can't answer all the moral issues. When the latter becomes complicated, we need more reliable moral systems, that's why I advocate for religion.
Islam gives clear answers to complicated moral issues. There is literally a really simple list of forbidden things : fornication, homosexuality, talking behind someone's back, usury/charging high interest, etc. With the absence of religion, you need to calmly listen to whores articulating their case for cheating, because it's somewhat moral - increases the whore's sexual satisfaction - as long as the poor husband doesn't find out. This kind of situations is what warrants clear definitions of what morality is, what individual freedom means, etc.
In your formulation, "skullfucking the neighbors kid is bad" would no longer mean "god told me not to skullfuck the neighbors kid".....but...what about skullfucking the neighbors kid has changed? Anything? Not for me, and because I'm a moral realist, who asserts that the objective facts of skullfucking are what makes it bad - not what a god has to say (or doesn't) about skullfucking...nothing relevant to the moral status of skullfucking changes when a god enters or leaves consideration.
Following?
As for clear answers, there's a huge set of clear and simple answers to questions that are wholly and irreconcilably wrong. Clarity is no certification of accuracy...and "god said so" makes nothing objectively right or wrong at all. Islam is a moral nonstarter - from a realists perspective. If you wanted to advocate for more reliable moral systems, then you'd need to start advocating for a moral system in the first place. Following orders is not a moral system. That you can't specify goodness outside of those orders very persuasively argues that you have no inherent moral sense, or compass, nor any moral agency whatsoever. If it were true, ofc...which I strongly doubt to be the case.
Little known fact. American soldiers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders - but if orders were what made something lawful, that would be incoherent. If unlawful orders are possible - orderness does not make lawfulness - and the same is true of morality. If an immoral order is possible - than orderness does not make morality. Immoral orders, like unlawful orders, are possible.
QED
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!