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

[Nogbad]

Well they were clearly wrong to do this.
The reality is that through the history of religion this kind of thing has been the rare exception. However, under systems of morality based on atheistic materialism, this kind of thing was pretty much the rule.

I would beg to differ - the reality of history is that those in power use whatever measures they consider necessary to stay in power. The Church has been no different in this respect. From very early on, be St Cyril in the 4th century, the Cathars, Torquemada and the Inquisition, the religious wars sparked by the Protestant revolution or the Covenanters of my own country, there have been huge numbers of deaths over small differences in theistic beliefs. One should not be too parochial about this either. The Incas and Aztecs were not killing people because of atheistic beliefs. Moreover, those ordering the killings regardless of religion were often filled with righteous fever and believed implicitly that they are doing the "right thing". As in the case of the Cathars the killing was cruel beyond belief because the victims were already damned as far as the religious authorities were concerned (I won't bore with the historical details and it would be purient to dwell upon them).

It is true that Stalin and Pol Pot took it up a notch but one might argue they merely had the means, population and psychosis to do so rather than any atheist social superstructure that impelled them along such a route.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

I suspect that objective morality is whatever agrees with Plumjam.

 

[joobz]

I suspect that objective morality is whatever agrees with Plumjam.

I knew you were going to say that. Group E people are sooooo predictable.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I knew you were going to say that. Group E people are sooooo predictable.

Laugh it up, fuzz-ball. Group D will be sent to the lowest level of Hell after the third coming of the Great E.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

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.

Sorry, I somehow missed that thread. I'll look it up ...

Or maybe not. I'm sure I can precisely construct Plumjam's arguments without reading them.

 

[plumjam]

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?

I have never said that.

What is important is that both theists and atheists listen to and regularly cultivate and examine their consciences.

Lots of spiritual traditions recommend particular practices such as confession, penance, meditations on compassion, prayer, practice of social service etc.. which will cultivate and develop the individual conscience.

But that does not mean that atheists cannot also cultivate conscience in their own chosen manner.

 

[plumjam]

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'.

toilet cleaning etc.. is completely different. So you'd have no moral compunction or hesitancy whatsoever about slitting a cow's throat?

 

[zooterkin]

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?

I have never said that.

You said:

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.

Comparing the conscience with the belief system seems to be part of the process which you envisage. Why is that different for atheists?

 

[plumjam]

I would beg to differ - the reality of history is that those in power use whatever measures they consider necessary to stay in power. The Church has been no different in this respect. From very early on, be St Cyril in the 4th century, the Cathars, Torquemada and the Inquisition, the religious wars sparked by the Protestant revolution or the Covenanters of my own country, there have been huge numbers of deaths over small differences in theistic beliefs. One should not be too parochial about this either. The Incas and Aztecs were not killing people because of atheistic beliefs. Moreover, those ordering the killings regardless of religion were often filled with righteous fever and believed implicitly that they are doing the "right thing". As in the case of the Cathars the killing was cruel beyond belief because the victims were already damned as far as the religious authorities were concerned (I won't bore with the historical details and it would be purient to dwell upon them).

It is true that Stalin and Pol Pot took it up a notch but one might argue they merely had the means, population and psychosis to do so rather than any atheist social superstructure that impelled them along such a route.

which society would you choose to live in (from history)? a randomly chosen christian society or a randomly chosen communist society?

 

[zooterkin]

toilet cleaning etc.. is completely different. So you'd have no moral compunction or hesitancy whatsoever about slitting a cow's throat?

I would have no moral compunction. I might be hesitant, but not for moral reasons.

ETA: Actually, I would have moral compunctions about slitting a cow's throat, but that's because it's not the most humane way to kill it.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

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.

Nice brush-off. You're back to blankly asserting that there exists an objective source of morality. You can doubt the fact that the examples provided were seen as moral all you want, but the fact is that they were common for centuries in those societies.

As for this meat-eater, I wouldn't know where to start with killing and butchering an animal, but in my family you need only go back one generation. My mother helped kill and pluck chickens as a child, and sees nothing wrong with it. And she plays the organ at church services.

So, to recap, your claim that morality is objective precisely because it lives inside your head is pretty silly. (ETA: Because that's pretty much the definition of subjective).

 

[plumjam]

You said:


Comparing the conscience with the belief system seems to be part of the process which you envisage. Why is that different for atheists?

Conscience really is deeper than and prior to belief. When you look at your conscience to determine whether something is right or wrong you are not using words, rationality, beliefs etc..

When you feel empathy, you do exactly that.. you feel it. You don't first think up a sentence that expresses empathy. First you feel it. Without words or beliefs.

 

[zooterkin]

Conscience really is deeper than and prior to belief. When you look at your conscience to determine whether something is right or wrong you are not using words, rationality, beliefs etc..

When you feel empathy, you do exactly that.. you feel it. You don't first think up a sentence that expresses empathy. First you feel it. Without words or beliefs.

Ok. Now answer the question.

 

[plumjam]

Nice brush-off. You're back to blankly asserting that there exists an objective source of morality. You can doubt the fact that the examples provided were seen as moral all you want, but the fact is that they were common for centuries in those societies.

As for this meat-eater, I wouldn't know where to start with killing and butchering an animal, but in my family you need only go back one generation. My mother helped kill and pluck chickens as a child, and sees nothing wrong with it. And she plays the organ at church services.

So, to recap, your claim that morality is objective precisely because it lives inside your head is pretty silly. (ETA: Because that's pretty much the definition of subjective).

Well the logical consequence of morality not being objective would be that it's subjective, so I can assume that's your position.

Therefore you have no real authority to say whether Hitler's Germany was practicing a better or worse moral system than, say, modern Sweden.
Hey, it's all just subjective! No system can therefore be better, in any meaningful sense, than any other.

 

[plumjam]

Ok. Now answer the question.

the answer to the question is that for theists their beliefs are in harmony with their morality, but for exclusive materialist atheists their beliefs are out of harmony with their morality

because morality is deeper than beliefs this usually is not much of a problem, because atheists act, morally, as though their beliefs about the make-up of reality were those of theists

 

[Foster Zygote]

toilet cleaning etc.. is completely different. So you'd have no moral compunction or hesitancy whatsoever about slitting a cow's throat?

If it meant feeding my family I think I would learn to deal with it. Not everyone in the world can give up eating meat, Plumjam. Even the Buddhists of Tibet eat meat because they cannot grow enough vegetables to sustain them. The butchers in Tibet, prior to the Chinese at least, were Muslims. Are they behaving immorally? Would they be acting morally if they let their families go malnourished?

 

[Nogbad]

which society would you choose to live in (from history)? a randomly chosen christian society or a randomly chosen communist society?

These are the good old days - just wait and see.

Who is doing the random choosing? and who is determining whether a society is communist or not - some of our Merkin brethern would throw the Swedes and Norwegians in that pot. I would not want to live under the old Soviet Bloc 1930s to 1950s or N Korea. Could I live in modern China or Vietnam? - probably. Could I live in Spain under the Inquisition or in Scotland during the Covenanter Wars - no thanks. If I could choose an age to live in I would stay where I am and pretty much anywhere in Europe is good - I prefer my dental work with anaesthetic and my diet to consist of more than gruel.

 

[Foster Zygote]

which society would you choose to live in (from history)? a randomly chosen christian society or a randomly chosen communist society?

Plumjam, I can only conclude from observation that you are incapable of admitting error. Communism and atheism are not the same thing. Again, Communism and atheism are not the same thing. What happened in Russia, China, Cambodia etcetera was done in the name of Communism, which was a virtual religion unto itself. These states/religions declared official atheism (based on something that many people believe Karl Marx to have said that he actually did not) in order to suppress rival power systems.

 

[plumjam]

These are the good old days - just wait and see.

Who is doing the random choosing? and who is determining whether a society is communist or not - some of our Merkin brethern would throw the Swedes and Norwegians in that pot. I would not want to live under the old Soviet Bloc 1930s to 1950s or N Korea. Could I live in modern China or Vietnam? - probably. Could I live in Spain under the Inquisition or in Scotland during the Covenanter Wars - no thanks. If I could choose an age to live in I would stay where I am and pretty much anywhere in Europe is good - I prefer my dental work with anaesthetic and my diet to consist of more than gruel.

but Scotland is awful dreechhh (sp?)
I think I'd take Spain, even under the Inquisition.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

which society would you choose to live in (from history)? a randomly chosen christian society or a randomly chosen communist society?

Answer honestly, Plumjam -

which society would you choose to live in (from history)? a randomly chosen christian society or a randomly chosen secular society?