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

[Stitch]

you are the one who brought up the deists - it should be you who has the handbook.

No, you claimed that ALL theists AFAYK held the belief in objective morals. I gave an example of a sub group of thesists and asked if you could show that it held true for that group. If not it obviously follows it doesn't hold for ALL theists.

Nevertheless, from here
http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

one of its 'tenets'

7. Belief in the principle of Natural Law that states that all men and women are created equal to each other with inherent freedom and liberty so that no human has more worth than another. Essentially, each human is equal in terms of the freedoms that they have and in the eyes of the law.

That is a moral objective statement that in no way could be supported by empirical evidence.

Way to cherry pick!! Shall we see what it says at the beginning of that list??

While there are no “official” tenets of Deism, many of the following “unofficial” tenets might be the best way to introduce generally accepted beliefs within Deism. The unofficial tenets of Deism are:

(my bold)

So there are no universally accepted tenets of Deism then, tell me again about how they all believe in moral objectivity.

 

[plumjam]

I thought of Crystal Gayle Just after I typed it.

so if I get this right, the spiritual man by helping me see the chair as green, would be explaining that my own perception is incorrect and that I should take it on faith that it is green because the common belief is that it is green.

A more materialistic person (like myself) might suggest that I get a Tintometer or similar so that I could see the resultant reflected spectral spikes, and work out that due to deuteronopia I do not see the latter half of the Green elements as they are overtaken by the Blue Component, and the perception of differing colours under various lighting, is due to the differing incident light and that the grey comes from Isochromatic values due to the lesser quantity of Blue emitted blue light from these disgustingly cool coloured fluorescents.

I see now (well as long as it isn't Green)

No. I thought you were using the colour of the chair as a way of talking about morality. Seems I misinterpreted you.
My reply to you was to indicate that a spiritual view of man will aid the individual in perceiving moral truth.

The Crystal Gale thing was cool though, huh? Maybe we'd get on well.

 

[plumjam]

No, you claimed that ALL theists AFAYK held the belief in objective morals. I gave an example of a sub group of thesists and asked if you could show that it held true for that group. If not it obviously follows it doesn't hold for ALL theists.



Way to cherry pick!! Shall we see what it says at the beginning of that list??


(my bold)

So there are no universally accepted tenets of Deism then, tell me again about how they all believe in moral objectivity.

So therefore, to you there can be no real, usable, definition of Deism. So then why bring it up? Your subsequent approach has rendered the whole subject beyond discussion.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is patently wrong and you know it.

Hint for the future: Instead of taking it as a given that atheist societies are worse than theist ones and then trying to make sense of this through various hypotheses... challenge objectively your statement that atheist societies are evil in the first place. With respect, trying to explain how atheism makes you evil is like trying to explain how homeopathic medicines work. Forming theories and hypotheses based on a given statement only works if you can back up the given statement in the first place.

Plumjam has long ago been challenged to name a society that is based on atheism. All he was able to provide were societies based on Soviet style Communism. He has made himself deliberately ignorant of the difference.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Foster: Is that from the "Monty Python" funniest, killer, joke routine? I was going to Babelfish it, but I was afraid I might wind up in hospital!

It's a good thing you don't read mock German or you'd be dead now.

 

[joobz]

Well joobz brought slavery into this thread. I think he is making the mistake of comparing our culture and times to theirs. Jesus spoke to the people of the time in a way that they could understand. But he also said, I have many more things to tell you but you could not bear them (paraphrasing).

John 16:12

King James Bible

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

And later He said He would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all truth. The "abolition" of slavery was almost certainly just something the people, the culture, and the economy of the time could not bear. The following passage goes more into this.

So, you still can't find a passage which says god is against slavery? YEt, there are many passages in which god permits/condones slavery.

So, instead of presenting such an argument, you give me a quote which may be interpreted as anything you like?

I do not think you have fully thought through the implications of your argument. If it is true, than it is also likely that god may also want us to be vegetarian, permit women to be priests, allow gays to marry, permit 1st/2nd trimester abortions, say that jesus isn't the only way, that premaritial sex is ok... All of these things can be claimed to be things that "we cannot bear" just yet. And it doesn't matter if the bible outright denies these things, becuase it could simply be because society at the time couldn't accept such truths.

There was a very good thread about 6 months ago called "Slavery in the Bible". This was part of the OP:
Slavery in the ancient world was just part of the natural order of things. Some people were rich, some were poor, and some were slaves. It never even occurred to the slaves themselves that there ought not be such an institution; they merely hoped to have a good master, or to be free someday (and have slaves of their own).

Advocating the abolition of slavery in, say, the 10th century BCE, or even the 1st, was literally unthinkable. The entire economic order depended on it, as did the social order and the civil and criminal law.

You really should try to read the posts that are made in argument to yours. You then wouldn't embarrass youself by presenting an argument that has already been defeated.

1.) doesn't matter if the peopel didn't know better. god is supposed to know better.
2.) Your quote above is actually true and I agree with it. The reason the bible reflects such a view is becuase it was Written by man for man. it's not devine.

 

[plumjam]

In my case, I'm quite certain that there's a considerable genetic component. My mother's side has a long line of musicians involved.

But, no, beauty is in no way objective. In fact, in my experience, it's completely subjective. There are pieces of mine for which people have told me they were very moved by, thought them very beautiful; and yet the same piece had many people repulsed by it. Sorry, doesn't wash. We hear sound, we process according to how our brains handle those sounds, and in context of all that we've heard to that point. We get it, or we don't. My wife, doesn't. My kids do. Some of my friends do. Some don't. It's all subjective.

So what is it that makes the Beatles music better than an orangutan trying to play the bagpipes?
Magic?
Or a greater approximation to objective beauty?

 

[joobz]

So what is it that makes the Beatles music better than an orangutan trying to play the bagpipes?
Magic?
Or a greater approximation to objective beauty?

What makes beatles better than kabuki theater?
Wait, there are people who like kabuki over beatles!?!?

what does that mean!!!!

 

[Stitch]

So therefore, to you there can be no real, usable, definition of Deism.

I have a usable definition of deism, as I do of theism and atheism, the problem you will find is that none of them encompace the term "moral", objective or otherwise. You are trying to widen simple terms to make them things that they are not.

Theist - one who belives in 1 or more gods
Atheist - one who has no belief in gods
Deist - one who belives in a devine creator that has no influence on humans or the laws of the universe.

If you want to widen those terms and yet still generalise, you need to show that your widening attributes hold for all members of the original set.

So then why bring it up?

To show you that your belief that ALL theists hold the belief in objective morals is incorrect and that you are over generalising in your arguments for theist beliefs.

Your subsequent approach has rendered the whole subject beyond discussion.

Not really, it just means you have to alter your premise as it's been shown incorrect.

 

[plumjam]

What makes beatles better than kabuki theater?
Wait, there are people who like kabuki over beatles!?!?

what does that mean!!!!

it means that some individuals do not perceive beauty as well as others, just as some people do not perceive morality as well as others

 

[plumjam]

I have a usable definition of deism, as I do of theism and atheism, the problem you will find is that none of them encompace the term "moral", objective or otherwise. You are trying to widen simple terms to make them things that they are not.

Theist - one who belives in 1 or more gods
Atheist - one who has no belief in gods
Deist - one who belives in a devine creator that has no influence on humans or the laws of the universe.

If you want to widen those terms and yet still generalise, you need to show that your widening attributes hold for all members of the original set.



To show you that your belief that ALL theists hold the belief in objective morals is incorrect and that you are over generalising in your arguments for theist beliefs.



Not really, it just means you have to alter your premise as it's been shown incorrect.

sorry, dead end conversation

 

[Stitch]

sorry, dead end conversation

Well yes, if you're going to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean of course the conversation is dead.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.
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.

It has long since been pointed out to Plumjam that the Third Reich was not an atheist state. Hitler condemned atheism and promoted his own brand of spiritualism.

His new "exclusive materialist" straw man is an attempt to get around the problem, which he can no longer ignore, that Communist regimes were not based on atheism.

And Social Darwinism was a pseudo science fabricated by politicians and racists that enjoys little more respect among modern science than phrenology.

These things have long ago been pointed out to Plumjam and he has not responded. It seems likely to me that he simply doesn't want to learn anything. He likes what he already believes, even if it is based on erroneous assumptions, because it inflates his ego. It tells him that he is superior, both intellectually and morally, to a specific group of people. He obviously likes that feeling very much and is determined, consciously or subconsciously, to preserve it.

 

[H'ethetheth]

it means that some individuals do not perceive beauty as well as others, just as some people do not perceive morality as well as others

So some people may think mathcore is totally beautiful music, but this may just be because they cannot perceive objective beauty, or it is and others can't? You see no problem with this?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Fond of your detonations and constipations aren't you

Well, I’m trying to correct the mistakes you make all the time; you seem to be confusing denotations with connotations as well as objectivity with subjectivity.

You're persisting in the mistaken assumption that for something to be objectively real it has to be perceived through the senses.

I make no such claims, but you seem to be claming that subjective morality is objective via ridiculous analogies.

Are the truths of mathematics or logic perceived through the senses? No, so does that mean they are merely subjective? No. They are objectively true. It's just that they are perceived in a different way than is, say, a chair.

Still no poof of “objective moral truth”, try harder. Perhaps give an example of an objective moral truth that’s not dependent on subjective assessment (that way you don’t have to invent non-working analogies all the time).

 

[Foster Zygote]

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)

Then the enemies of the state could be burned at the stake rather than gassed or shot. And who doesn't love a good fire?

 

[John_Geeshu]

One of the serious flaws in plumjam's objective morality argument that almost never gets discussed is that the moral standards are arbitrary. There's no inherently good reason that they are good, except that most of us collectively agree that they are subjectively a good thing and agree to abide by them for the good of all.

 

[plumjam]

So some people may think mathcore is totally beautiful music, but this may just be because they cannot perceive objective beauty, or it is and others can't? You see no problem with this?

no, I see no problem in there being visually impaired people either

(of course I'd prefer they had 20/20 vision)

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Of course Plumjam, Hitler must have been a liar. He has to have been a secret atheist, otherwise it would mean that you are wrong about something.

 

[zooterkin]

My position is that when people dogmatically believe in exclusive materialism they are very often persisting in a state of denial about how their beliefs should relate to morality.
This is currently easier to do due to society now having reverted back to a moral system based on the spiritual view of the human, rather than the prior moral systems based on the exclusive material view of the human.

Could you explain what you mean? What moral system has society reverted to, and what was the prior one?