So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[plumjam]

I'm with you up to here, I think, if you mean all that is real is that which we can perceive evidence for.

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.
To that I would add that if we are going to allow for morality, aesthetics, spirituality etc.. in life then this definition of what counts as allowable evidence is hopelessly weak and in certain circumstances socially dangerous.

Nope, lost you completely at this point. Care to restate it in a different way? Maybe an example?

I mean that believing that we can derive real meaning from, for example, our interpersonal relationships, is illogical if you hold to a philosophical position which denies objective meaning.
If the universe is ultimately meaningless then loving your wife and kids has to also be ultimately meaningless.
You can't have a bucket devoid of gold and then argue that in some part of the bucket there is a speck of gold.
This is the self-delusion and wishful thinking I'm getting at.

 

[Pardalis]

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.

And how is "internal" evidence "objective"?

 

[plumjam]

I don't really understand what you are getting at with the chair business.

There are many different types of chairs, rocking chairs, stools, couches and you can even use someone else's knee to sit on, so there isn't one custom made chair, there isn't an "objective morality".

I'm meaning that the chair is as it is, out there. It's size, form, aesthetic characteristics etc.. exist independently of what I would prefer them to be. There is no way in which me believing something is going to change what the chair actually is.

It's the same with morality. It exists out there, and I have no power to change it by deciding that it must be the way I want to believe it to be.
People who try to invent their own subjective moralities at odds with objective morality are apt to come a cropper, and damage others in the process.

 

[plumjam]

And how is "internal" evidence "objective"?

because just as my internal visual perceptions refer to an 'external' 'objective' reality, likewise do my internal moral intuitions refer to an 'external' 'objective' moral reality

two average people observing a child being murdered will visually experience pretty much the same thing, and will morally experience pretty much the same thing

of course, there are blind people, and likewise there are psychopaths/sociopaths/paedophiles

 

[Pardalis]

It's the same with morality. It exists out there, and I have no power to change it by deciding that it must be the way I want to believe it to be.

And yet it changes from one country to the other, from one culture to the other, from one epoch to the other.


From one religion to the other.

 

[zooterkin]

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.
To that I would add that if we are going to allow for morality, aesthetics, spirituality etc.. in life then this definition of what counts as allowable evidence is hopelessly weak and in certain circumstances socially dangerous.

Why?

I mean that believing that we can derive real meaning from, for example, our interpersonal relationships, is illogical if you hold to a philosophical position which denies objective meaning.

What do you mean by "real meaning" and "objective meaning"? Who assigns the meaning?

If the universe is ultimately meaningless then loving your wife and kids has to also be ultimately meaningless.

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, any individual is pretty meaningless. So too is the whole human race. That doesn't mean that loving my family is not real to me and them. Do you only do things because some cosmic being is keeping score of how you perform?

You can't have a bucket devoid of gold and then argue that in some part of the bucket there is a speck of gold.
This is the self-delusion and wishful thinking I'm getting at.

You really must try to give it up.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.
To that I would add that if we are going to allow for morality, aesthetics, spirituality etc.. in life then this definition of what counts as allowable evidence is hopelessly weak and in certain circumstances socially dangerous.



I mean that believing that we can derive real meaning from, for example, our interpersonal relationships, is illogical if you hold to a philosophical position which denies objective meaning.
If the universe is ultimately meaningless then loving your wife and kids has to also be ultimately meaningless.
You can't have a bucket devoid of gold and then argue that in some part of the bucket there is a speck of gold.
This is the self-delusion and wishful thinking I'm getting at.

Speaking on existence here:

If you can't measure it, then it doesn't matter. Even if God exists in spades, if you can't find it, what good is it?

As an analogy, suppose I was mute. I never wrote anything, never said anything, never went anywhere, and just sat at home and watched TV, with no Neilsen box. What does it give you? Nothing at all. With no measurement or visual confirmation of me at all, I may as well not exist to you or to anyone else.

To the extent that it can't be measured, what value does it give you, in terms of making it an actionable item? None at all. It just sits there, like a blob, providing no value to anyone other than to itself.

 

[plumjam]

And yet it changes from one country to the other, from one culture to the other, from one epoch to the other.


From one religion to the other.

Not really as much as atheists would prefer it to. The universal compassion towards all sentient beings of the Buddha, of 2,500 years ago is an aspect found in pretty much every religion in one form or another. The value of selflessness in all its forms is there in every religion I can think of.

Changes that happen can be good or bad. They are good if they are headed in the direction of the objective morality, they are bad if they are moving away from it.
Social Darwinism, for example, was a morality that fit with the current evolutionary paradigm, but did not fit with objective morality (and the theistic paradigm). So its consequences were abhorrent.

You wouldn't expect human moral systems to be completely changeless, because nothing else in conditioned reality is either.

 

[plumjam]

Speaking on existence here:

If you can't measure it, then it doesn't matter. Even if God exists in spades, if you can't find it, what good is it?

As an analogy, suppose I was mute. I never wrote anything, never said anything, never went anywhere, and just sat at home and watched TV, with no Neilsen box. What does it give you? Nothing at all. With no measurement or visual confirmation of me at all, I may as well not exist to you or to anyone else.

To the extent that it can't be measured, what value does it give you, in terms of making it an actionable item? None at all. It just sits there, like a blob, providing no value to anyone other than to itself.

are there any 'measurements' to back up your (presumably) belief that human beings of all races, sexes, religions, ages..etc.. deserve equal fair moral treatment?

 

[plumjam]

What do you mean by "real meaning" and "objective meaning"? Who assigns the meaning?

objective meaning in the creation is assigned by God, who created it, and exists external to it.

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, any individual is pretty meaningless. So too is the whole human race. That doesn't mean that loving my family is not real to me and them. Do you only do things because some cosmic being is keeping score of how you perform?

well, perhaps that is your surface belief, but the way you live your life (I assume) goes wholly against your belief.
That's a big contradiction, and bringing that out is one reason I started the thread.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

are there any 'measurements' to back up your (presumably) belief that human beings of all races, sexes, religions, ages..etc.. deserve equal fair moral treatment?

What evidence do you have that tells us that different races, sexes, ages are inferior to the predisposition of a "dominant" race, sex, age?

 

[zooterkin]

The universal compassion towards all sentient beings of the Buddha, of 2,500 years ago is an aspect found in pretty much every religion in one form or another. The value of selflessness in all its forms is there in every religion I can think of.

Given the universality, where's your evidence that this is anything to do with religion or god, and not something that has evolved in humans in general?

Do you hold all religions as equal? Your references seem to be all over the place; do you view all religions as true, when they are clearly incompatible with each other?

 

[Pardalis]

likewise do my internal moral intuitions refer to an 'external' 'objective' moral reality

Define "intuition"?

two average people observing a child being murdered will visually experience pretty much the same thing, and will morally experience pretty much the same thing

Yes, of course, but where does god fall in to that? Why do we need god to tell us that it's wrong?

Not really as much as atheists would prefer it to. The universal compassion towards all sentient beings of the Buddha, of 2,500 years ago is an aspect found in pretty much every religion in one form or another. The value of selflessness in all its forms is there in every religion I can think of.

Compassion is a human feeling. Hatred and destruction are also human feelings. So did god give us both?

You wouldn't expect human moral systems to be completely changeless, because nothing else in conditioned reality is either.

I don't understand.

 

[zooterkin]

objective meaning in the creation is assigned by God, who created it, and exists external to it.

And where do you find evidence for this?

well, perhaps that is your surface belief, but the way you live your life (I assume) goes wholly against your belief.

I'm touched that you know so much about me. Do go on; how do I live my life? What belief is contradicted by the way I do so?

 

[Pardalis]

objective meaning in the creation is assigned by God, who created it, and exists external to it.

well, perhaps that is your surface belief, but the way you live your life (I assume) goes wholly against your belief.
That's a big contradiction, and bringing that out is one reason I started the thread.

Your belief is that morality is from god. Is suspect Zooterkin's "belief" is that it's not, and thus he is not in contradiction with himself, but with you.

 

[plumjam]

What evidence do you have that tells us that different races, sexes, ages are inferior to the predisposition of a "dominant" race, sex, age?

you're missing the point here.. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying presumably you believe they deserve equal treatment, (as do I), yet this belief of yours can not be backed up by any 'external' empirical measurements or evidence.

the only 'evidence' will come from you internally examining your conscience about what is right and wrong.

 

[Pardalis]

the only 'evidence' will come from you internally examining your conscience about what is right and wrong.

There you go, it's not objective. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[plumjam]

Given the universality, where's your evidence that this is anything to do with religion or god, and not something that has evolved in humans in general?

you don't need to be a follower of any particular religion to have access to your own conscience and thus attempt to discern moral objectivity. the problem comes when your world view disallows the reality of moral objectivity... this is a world view that is almost always accompanied by atheism
in my experience atheists generally do, in practice, discern moral objectivity via their consciences, but their belief system is at odds with this, which presents a contradiction.

if morality has simply evolved and refers to nothing external to the human individual or society we are free to make up whatever crazy morality we like. This was attempted, to bring morality in line with evolution, and was seen to be abhorrent. It was seen to be abhorrent because people were comparing the results , in their individual consciences, to objective morality.

Do you hold all religions as equal? Your references seem to be all over the place; do you view all religions as true, when they are clearly incompatible with each other?

No, not all religions are of equal merit. Hinduism is better than Jim Jones or Scientology.
The great enduring religions are not 'clearly incompatible' with each other. At their centres they are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[Tricky]

Although strictly speaking "theism" also isn't actually a belief system, it's merely a belief in some form of supernatural entity; albeit many theists also seem to have a belief system that includes that belief.

Actually, this is a very good point. Is theism a belief system? Why no. It is a single belief. If you get one step below that prime belief, then the beliefs theists begin to diverge.

Question 1:
Is there a God or gods? To this, all theists will answer "yes", because, that is the definition of theism.

Question 2: Is there only one God? To this, theists will go in all directions, from large pantheons to one single God to the a kind of "yes but no" answer that is the Christian concept of The Trinity.

Question 3: Is God or gods good? Again, the answers will range all over the place, especially in pantheistic religions. "Depends on which one you're talking about," they might say. "Yes, and He will send to hell anyone who says otherwise" a different theist might say.

And so on.

Now sure, there is going to be a lot of overlap between different versions of theism (because they are all human-created) but there is also going to be a lot of overlap with the beliefs that some atheists hold.

So my challenge to plumjam would be to come up with a list of the things that define a belief system as "theist". They must be present and unambiguous in all varieties of theism. Because I can think of tons of them that vary widely. The word "pork" comes to mind.

 

[zooterkin]

you don't need to be a follower of any particular religion to have access to your own conscience and thus attempt to discern moral objectivity. the problem comes when your world view disallows the reality of moral objectivity...

Explain to me how not believing in god(s) means I no longer have access to my conscience.

No, not all religions are of equal merit. Hinduism is better than Jim Jones or Scientology.
The great enduring religions are not 'clearly incompatible' with each other. At their centres they are saying pretty much the same thing.

Let's see, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism are all saying the same thing? Exactly what tiny kernel of 'truth' do they have in common?

ETA: Tricky has addressed this better and in more detail.