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

[Pardalis]

Notice how he keeps trying to put Darwin in the conversation?

 

[Tricky]

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?

If you find your sister in a car with two other boys, would you be morally correct to kill her? Under some theistic systems, yes. Morality is subjective. We can give you as many examples as you like.

So while morality is subjective, laws aren't (within their jurisdiction). When a group of people decide that a certain morality is correct, they codify it into law. Murder is usually one of the moral things that is codified, but people disagree what "murder" actually is, which is why we have courts. The "correct morality" is decided by humans, not God.

 

[Esperdome]

Word up, Esper. If her husband isn't aware of how wonderful she is, he doesn't deserve her.

None of us do, [Wayne's World] We're not worthy, we're not worthy.[/Wayne's World]

 

[X]

So, then, the answer to everything Plumjam doesn't understand is "God"?

I'm still trying to work out if he's saying morality comes from god, atheism is theism, or if he's claiming that morality is an objective subjectivity.

At any rate, god(s) and religion are not required for morality.

Not believing in god has not hurt my morality one bit, and even back when I believed in god, or in the intermediate stage of believing in "something unknowable" because I wasn't even aware atheism was a position, I never credited god with my morality.
It came from human nature and society.
There is no void in my life to fill, I have no need to rely on the Bible or the Qur'an or whatever other book you may name to determine my ethics. Probably a good thing, because if God really did set out all morals way back in antiquity, and god is all-knowing and abslolute, then the morals cannot have changed over time, for it would make god no longer omniscient.

So, since you seem to believe all morality proves god because it comes from god: Can I buy your daughter?

ETA: I expanded this while RoadToad was quoting me. Just so you know why this post and his quote are different.

 

[Tricky]

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?

If you find your sister in a car with two other boys, would you be morally correct to kill her? Under some theistic systems, yes. Morality is subjective. We can give you as many examples as you like.

So while morality is subjective, laws aren't (within their jurisdiction). When a group of people decide that a certain morality is correct, they codify it into law. Murder is usually one of the moral things that is codified, but people disagree what "murder" actually is, which is why we have courts. The "correct morality" is decided by humans, not God.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?

Under the realm of broad terms such as 'murder' and 'theft' I'm sure you'll find that most humans agree that these are immoral acts. But when you get more detailed with the terms and situations you'll find that there is no such thing as absolute morality.

 

[Roadtoad]

So, then, the answer to everything Plumjam doesn't understand is "God"?

I'm still trying to work out if he's saying morality comes from god, atheism is theism, or if he's claiming that morality is an objective subjectivity.

At any rate, god(s) and religion are not required for morality.

If you believe they are, then can I buy your daughter?

A valid point. If God and His Rule is absolute, is it right for us to have given up on slavery, as one example? And on what basis?

 

[Tricky]

As usual, Plumjam refuses to get it. Wrapped up in his own narcissistic realm, he bleats on about how the Atheist is either a waste of time and flesh, or how there is no further meaning for the Atheist's "pathetic" excuse for a life. It's condescending, and it's offensive.

Last night, I had dinner with two people from this board whom I enjoy reading and for whom I have nothing but deep respect. Normal Dude is a student at UC Davis, entering into the field of molecular biology, with an emphasis on neurological biochemistry, (hope I got that right!), while Hokulele works as a trainer in computers and computer science, particularly with the software her company produces. We're talking of people of accomplishment and courage, something which is increasingly rare in a society which seems to be leaning more and more towards slackers and egotists, people who try to use Fate as an excuse for everything from their own cowardice to their well entrenched bigotry.

As we talked, one thing kept coming up: There was so much that we did not know. At one point, Normal Dude mentioned that in one particular field, there was so much unknown to deal with, it was actually exciting. Hokulele answered that saying that in her astronomy classes, they'd point to something and say, "We don't know that that is." Her answer: "Cool!"

See, this is part of what it means to be not just an Atheist, but a Skeptic. You don't flee the unknown; you go towards it, hoping not only to learn from the familiar, but from the unexplained. Your goal isn't just to take pleasure in the unusual, but to ultimately find out if the Great and Terrible Oz is just some dude hiding behind the curtains in the throne room.

It's simply another way of saying that some of us take greater and greater pleasure in admitting what we do not know than in our insistence that we know more than we do. We have matured in our lives, and take joy in recognizing that there's so much more to do, and equally, so much more we have to offer as our lives progress. Frankly, I find there's greater joy and meaning in that than I ever did as a "saved, sanctified, and justified" Christian, secure in my "knowledge" that I would endure in Heaven once I died. In fact, I find that latter element sad, because ultimately, I would only find "meaning" in my life once I had died and could offer nothing more to society.

I find I can do great things in this current stage of my life. If there's an "Atheist Value" to be found, it's the knowledge that my time here is short, and that what benefit I can offer to society needs to be given today, and not set aside for later when I'm nothing more than a memory. While I am well aware of scores of Christian/religious charities, I'm also well aware of the vast number of them who suck down voluminous amounts of cash for "administrative expenses." (I should note that the Randi Foundation seems to operate pretty much on the cheap, but seems to deliver far more bang for the buck. And Randi's pretty open about how it's done.) There are a number of "atheist" and "humanist" entities engaged in the charitable, but they generally don't advertise themselves that way, and they aren't overly picky about who they bring in to help, demanding that they be competent rather than dogmatic.

Part of this also requires me to show the truth of religion, that for the most part, it's a lie. I won't accomplish much by assaulting people with facts and figures, much as I was when I was being "witnessed" to by believers years ago, prior to becoming a Christian. (I'm pretty certain that many people become believers if for no other reason than to get the proselytizers to just shut up, recognizing that once you say "Yes," they'll leave you alone and never talk to you again.) Instead, I have to live my life in a manner that's gracious, honest, and courageous. That's not easy; our society rewards the boor, the liar, the coward.

But there's value in doing this. I think of Metullus, of Girl6, of Terry, of Doubting Stephen, of JJ, of Zep, of other people on this board (and a number who have unfortunately left), who demonstrate there is a greater value, a greater reward for stepping out in boldness and declaring the realities of life, of living within those realities, and ultimately in reaching beyond them with our compassion, our intellect, our passion. The whole idea is to reach Beyond, and bring it into focus, to make it new, to make it real. That speaks of greater integrity than this continued bleat that we cannot do this, because this is God's territory.

If I remember the story of Adam and Eve correctly, they weren't evicted from Eden because they merely ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but because they chose knowing Good and Evil over Life. Had they chosen to eat from the Tree of Life instead, which they had never been forbidden to do, they would have been rewarded rather than damned. I look at Normal Dude's actions, I look at Lost Angeles's actions, I look at the actions of so many here, I see a quest not for knowing right and wrong, (which is ultimately meaningless), and I see Life.

It's Hokulele's declaration: "We don't know what it is? COOL!"

What's next for me? Finishing my own education, and becoming a Marine Engineer. I'll probably be in my 60's, but I'm pretty sure if I can still draw breath, I can contribute to bettering people's lives. And rather than doing so because it gives some mystical deity a nice warm feeling about me, I can do so because it's based wholly on the facts, that the effects of my efforts can be measured, can be replicated, can be seen, and that ultimately, will outlast all the memory of me from centuries on. My service to the world ought to be seen from its evidence and benefits, and not from the chance memory of people bowing before an altar whose significance fades from the cruelty and misery it has inspired for centuries.

That's the difference between you and me, Plumjam. I want to serve. You want to be serviced. It's the difference between love and sex, between creation and masturbation.

Nominated!

It is a shame this thread is blowing by so fast that many great posts get lost in the whirlwind. But of course, Roadtoad makes the rest of us look like duffers.

 

[plumjam]

Or is it maybe that your refusal to propose a definition has to do with the fact that the very definition of the word has nothing to do with objectivity?

so likewise individual visual perception has nothing to do with objectivity

And the whole has no meaning at all.

so you accept that your life also has no meaning at all, and if you're going to be consistent you should live according to that realisation

 

[joobz]

I can't believe how fast this thread has moved.
Just to chime in with my own opiniated opinion...

I find the concept that you need a god for morality a bit lazy and immature. A person given a list of rules to follow and are told that they are moral because god said so. It makes it easy for the person to absolve themselves of any responsibility in deciding what is or isn't a moral action.

If it is detemined later that "god's morality" wasn't really moral*, not only is it impossible to convince the people who trust god for thier morality but also they take no responsibility for being wrong. It was god who they put their trust into.

On the other hand, a person who determines their own morality and doesn't appeal to authority for answers takes a huge risk. They know that no one but themselves are responsible for their own actions. If they do "right" or "Wrong", they can't beg to the mysterious authority to protect them or take the blame. It is only that individual who is the ultimate authority of thier actions.


*Slavery, racism, feudalism, sexism, genocide, torture,...

 

[plumjam]

Your evasion is duly noted.

when I'm having so many responses to make, I'm afraid those who descend in their first post into ad hominem are not going to receive a full reply

 

[Yeah_Right]

As for me, I don't think others are going to hell for their beliefs, that sounds rather positive to imo.

 

[plumjam]

Please can you tell me, following Gods meaning and directionality, the moral position that should be taken in respect of abortion, homosexuality, alcohol, masturbation, donations of blood, eating shellfish, suicide bombing, circumcision, the wearing of clothes made from two different materials, slavery & murder.

I want to compare that to the moral position without God.

Thanks in advance.

Each of those issues would deserve at least a thread each.
Luckily you have access to your own conscience. This allows you to try to perceive what is right and wrong in each issue, and weigh up the balance of competing claims.
Maybe unfortunately for you in this context it also means you have to do the work, rather than having me do it for you.

 

[plumjam]

Such is an hour in the life of an immoral, materialistic atheist.

Did I ever characterise you as such?

 

[plumjam]

Notice how he keeps trying to put Darwin in the conversation?

No doubt I'll keep doing so. For tens of millions of people in the 20th Century this basic moral wrong-turn cost them their lives.
Hopefully that won't happen again.

 

[leadcork]

Athiest values? How about the Golden Rule? Works for everybody else....

 

[leadcork]

Mother Nature, please make my fingers work: "Atheist".

 

[plumjam]

If you find your sister in a car with two other boys, would you be morally correct to kill her?

If she was trying to murder both of them, I might.

Under some theistic systems, yes.

If such a system exists my conscience, and yours, tells us that's wrong. This is a clue to the objectivity of it. That a theist and atheist agree.
I would like to know the identity of the person who brought such a system into play. Such a person I would not pay much attention to when they are making moral claims.
I wouldn't allow a visually impaired person to be my 'guide-dog'.

Morality is subjective. We can give you as many examples as you like.

feel free

So while morality is subjective, laws aren't (within their jurisdiction). When a group of people decide that a certain morality is correct, they codify it into law. Murder is usually one of the moral things that is codified, but people disagree what "murder" actually is, which is why we have courts. The "correct morality" is decided by humans, not God.

gee whizz, so you are saying that sometimes people get things wrong.

 

[Pardalis]

so likewise individual visual perception has nothing to do with objectivity

Who said anything about individual visual perception?

You started saying "inside" evidence (intuition) is equally objective than "outside" evidence (what we can perceive with our senses).

What we perceive with our senses can be corroborated by different means. What does this say about "intuition"?

so you accept that your life also has no meaning at all, and if you're going to be consistent you should live according to that realisation

My life has meaning to me.

ETA: And you have no business telling me what to do with my own life.

No doubt I'll keep doing so. For tens of millions of people in the 20th Century this basic moral wrong-turn cost them their lives.
Hopefully that won't happen again.

Darwinism is a scientific theory that doesn't have anything to do with morals or ideology. Heck, it doesn't even have anything to do with atheism per se.

ETA: and btw, the theory of evolution helped a great deal in the advance of science and medicine.

What about the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Islamic terrorism? You're not going to convince me that religion is the way to go, it has quite a crappy track record.

 

[Roadtoad]

when I'm having so many responses to make, I'm afraid those who descend in their first post into ad hominem are not going to receive a full reply

And your idea of what constitutes an ad hom attack is, at the very least, curious.

Like I said: Evasion noted.