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

[SonOfLaertes]

Answer honestly, Plumjam -

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

Never mind, I see that by stating that you would rather live under the Spanish Inquisition that you will not answer honestly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

As has been explained in the past, "exclusive materialist atheist" is your straw man. As an atheist I can say that this straw man of yours is so far from an actual description of my self as to be laughable. It is also woefully inaccurate as a description of atheists in general. I feel no inferiority to you as a man, but I find your clumsy attempts to portray me, and all other atheists, as morally inferior to yourself to be both unjustifiably arrogant and insulting to many a fine person.

 

[plumjam]

Answer honestly, Plumjam -

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

Well, I'm not particularly a Christian, but I'd prefer that to the secular society. My whole upbringing through education/the media/ popular culture in this secular society has had behind it the rarely explicitly stated assumption that life and the universe is basically meaningless.
It took me years to see that that was what was actually happening, and to move beyond that.
In a Christian society I wouldn't have wasted so many years in all that nonsense.

The idea that secularism is somehow "neutral" is just false. Any position is a position, with attendant consequences.

 

[Furi]

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

Depends are those the ONLY choices allowed, would that include secular societies where communes and the right not to have faith forced at you is allowed, because if this was any of the rabid christian societies, give me the communists anyday (at least there is a better chance I wont get killed for my outlook),

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

Have done, what fact was I supposed to learn? that meat comes from animals, Oh ok learned that whats the next lesson, also learned that goats bleed a lot and makes the floor slippy.

Top of the food chain baby
sssshhhh be vewy vewy quiet I am ramen hunting

 

[Foster Zygote]

My whole upbringing through education/the media/ popular culture in this secular society has had behind it the rarely explicitly stated assumption that life and the universe is basically meaningless.

By "meaning" I assume you mean "God loves us best of all and made it all just for us".

Even if an atheist cannot perceive a "meaning" behind the universe that does not mean that he/she perceives his/her life as "meaningless". This is another silly straw man of yours.

 

[Nogbad]

Depends are those the ONLY choices allowed, would that include secular societies where communes and the right not to have faith forced at you is allowed, because if this was any of the rabid christian societies, give me the communists anyday (at least there is a better chance I wont get killed for my outlook),



Have done, what fact was I supposed to learn? that meat comes from animals, Oh ok learned that whats the next lesson, also learned that goats bleed a lot and makes the floor slippy.

Top of the food chain baby
sssshhhh be vewy vewy quiet I am ramen hunting

FFS! you are not supposed to do it in the sitting room.

Caught a lot of fish, crab and lobster as a kid and done the necessary. Not sure I could kill a lamb though - tasty though they are.

 

[Prometheus]

Which would you choose to live in, modern day Japan, or modern day Saudi Arabia. Having lived in both, I can say with absolute certainty that theocracy sucks.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

…it stays subjective unless you can show this “objective moral truth” that you so eagerly refer to? It’s easy with a chair (there’s a denotation involved), but when talking about morality you’re just not convincing at all; you simply talk about connotations when referring to morality as a product of conscience, yet you keep insisting they are objective. They are not.

 

[plumjam]

…it stays subjective unless you can show this “objective moral truth” that you so eagerly refer to? It’s easy with a chair (there’s a denotation involved), but when talking about morality you’re just not convincing at all; you simply talk about connotations when referring to morality as a product of conscience, yet you keep insisting they are objective. They are not.

see post 615

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Words plumjam needs to learn, and understand the definitions of:
immoral
amoral
objective
subjective
absolute
qualitative

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Yes, I’m aware of post #615

…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.

Your appeal to alleged relativism between Hitler’s Germany and modern Sweden does, in no way, make your statement about “objective moral truth” true. And yes, I think Hitler’s Germany was horrific compared to modern Sweden.

Dreaming the good dream does not however make it real, you simply have to deal with that fact.

 

[plumjam]

Words plumjam needs to learn, and understand the definitions of:
immoral
amoral
objective
subjective
absolute
qualitative

Words Arkan needs to learn, and understand the definition of:

argument
make

 

[John_Geeshu]

As much as I hate to get sucked into this merry-go-round...

plumjam, I don't understand the concept of secular societies implying that life, the universe and everything is meaningless. My confusion arises over the meaning of meaningless. In what sense are you using "meaningless' in the way that it applies to life, the universe and everything? And, if you could, clearly state what meaning you take there to be in life, the universe and everything that secular societies ignore/deny?

 

[plumjam]

Yes, I’m aware of post #615



Your appeal to alleged relativism between Hitler’s Germany and modern Sweden does, in no way, make your statement about “objective moral truth” true. And yes, I think Hitler’s Germany was horrific compared to modern Sweden.

Dreaming the good dream does not however make it real, you simply have to deal with that fact.

would it be your position that other people should share your belief re: Hitler/Sweden?

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Derail...

For goodness sake let your boy join the Scouts. Maybe things are different in the UK but I had no problem being an atheist scout. Yes I object to their on paper rejection of atheism but in my experience as a member and instuctor it has no practical influence.

Besides which would you equally deny your son the right to become a member of a religion. Personally I object to the regious indoctrination of children by the religious and to be even handed I'm a little uncomfortable inferring that the boy might be an atheist soley because you've told him so. For me that's a decisison he has to make for himself at a much later date.

Or perhaps it's just me that worries your son's feelings might be being used as a political football

For the record, I am not anti-BSA. I am not trying to change them. I am not discouraging anyone from joining. I never complained to the school or anyone else. This is not "political football". They are the ones that won't allow my son to join. Would you also encourage a christian to lie about their beliefs in order to join a organization that officially and strictly bars their membership? I am in no way, shape, or form trying to play the "victim card" here. I wanted to illustrate that the religious discrimination that I fear not only exists, but is actually protected by law in this country.

In case you missed it, my son is six years old. I am not willing to lie on the application, and I will neither encourage nor condone him lying so that he can join an exclusive club. That would go against what I am trying to teach him -- namely fairness and honesty. As he grows and mentally matures, we will continue to talk openly about how and why people believe so many different things. If, when he is older, he decides to try out religion (or not) I will then let him decide for himself. Of course, there are many variables at play when raising children, especially when it comes to permissiveness -- I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

To assuage any doubts you may have concerning the quality of my parenting, I should tell you that I am not trying to push my un-belief in gods on him. I have taught him that lots of people believe in lots of different things, and for the most part, there's nothing wrong with that. I am teaching him tolerance and supporting his inquisitiveness, not using him to further some personal atheist agenda. Also, for what it's worth, his maternal grandparents, paternal grandmother, and his father all practice different religions. It's not like he's growing up in some sort of atheistic vacuum.

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

As lupus already noted, the fact that you don't like the idea of subjective morality, doesn't make objective morality true, nor does it change the fact that what you are describing as objective morality is, in fact, entirely subjective.

The fact that many people live by the golden rule is because it works for social animals. The fact the people steal, kill and what not, is because anti-social behaviour can sometimes be rewarding, but it's risky; people won't like you much when they find out. If you look at morals through evolutionary 'goggles', you can easily see rational causes for both social and anti-social behaviour; reasons for widely shared moral rules, and reasons why people from neighbouring cities will gladly hit eachother over the head over a footbal match.

 

[joobz]

As lupus already noted, the fact that you don't like the idea of subjective morality, doesn't make objective morality true, nor does it change the fact that what you are describing as objective morality is, in fact, entirely subjective.

The fact that many people live by the golden rule is because it works for social animals. The fact the people steal, kill and what not, is because anti-social behaviour can sometimes be rewarding, but it's risky; people won't like you much when they find out. If you look at morals through evolutionary 'goggles', you can easily see rational causes for both social and anti-social behaviour; reasons for widely shared moral rules, and reasons why people from neighbouring cities will gladly hit eachother over the head over a footbal match.

We are as objectively moral as our genes allow us to be.

Lousy subjective genome.

 

[plumjam]

As lupus already noted, the fact that you don't like the idea of subjective morality, doesn't make objective morality true, nor does it change the fact that what you are describing as objective morality is, in fact, entirely subjective.

The fact that many people live by the golden rule is because it works for social animals. The fact the people steal, kill and what not, is because anti-social behaviour can sometimes be rewarding, but it's risky; people won't like you much when they find out. If you look at morals through evolutionary 'goggles', you can easily see rational causes for both social and anti-social behaviour; reasons for widely shared moral rules, and reasons why people from neighbouring cities will gladly hit eachother over the head over a footbal match.

the consequence of what you wrote is that if you knew you could get away with a crime that would benefit you, there's no real reason why you shouldn't do it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Words Arkan needs to learn, and understand the definition of:

argument
make

That's it PJ, just keep seeing how far you can shove your head in the sand.

 

[Darat]

the consequence of what you wrote is that if you knew you could get away with a crime that would benefit you, there's no real reason why you shouldn't do it.

You should re-read what was posted since the consequences arising from the argument that was actually posted are in fact almost entirely the opposite of what you have erroneously concluded.