Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:49 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for Atheists
#21
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 9, 2010 at 8:46 pm)theVOID Wrote: False, values can be calculated. They're all only really one thing. Desires, and they are brain states. which are quantifiable.

Interesting. Is anything subjective then, since it would seem that subjective matters are based on brain states?

Quote:You've been under a rock for the past 200 years it seems. Pleasure Utilitarianism was a step in the right direction, but his case for "pleasure" being the object of moral evaluation was flawed.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance in matters of formal philosophy, then. I'm mostly self-educated with only a business ethics class under my belt. Do tell if Bentham's ideas have been refined since.

Quote:I disagree, Divine attitude theory solves these problems.

How? If God is a being, than like any other being Its subjective evaluations would remain subjective by definition. Sure we may respect the wisdom and experience of some beings more than others, and some command more respect for their moral judgment than others, but subjective still remains subjective no matter the power, intelligence or experience of the being.

Quote:That to me sounds like "I don't like == wrong" where "I don't like" is your three arbitrary standards of evaluation.

Not so much arbitrary as analytical. I came by these rules by asking myself why something is wrong and found that my negative reactions are based on perceived violations of the three rules I mentioned.

Quote:You sure you aren't a nihilist in disguise?

That would be an interesting self-discovery. I'm not sure how nihilist - deist would work but perhaps I need to brush up on the term "nihilism". Remember, I am self-taught in this field.

Quote:Not so fast, the golden rule long predates Christianity.

Agreed.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#22
RE: Question for Atheists
Quote:I'm just a bit confused by what exactly you're saying. Are you saying that atheists think morals aren't real? Or that they don't matter? Or that athiests ignore morality? I just can't tell which it is, again I'm just trying to understand






Yes, John...."morals" are so important that anyone can pretend to have them. Just consider the words of this well-known European xtian moralist.

Quote:Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.

- Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872


[Image: hitler.gif]
Reply
#23
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 9, 2010 at 7:58 pm)16three-john Wrote: I follow what the bible says, not some hierarchy of priests, bishops, etc.

You follow what the Bible says? Then I suppose you own slaves?

Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.

God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
Reply
#24
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:
(December 9, 2010 at 8:46 pm)theVOID Wrote: False, values can be calculated. They're all only really one thing. Desires, and they are brain states. which are quantifiable.

Interesting. Is anything subjective then, since it would seem that subjective matters are based on brain states?

Yeah, plenty of thins are subjective (grounded in the opinion of person(s)).

Anything can become an objective measurement relative to something else, the hard part is finding an object of evaluation that is not arbitrarily chosen fort subjective reasons.

For example, music could be measured relative to it's ability to stimulate the most brains in the most significant way, and this measurement would be objective, however the justification for the object of evaluation (the ability to stimulate the most brains) is still subjective because it is an arbitrarily chosen constraint from a wide range of constraints. The stimulation would also not necessarily be positive, and changing the evaluation to "the ability to stimulate the most brains in the most enjoyable way" just introduces another arbitrary standard (and enjoyment is also subjective. You might as well have anything such as "the best music is that contains the most harmonic minors"

Bentham's choice of Pleasure vs Pain was just as arbitrary. Why not green vs blue? Because it seems to fit our intuitions better or it's what most people like? Either one of these is fallacious so the argument is invalid.

Desires on the other hand, if I am correct that they are the only source of values, are necessarily the only objects of evaluation, thus measurements relative to desires are neither arbitrary or subjective.

Quote:
Quote:You've been under a rock for the past 200 years it seems. Pleasure Utilitarianism was a step in the right direction, but his case for "pleasure" being the object of moral evaluation was flawed.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance in matters of formal philosophy, then. I'm mostly self-educated with only a business ethics class under my belt. Do tell if Bentham's ideas have been refined since.

I'm entirely self educated on the matter, I don't see what that is other than a red hearing.

"Benthams ideas" isn't the best way of putting it, but his train of thought (utility and consequence) is perhaps the most practical and applicable moral theory to exist. There have been many attempts from Peter Stingers "preference utilitarianism" to John Stuart Mill's "Theory of Liberty" all address some of the problems, but they have the same fundamental flaw of having arbitrary conditions.

"Utilitarianism as a goal" might well be the problem, that is in contrast with my "utilitarianism as a conclusion".

Quote:
Quote:I disagree, Divine attitude theory solves these problems.

How? If God is a being, than like any other being Its subjective evaluations would remain subjective by definition. Sure we may respect the wisdom and experience of some beings more than others, and some command more respect for their moral judgment than others, but subjective still remains subjective no matter the power, intelligence or experience of the being.

Because in DA God is necessarily good not through choice or conscious effort (he is also the source of all value) and all acts that are consistent with the nature of this God are necessarily good. You may think of it as being "that which is consistent with God necessarily has the greatest positive value from conflicting acts".

The God in DA is less "personal" and more "mechanical" but that seems to be a bullet many theistic ethicists are willing to bite.

Quote:
Quote:That to me sounds like "I don't like == wrong" where "I don't like" is your three arbitrary standards of evaluation.

Not so much arbitrary as analytical. I came by these rules by asking myself why something is wrong and found that my negative reactions are based on perceived violations of the three rules I mentioned.

But if someone reacted negative to being less than the center of attention then that would be just as 'foundational' as your own reaction. We might as well say "that which does not upset the balance between blue and green is good" or any other arbitrary condition.

If it is all your opinion/feelings regarding certain categories of acts that you have chosen yourself then you're just saying "I like" which makes you are a Nihilist, at least in any practical sense.

Quote:
Quote:You sure you aren't a nihilist in disguise?

That would be an interesting self-discovery. I'm not sure how nihilist - deist would work but perhaps I need to brush up on the term "nihilism". Remember, I am self-taught in this field.

The deity created no moral values or the capacity for them to exist or to be evaluated outside personal preference? That would work I think.
.
Reply
#25
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm)theVOID Wrote: I'm entirely self educated on the matter, I don't see what that is other than a red hearing.

It's an explanation. You mentioned I was 200 years behind. That may be because I haven't read the works of those who built on the trail that Bentham may have explored.

Quote:Because in DA God is necessarily good not through choice or conscious effort (he is also the source of all value) and all acts that are consistent with the nature of this God are necessarily good. You may think of it as being "that which is consistent with God necessarily has the greatest positive value from conflicting acts".

The God in DA is less "personal" and more "mechanical" but that seems to be a bullet many theistic ethicists are willing to bite.

I ran into this argument in my video exchanges with "Theologica" when he was trying to argue the superiority of theistic ethics. Beyond the problems of the Biblical god acting in truly deplorable fashion (unless you're willing to justify rape, genocide and slavery when Yahweh orders it), it's a meaningless tautology. "We know that Yahweh is good." How? "Because Yahweh is good."

On the other hand, if you say that God is the arbiter of right and wrong, then this is not objective morality. This is subjective morality that the theist has deferred to another being.

"GodWillsIt" does nothing to advance our understanding of morality.

Quote:But if someone reacted negative to being less than the center of attention then that would be just as 'foundational' as your own reaction. We might as well say "that which does not upset the balance between blue and green is good" or any other arbitrary condition.

If it is all your opinion/feelings regarding certain categories of acts that you have chosen yourself then you're just saying "I like" which makes you are a Nihilist, at least in any practical sense.

But all of my rules have to do with the way we treat others, not my own arbitrary tastes for color or whatever. Integrity, respect for the rights of others and responsibility all relate to treating others the way we would want to be treated.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#26
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 10, 2010 at 11:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:
(December 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm)theVOID Wrote: I'm entirely self educated on the matter, I don't see what that is other than a red hearing.

It's an explanation. You mentioned I was 200 years behind. That may be because I haven't read the works of those who built on the trail that Bentham may have explored.

Maybe you should avoid make statements like "The closest that any philosopher has come to measuring morality objectively was Jeremy Bentham" Smile

Quote:
Quote:Because in DA God is necessarily good not through choice or conscious effort (he is also the source of all value) and all acts that are consistent with the nature of this God are necessarily good. You may think of it as being "that which is consistent with God necessarily has the greatest positive value from conflicting acts".

The God in DA is less "personal" and more "mechanical" but that seems to be a bullet many theistic ethicists are willing to bite.

I ran into this argument in my video exchanges with "Theologica" when he was trying to argue the superiority of theistic ethics. Beyond the problems of the Biblical god acting in truly deplorable fashion (unless you're willing to justify rape, genocide and slavery when Yahweh orders it), it's a meaningless tautology. "We know that Yahweh is good." How? "Because Yahweh is good."

On the other hand, if you say that God is the arbiter of right and wrong, then this is not objective morality. This is subjective morality that the theist has deferred to another being.

"GodWillsIt" does nothing to advance our understanding of morality.

DA is largely (if not entirely) incompatible with Literalism, so that's a given. It's more for those theists who have the "divine sense" train of thought - Though lets face it that's just an excuse Smile They want to follow their instincts and then pretend that they have authority for failing to rationally evaluate the situation beyond their own senses - Either than or they genuinely believe - To be honest the latter is the more frightening one Tongue

God isn't the arbiter of morality in DA, moral truths are seen as necessary truths (necessarily of a higher positive value than all logically possible competing actions or intentions) and God is all good and necessarily consistent so what god does is necessarily and not by-choice morally good. I'm in complete agreement that it's a fucking pathetic explanation and these "necessary moral truths" are just as (if not more) mysterious than God.

Then there is the problem in getting from "that which god does is necessarily morally good" to "my actions are consistent with those God would do in a situation with my logical possibilities", that's a whole other conundrum Smile

Quote:
Quote:But if someone reacted negative to being less than the center of attention then that would be just as 'foundational' as your own reaction. We might as well say "that which does not upset the balance between blue and green is good" or any other arbitrary condition.

If it is all your opinion/feelings regarding certain categories of acts that you have chosen yourself then you're just saying "I like" which makes you are a Nihilist, at least in any practical sense.

But all of my rules have to do with the way we treat others, not my own arbitrary tastes for color or whatever. Integrity, respect for the rights of others and responsibility all relate to treating others the way we would want to be treated.

They are still arbitrary tastes though, based on your own reactions. Arbitrary does not imply selfish, it simply means based on a whim/reaction and/or not based on a system that yielded that conclusion. If you have a logically consistent system for establishing value then you have solved the problem of arbitrary constraints.

Essentially, it's still how you think we should treat others, or more precisely what sort of world and ethical system you like. Your preference for equal treatment is still an "I like". Treating others how you would like to be treated is also not necessarily how other people like to be treated. It shows less consideration for the values of others and more for your own opinions of what values are good for others.

Saying that "most people" like creates an argument from popularity.

What you need is a theory of value or a methodology for establishing values, it's the only way to avoid Nihilism as far as I can tell, and it bypasses subjectivism.
.
Reply
#27
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 9, 2010 at 6:28 am)16three-john Wrote: Hey, I'm a christian who's simply just wondering what atheists think about the subject of morality. I'm not gonna twist ur answers and try to preach at you or anything, so please don't be defensive or anything. It's just that I have been thinking about morality, and I wonder where atheists believe that their moral values originate from?

Oh I think this is a great question that sort of shows me my own hypocrisy. I'm not a christian but I would lying if I said christian values didn't have an influence on my ethical code. I can concede that my morals are inspired from the things I was raised with but at the end of the day I had to define my moral code within the parameters of who I am as a person as opposed to what a preacher says the bible says.

I see the value of morals...I just don't believe in the veracity of the bible stories that espouse them. I have to struggle with what is or isn' t moral without a manual and hope at the end of the day I do more good than bad.

The bible is a lie...but a well meaning one. I think there are many people in the world who just cannot function without this fairy tale. I think religion probably curtails the insanity or self destruction of many a "lost soul" out there while it exasperates the problem in others. I think there are many people who couldn't handle being atheist...their half-hearted faith and fear of a vengeful God is all that keeps them from being utter criminals.

The faithful have their share of fanatics and we faithless have our share of nihilists. There are always going to be people who use their beliefs or lack there of to justify their own selfishness.
Reply
#28
RE: Question for Atheists
I believe people know basic right and wrong from birth and some is learned by living in society. I believe holy books where written by men and that in them the authors wrote about what they already knew to be true.
Reply
#29
RE: Question for Atheists
Enlighten us about what we knew from birth, please.
Reply
#30
RE: Question for Atheists
(December 21, 2010 at 5:44 am)Chuck Wrote: Enlighten us about what we knew from birth, please.

How to find mummy's breast? Wink Shades
A finite number of monkeys with a finite number of typewriters and a finite amount of time could eventually reproduce 4chan.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Question to atheists Alexmahone 34 4581 July 31, 2018 at 2:00 am
Last Post: Aroura
  Alien Question for Atheists Catholic_Lady 99 13324 May 30, 2018 at 5:54 am
Last Post: robvalue
  I enjoy far right atheists more than lgbt marxist atheists Sopra 4 2176 February 28, 2018 at 9:09 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  A Question From Atheists nosferatu323 200 55839 July 4, 2017 at 12:37 am
Last Post: Astonished
  A question to all atheists! Gestas 190 19909 January 30, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Question For Fellow Atheists... Autolite 218 21226 January 28, 2017 at 9:50 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Question for Atheists: Is coming out as an atheist as hard as coming out as gay? Blackrook 46 11849 May 2, 2015 at 2:38 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Question for Atheists tonyc4444 158 22441 March 26, 2015 at 11:47 am
Last Post: Thackerie
  A question to atheists EccentricAlien 29 9367 February 15, 2015 at 5:26 pm
Last Post: Metis
  Atheists Only Please: Serious Question About Love naimless 50 11147 September 10, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)