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

[ThatSoundAgain]

Hurrah, someone else sees it.

Yes, we've seen it all along. If I haven't mentioned it, it's because I consider it so bleeding obvious that I wouldn't have to. Of course materialism doesn't address morality. If you've been reading this thread as that is what the others in here have been arguing, no wonder communication is not working.

Look, you and I both think the human sacrifice of the Incas is a morally abhorrent idea. Likewise, say, the infanticide-as-population-control practiced in my country some millenia ago.

Regardless of other factors (like the fact that said population control practice might have been necessary for survival), I would say that the morality employed by these people is decidedly wrong. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth if I say that you'd say the same.

Yet, they saw it as just and moral.

What does this demonstrate? That no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, morals are not constant and objective. There's no such thing. Claiming that you have access to the one true, objective source of morality might feel good, but frankly makes you look quite arrogant.

It's like saying "I am the yardstick by which every human that ever have existed, or will exist, must be measured".

 

[zooterkin]

My argument regarding atheism vis-a-vis morality is that when the exclusive materialist world view behind most atheism expresses itself socially in the form of new moral systems the result is disastrous, because it represents a drift away from the objective moral truth.

What "objective moral truth" is that?

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

The victim mentality others are referring to is constructing a poorly worded, asinine OP that lambasts people of a different world view than yours, solely because they have the audacity to not need the same crutch as you to get through life.

I could do that, but it would be effectively making a personal attack at some people; so I won't.. particularly as the thread itself was not aimed personally at any particular individual.
The posts are there, for you to read, if you like.

To this I say that demonstrating this would not constitute a personal attack, since it goes to what was actually written in this thread. You know, the actual arguments. I'm not going to fashion myself a set of plumjam-coloured glasses and read this thread again from the beginning in an attempt to grasp what you're talking about.

Please demonstrate or retract.

 

[plumjam]

What "objective moral truth" is that?

the one accessible via your own conscience

 

[Tricky]

the one accessible via your own conscience

Um... wouldn't that make it SUBjective? If it is OBjective, then everybody ought to have equal access to the exact same morality.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Hurrah, someone else sees it.

Yes, materialism is morally empty, which is why it is powerless in the 'ought, should' area of life. All materialists should realise this.
The problems start when they fail to realise this.

Given that the way people live their lives, their morality, their inspiration etc.. are all 'should, ought' phenomena they need to realise that none of it comes from their materialism.

So where does it come from?

So, as an atheist, I live an empty life?

Are you married? Do you have children? If yes to either you will understand just how full to the brim my life is. At least you should. Given your history here I am convinced that you will refuse to see this.

BTW, this is how "empty" my life is:

 

[plumjam]

Yes, we've seen it all along. If I haven't mentioned it, it's because I consider it so bleeding obvious that I wouldn't have to. Of course materialism doesn't address morality. If you've been reading this thread as that is what the others in here have been arguing, no wonder communication is not working.

Look, you and I both think the human sacrifice of the Incas is a morally abhorrent idea. Likewise, say, the infanticide-as-population-control practiced in my country some millenia ago.

Regardless of other factors (like the fact that said population control practice might have been necessary for survival), I would say that the morality employed by these people is decidedly wrong. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth if I say that you'd say the same.

Yet, they saw it as just and moral.

What does this demonstrate? That no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, morals are not constant and objective. There's no such thing. Claiming that you have access to the one true, objective source of morality might feel good, but frankly makes you look quite arrogant.

It's like saying "I am the yardstick by which every human that ever have existed, or will exist, must be measured".

Well, you're completely misunderstanding me.

Regarding the Inca sacrifices and infanticide, how do you know they saw it as just and moral? I doubt that enormously.
To illustrate, there are widespread practices that are accepted within our own societies, but the individual conscience tells us that there is something wrong with them. Yet they persist.
Ask a meat eater to kill a sheep or cow themselves, and that meat eater will be confronted by such a fact.

 

[joobz]

Well, you're completely misunderstanding me.

Regarding the Inca sacrifices and infanticide, how do you know they saw it as just and moral? I doubt that enormously.
To illustrate, there are widespread practices that are accepted within our own societies, but the individual conscience tells us that there is something wrong with them. Yet they persist.
Ask a meat eater to kill a sheep or cow themselves, and that meat eater will be confronted by such a fact.

Does that meat eater live on a farm?

 

[joobz]

Um... wouldn't that make it SUBjective? If it is OBjective, then everybody ought to have equal access to the exact same morality.

Stop imposing your prefixes on me! My morality will not be controlled by such a small two letter substitution.

 

[plumjam]

Um... wouldn't that make it SUBjective? If it is OBjective, then everybody ought to have equal access to the exact same morality.

No. The chair is objective. I build up a picture of it internally via an examination of my individual visual perception.
Another person will see and describe the chair slightly differently. That does not mean the chair is subjective.

Moral truth is objective. I build up a picture of it internally via an examination of my individual conscience.
Another person's conscience will tell them slightly different things to mine, and they will describe it as such.
This does not mean that moral truth is subjective.

In fact perceptions and descriptions both of chairs and moral truths coalesce.

 

[plumjam]

Does that meat eater live on a farm?

He/she can if you want them to

 

[SonOfLaertes]

You ask some pretty big questions .
.
.
.
My argument regarding atheism vis-a-vis morality is that when the exclusive materialist world view behind most atheism expresses itself socially in the form of new moral systems the result is disastrous, because it represents a drift away from the objective moral truth.

Here is precisely where your argument falls apart. You make the sweeping assertion above and blithely assume that we should simply accept it as fact, as an objective truth that we should all just believe and then move on in the debate.

That one paragraph requires a whole thread of it's own. Throughout history their are myriad instances where theistic world views have presented themselves socially in a disastrous way for their populations.

And then one could argue that many long-term success stories, such as the United States Constitution, have been an expression of non-theistic world views. The framers took pains to keep religion out of the picture. Maybe your ancestors didn't run screaming from a repressive socio-religious structure, hoping to find a sense a fair play and freedom in a new land, but mine sure did, Plumjam.

My argument regarding theism vis-a-vis morality is that when the exclusive non-materialist world view behind most theism expresses itself socially in the form of old moral systems the result is disastrous, because it represents a drift away from the objective moral truth.

 

[zooterkin]

To illustrate, there are widespread practices that are accepted within our own societies, but the individual conscience tells us that there is something wrong with them. Yet they persist.
Ask a meat eater to kill a sheep or cow themselves, and that meat eater will be confronted by such a fact.

No, that's not the same. Just because someone doesn't want to do something, that doesn't make that thing 'wrong'. I might have difficulty, perhaps due to squeamishness, killing a sheep or a cow, but I don't think it's wrong. I would also be repulsed by what's involved in a number of other jobs, toilet cleaning, or undertaking, for example, but that does not make them 'wrong'.

 

[joobz]

He/she can if you want them to

well, you see, then you'll get a completely different answer. Farmers (at least the children who were raised on farms) have no problem with slaughtering an animal for food.

You have 2 problems you must overcome.
1.) Prove that people have an objective morality
2.) And if they do, prove that this objective morality comes from god.

Part 1 will be difficult becuase we see so many subjective forms that have come and gone. The killing for meat is just one example. Slavery is another.

Part 2 will be difficult because there are obvious links between neurobiology and morality.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ask a meat eater to kill a sheep or cow themselves, and that meat eater will be confronted by such a fact.

Meat-eaters have been killing their own animals for most of human history. Are you saying that those who do not live in societies in which they can purchase pre-packaged meat from a supermarket are morally wrought by the fact that they have to slaughter their chickens and pigs if they want to eat? I suspect that much of the squeamishness of those who obtain their meat in a "sanitized" manner would fade and disappear if they were to move to a farming society.

 

[Roadtoad]

Dear Moderators,

is there any chance you could rename this thread "The willful self-serving misinterpretation by overly defensive atheists of the OP, thus enabling a victim mentality and mutual self-pity party...... thread" ?

I know that's a mouthful, but gotta guard against the pedants, you know.

Why should they indulge a whining, oversensitive, self-vicitimizing believer when they wouldn't do it for an atheist?

 

[joobz]

Moral truth is objective.

So group A feeling that group B is inferior is a moral truth?
Group B feeling that group C is inferior is a moral truth?
Group C feeling that group A and B are inferior is a moral truth?

Being part of Group D, I happen to be aware of the real moral truth that groups A, B and C are inferior to my group.

 

[joobz]

Meat-eaters have been killing their own animals for most of human history. Are you saying that those who do not live in societies in which they can purchase pre-packaged meat from a supermarket are morally wrought by the fact that they have to slaughter their chickens and pigs if they want to eat? I'm suspect that much of the squeamishness of those who obtain their meat in a "sanitized" manner would fade and disappear if they were to move to a farming society.

Or if they were simply hungy enough.

 

[zooterkin]

No. The chair is objective. I build up a picture of it internally via an examination of my individual visual perception.
Another person will see and describe the chair slightly differently. That does not mean the chair is subjective.

Moral truth is objective. I build up a picture of it internally via an examination of my individual conscience.
Another person's conscience will tell them slightly different things to mine, and they will describe it as such.
This does not mean that moral truth is subjective.

Since what you are 'examining' is internal to you, it is subjective.

Even if we grant you that, please explain why you think this process is different for someone who believes in zero gods compared with someone who believes in more than zero gods?

In fact perceptions and descriptions both of chairs and moral truths coalesce.

I have no idea what this means. You get a big blob of chairy moral truth?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That one paragraph requires a whole thread of it's own.

Plumjam has already started such a thread. It was demonstrated that the totalitarian systems he claimed to be a natural result of atheism were in fact based on the Soviet interpretation of Communism. The facts that the state itself was a virtual religion and that intellectual atheists were often imprisoned and executed because they were perceived as a threat to the state were both ignored by Plumjam.