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

[bokonon]

I guess we are all free to make up our own laws of physics then.
Without believing that your subjective understanding of the laws of physics refers to objective laws of physics the whole enterprise becomes meaningless and ridiculous.
The same applies to meaning, morality, and thus the way we live our lives.

Morality is one thing, physics is another.

The laws of physics are objective. This can be demonstrated.

Morality is not objective. Your attempt to equate morality and physics is what is meaningless and ridiculous.

 

[zooterkin]

the point is that in a materialistically founded moral system such as those of the nazis and communists the erroneous belief element is forced onto the individual conscience.

So atheism equals nazism or communism? For a start, where's your evidence that nazism was atheist? I've already given you a link showing that many Christians approved. Communism may have suppressed religion, but it put itself in its place; it was a totalitarian regime.

When erroneous belief takes priority over the individual conscience things start to get dirty. In a theistic system the belief is much closer to objective ontological and moral truth, and thus when the belief element is forced onto the individual conscience it is nowhere near as harmful.

Why? What evidence do you have? Again, you are implying by juxtaposing those statements, though not stating outright, that the theistic belief is not erroneous.

I haven't exactly said that. However, they are typically a great deal better. (for the above reasons)

social darwinism, nazism, communism

And in which society do you live that has just "reverted back to a moral system based on the spiritual view of the human"? Which society has implemented social darwinism?

For exclusive materialists there is no objective meaning and therefore can be no objective morality... but unless subjective meaning and subjective morality are founded upon objective meaning and morality there is literally no real meaning or morality in the universe
These, whether they like it or not, are the intellectual beliefs of exclusive materialism.

See several of the posts above. You are correct, there are no objective morals. Scary, isn't it, that we have to work things out for ourselves, with no spirit in the sky to hold our hand?

In reality which exclusive materialists, on a moral day-to-day level actually live in harmony with these beliefs?
It would be a life of complete nihilism and meaninglessness.

Why should it be? We have evolved what we call a conscience, which tells us what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Because the things it leads us to do tend to ensure our genes get propagated. I find it rather wonderful that those things do include love and altruism, not just the violence and selfishness you seem to assume theists would revert to if not being watched over.

Most of the atheist materialists on this forum exhibit an admirable preoccupation with uncovering objective truth via science etc..
However, if there is no objective meaning then discovering objective truth is literally meaningless. But their consistent and hard-working actions in this regard signify (you might say betray) that in practice they do implicitly accept that there is objective meaning.

So it is a case of believing one thing, yet in practice acting completely counter to that belief.

I'm not clear what you see as the contradiction. What do you think we should do? Lie down and die? Run around raping and pillaging?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

the point is that in a materialistically founded moral system such as those of the nazis and communists the erroneous belief element is forced onto the individual conscience. When erroneous belief takes priority over the individual conscience things start to get dirty. In a theistic system the belief is much closer to objective ontological and moral truth, and thus when the belief element is forced onto the individual conscience it is nowhere near as harmful.

No, it has already been pointed pout to you that there is not objective moral truth. You need to read more history and social sciences; what can be of potential hazard is exactly the opposite of what you’re proposing. It’s the search for “objective moral truths”, that obviously isn’t there, that can lead to gross misunderstandings (stoning the gays, the superiority of the Arian race, Lysenko’s ideas about crops etc.). When you base your moral ideas about something that’s not true, you are bound to go wrong until reality forces you back on track. That’s the lesson learned form history, and that’s why modern secular societies seem to be better off than current Islamistic or deeply theistic ones (or Nazi Germany in the past). Realizing that we humans are reasponsible for our own action (not to an illusiory being or to dreamed-up “objective” ideals, but to our selves and our fellow creatures) is the only sensible position.

You are, in effect, proposing something that has the potential to become a new dark age – an then it’s up for the lucid people who can see trough that social madness of “objective morality” that has to set things back on track, again and again. Only because some theistic-oriented people find it intolerable to not dream-up some “objective moral truth” is not a reason for other people to adopt the same kind of psychosis. You simply have to deal with the world as it is, you simply have to grow up.

 

[zooterkin]

the point is that in a materialistically founded moral system such as those of the nazis and communists the erroneous belief element is forced onto the individual conscience. When erroneous belief takes priority over the individual conscience things start to get dirty. In a theistic system the belief is much closer to objective ontological and moral truth, and thus when the belief element is forced onto the individual conscience it is nowhere near as harmful.

Just to address a point I missed. I'm not arguing for forcing any belief, erroneous or otherwise. The reason why the nazis and communist were wrong was not that they were atheist, it's that they were wrong. In various European countries over the years, Christianity of various flavours was forced on the population. Do you agree that was wrong?

 

[plumjam]

The laws of physics are objective. This can be demonstrated.

No it can't. You have to simply believe that they are objective. Them being 'objective' is an interpretive schema you project onto them yourself.

 

[plumjam]

Just to address a point I missed. I'm not arguing for forcing any belief, erroneous or otherwise. The reason why the nazis and communist were wrong was not that they were atheist, it's that they were wrong. In various European countries over the years, Christianity of various flavours was forced on the population. Do you agree that was wrong?

See my point. If Christianity were forced upon Nazism or Communism it would be a very good thing for society.
(even a relatively flawed manifestation of Christianity)

 

[mrund]

Christianity didn't need to be forced upon Nazism. They coexisted quite happily in the Third Reich. After all, the two movements shared a lot of enemies: Jews, communists, gays, Jehova's Witnesses...

 

[plumjam]

No, it has already been pointed pout to you that there is not objective moral truth. You need to read more history and social sciences; what can be of potential hazard is exactly the opposite of what you’re proposing. It’s the search for “objective moral truths”, that obviously isn’t there, that can lead to gross misunderstandings (stoning the gays, the superiority of the Arian race, Lysenko’s ideas about crops etc.). When you base your moral ideas about something that’s not true, you are bound to go wrong until reality forces you back on track. That’s the lesson learned form history, and that’s why modern secular societies seem to be better off than current Islamistic or deeply theistic ones (or Nazi Germany in the past). Realizing that we humans are responsible for our own action (not to an illusiory being or to dreamed-up “objective” ideals, but to our selves and our fellow creatures) is the only sensible position.

You are, in effect, proposing something that has the potential to become a new dark age – an then it’s up for the lucid people who can see trough that social madness of “objective morality” that has to set things back on track, again and again. Only because some theistic-oriented people find it intolerable to not dream-up some “objective moral truth” is not a reason for other people to adopt the same kind of psychosis. You simply have to deal with the world as it is, you simply have to grow up.

For your edification I have bolded the parts of your post which most require you to have faith in objectivity in the physical and moral realm.

Without that assumed objectivity your post would be literally without meaning outside of some words being strung together in your own mentality.

 

[zooterkin]

See my point. If Christianity were forced upon Nazism or Communism it would be a very good thing for society.
(even a relatively flawed manifestation of Christianity)

That's not what I was referring to; I was thinking of the Inquisition in Spain, or England under Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I, for example. With the personal beliefs you've stated, you would have been treated as a heretic.

 

[Nogbad]

See my point. If Christianity were forced upon Nazism or Communism it would be a very good thing for society.
(even a relatively flawed manifestation of Christianity)

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

The words of one A Hitler

Nazi soldiers wore the words Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) on their belt buckles.

One can argue that Hitler was a mentalist (quite convincingly) but one cannot argue that he was an atheist. He was was like the Papal Legate I quoted earlier. Hitler believed he was God's agent and on a divine anti communist and anti atheist mission. He was in fact a Roman Catholic who belonged to rather hard line anti-semitic tradition that viewed the Jews as God killers. The Church has (largely) purged itself of such views today but it was not an uncommon view in previous centuries and Hitler was born in the 19th century to rather old fashioned and strict (even for the 19th century) parents.

 

[plumjam]

That's not what I was referring to; I was thinking of the Inquisition in Spain, or England under Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I, for example. With the personal beliefs you've stated, you would have been treated as a heretic.

In those societies my personal beliefs would not have been available to me in their present form, yet my personal beliefs could have found decent expression within Christianity, I have no doubt.

 

[bokonon]

You have to simply believe that [the laws of physics] are objective. Them being 'objective' is an interpretive schema you project onto them yourself.

No, it isn't. If I release a five-pound cannonball, I can predict how long it will take for it to fall 10 feet, and this result can be verified by anyone anywhere on earth. If I put a five kilogram cannonball in a ten-gram bag with a ten kilogram cannonball, I can predict how much the bag will weigh at sea level, and this result can be verified by anyone on earth. I can predict how much the bag will weigh on the moon, and this result can be verified by anyone on the moon. These are objective results -- there are no value judgments involved.

Morality and ethics are all about value judgments, which are not objective. If you can provide an example of a value judgment which can be predicted based on what you regard as objective laws of morality, I might be persuaded to reconsider, but I don't think you can.

 

[Nogbad]

In those societies my personal beliefs would not have been available to me in their present form, yet my personal beliefs could have found decent expression within Christianity, I have no doubt.

As a matter of interest which of the many paths are you on PJ?

Don't answer if you don't want to - I am just being nosey.

 

[DOC]

I would say MLK was not a christian in any sense of the word that DOC is using. MLK spent his life fighting against the christianity Doc endorses, specifically the literal interpretation of the bible.

I have never said I was a literalist and just for the record King did help form the civil rights Group the "Southern "Christian" Leadership Conference" and he was their first president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Christian_Leadership_Conference

He also authored a book called "The Strength to Love" which was a compilation of some of his sermons. At the beginning of each chapter was a Bible verse and then he would expound on it.

He even had a Chapter critical of Communism.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

For your edification I have bolded the parts of your post which most require you to have faith in objectivity in the physical and moral realm.

Without that assumed objectivity your post would be literally without meaning outside of some words being strung together in your own mentality.

No, again, your bolding does not make your statement about an ”objective moral truth” true. I am speaking from my subjective perspective, for how I perceive the situation to be. My conclusions are based on my observations as well as my knowledge about history and social sciences, and foremost through how I perceive the situation today. Even thou I claim something that could be interpreted to something resembling faith (like ‘obviously isn’t there’, ‘back on track’, ‘better off’, sensible position’ etc.) doesn’t mean that they are objective in the absolute sense. Nice try, but totally off tangent! They are my positions regardless of how much I (or you) might claim them to be the correct positions.

I restate my subjective position about how I interpret your ideology: You are, in effect, proposing something that has the potential to become a new dark age – an then it’s up for the lucid people who can see trough that social madness of “objective morality” that has to set things back on track, again and again. Only because some theistic-oriented people find it intolerable to not dream-up some “objective moral truth” is not a reason for other people to adopt the same kind of psychosis. You simply have to deal with the world as it is; you simply have to grow up.

 

[plumjam]

Morality and ethics are all about value judgments, which are not objective. If you can provide an example of a value judgment which can be predicted based on what you regard as objective laws of morality, I might be persuaded to reconsider, but I don't think you can.

Sure. Put 10,000 mothers in an auditorium. One by one bring out their children onto the stage, and have someone rape then murder the child. Then do a survey of the mothers, asking whether what they just saw was morally right, morally wrong, or morally neutral. I predict that the results will be statistically highly significant, in fact, to a degree rarely found in 'purely physical' science.

The children wouldn't even have to be their own, and I'd predict almost identical results.


(Sorry folks, if that was a bit of an extreme example.. but it illustrates the point)

 

[plumjam]

No, again, your bolding does not make your statement about an ”objective moral truth” true. I am speaking from my subjective perspective, for how I perceive the situation to be. My conclusions are based on my observations as well as my knowledge about history and social sciences, and foremost through how I perceive the situation today. Even thou I claim something that could be interpreted to something resembling faith (like ‘obviously isn’t there’, ‘back on track’, ‘better off’, sensible position’ etc.) doesn’t mean that they are objective in the absolute sense. Nice try, but totally off tangent! They are my positions regardless of how much I (or you) might claim them to be the correct positions.

I restate my subjective position about how I interpret your ideology: You are, in effect, proposing something that has the potential to become a new dark age – an then it’s up for the lucid people who can see trough that social madness of “objective morality” that has to set things back on track, again and again. Only because some theistic-oriented people find it intolerable to not dream-up some “objective moral truth” is not a reason for other people to adopt the same kind of psychosis. You simply have to deal with the world as it is; you simply have to grow up.

so your position is entirely subjective and therefore has no power in argument

I like ice cream, this is pretty subjective. If I were to argue that other people should like ice cream simply because I like ice cream then that form of argumentation would have little or no power.

Like yours.

 

[Oroborus]

If only oranges were apples.

 

[plumjam]

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

The words of one A Hitler

Nazi soldiers wore the words Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) on their belt buckles.

One can argue that Hitler was a mentalist (quite convincingly) but one cannot argue that he was an atheist. He was was like the Papal Legate I quoted earlier. Hitler believed he was God's agent and on a divine anti communist and anti atheist mission. He was in fact a Roman Catholic who belonged to rather hard line anti-semitic tradition that viewed the Jews as God killers. The Church has (largely) purged itself of such views today but it was not an uncommon view in previous centuries and Hitler was born in the 19th century to rather old fashioned and strict (even for the 19th century) parents.

well, the Hitler thing could, and has, run on a thread for 30 pages
my take is that he was a notorious liar and opportunist.. he had more reason to lie in public, if someone really wants to know his 'less-lying' views they are in his table-talk, in which he kept banging on about survival of the fittest, how the weak should perish, about the struggle of the races etc..
anyway, best not to go down that path.

 

[plumjam]

As a matter of interest which of the many paths are you on PJ?

Don't answer if you don't want to - I am just being nosey.

That's ok.
pretty much, though not exclusively, this

http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/