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

[zooterkin]

Sure. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries there were attempts to base moral systems on a material understanding of man. It was most 'successful' in terms of level of adoption, in communism and nazism. In the west too, social darwinism was tried to some extent, in the eugenics movement and such like.. but its level of adoption luckily wasn't as great as in the east.

So, in fact, what you said was not correct; the society you're in made no such change of system. A couple of countries were ruled by totalitarian regimes for differing periods of time, but that was nothing to do with atheism.

After the ensuing human disaster the material view of man is discredited, and on an international level there has been a reversion to a spiritual view of man, enshrined in things like the universal declaration of human rights, which although not a religious document essentially asserts a spiritual view of man (non-evidenceable equality etc..)

I'm sorry, where's the proof that this is based on theism, and not, for example, humanism?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Since Plumjam seems afraid to respond to me might I request that someone ask him to define which art forms are objectively more beautiful than others?

Is Chet Atkins objectively more or less beautiful than Cheb Khaled? Where is The Reverend Horton Heat in relation to Charles Mingus? How about John Lee Hooker and Django Reinhardt? Felix Mendelssohn and Ye Xiaongang? Robin Trower and Ravi Shankar?

What about painting? Poetry? Dance?

 

[plumjam]

You are wrong. No matter what a person believes, gravity still effects them in the exact same way it affects everyone else, the same goes for inertia, friction, thermodynamics etc. How you perceive those effects may be subjective, but the effects themselves, and the laws, are the same for all.

'objective' is a mental interpretation

 

[Furi]

Aaaaghhh ! Furi, my head hurts now
I'm trying to see what point you're making... something about what... the difference between subjective 'measurement' and objective 'measurement'?
Please help me out.

It was more to do with the spiritual man arrived at the fact that the chair was indeed green was because other people told him and that when he had seen it, his perception matched it was accepted as an unquestioned fact. (this is not just spiritual man but most people with normal colour vision as well)

due to my perception not matching with the commonly held view of the colour, I used my own methods to question and investigate further and although my view of the colour didn't change, I knew that the chair was indeed green

The perception of the life universe and everything might be different to Theist and Atheist, but it does not change the existance, Theism supplied me with a ridiculous explaination of creation and of life in general, so I had to investigate further (I mean Nyx laying a golden egg and that, good stories but a little short of credible)

some of the the morals which you seem to be questioning have also been arrived at and adopted by Athiests and Theists alike (remember that Atheism was here first ) but using differing methods of arriving at them, One group is given these morals as fact and enforces because they are told crapulence will happen if they don't. The others arrived at this morality because they have arrived at the personal conclusion that it is the right thing to do, either for social or personal reasons and are subject to change and adaptation as new situations arise,

If a terrible "moral dilemma" arises this may cause a moral crisis for theists and atheists both, but one group is able to adapt and make what maybe the most humane opinion, while the theist is still trying to find a holy book with a misprint so they have the spiritual justification of making the same decision if it goes aginst what is law, or worse they knowingly make the wrong decision in that case solely because it is written.

 

[thaiboxerken]

PlumJam, it's not too late to try and win the Million Dollar Challenge. All you have to do is demonstrate that the laws of physics is subjective, do something that will contradict a law of physics and you will become a millionaire. Feel free to ignore this post, since it destroys your silly point of view.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Since Plumjam seems afraid to respond to me might I request that someone ask him to define which art forms are objectively more beautiful than others?

Is Chet Atkins objectively more or less beautiful than Cheb Khaled? Where is The Reverend Horton Heat in relation to Charles Mingus? How about John Lee Hooker and Django Reinhardt? Felix Mendelssohn and Ye Xiaongang? Robin Trower and Ravi Shankar?

What about painting? Poetry? Dance?

I’m waiting for that part where he magistrates the objective amount of rockness in granite vs. basalt.

What about Mozart vs. Beethoven?

 

[thaiboxerken]

'objective' is a mental interpretation

Wrong again. Objective means that beliefs and interpretations don't matter.

 

[joobz]

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

That's very possible. I mean I like the beatles and am not fond of kabuki at all.

I just wonder, which one is closer to the objective beauty standard?

 

[plumjam]

So, in fact, what you said was not correct; the society you're in made no such change of system. A couple of countries were ruled by totalitarian regimes for differing periods of time, but that was nothing to do with atheism.

Pedantry does not become you.
Atheist materialist view of man.


I'm sorry, where's the proof that this is based on theism, and not, for example, humanism?[/QUOTE]
what does humanism use to justify the assumption of human equality?

 

[Tricky]

'objective' is a mental interpretation

You are almost perfectly wrong. While your acceptance of objectivity may be your own mental interpretation, the actual reality of a thing exists completely apart from any mental interpretation and indeed from any minds at all.

My goal, as A scientist, is to become as objective as possible, removing interpretation from reality and stripping it down to truth. At this, I will never be nearly perfect, certainly not nearing the perfection in your incorrectness above, but I will try. Approaching objective truth is one of the things that gives this atheist's life meaning and direction. One might even choose to call it moral.

 

[thaiboxerken]

what does humanism use to justify the assumption of human equality?

Humanity.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My bad - I was referring to the link Plumjam provided to meher baba in post #780. I wasn't being facetious - the resemblance is uncanny, at least with the image on the web page.

I've posted twice now in this thread about Meher Baba. PJ says to read his works to understand the truth about the Universe as PJ does.

Meher Baba believed he was God. Meher Baba was a certifiable lunatic.

I think somehow this explains a lot.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps you've stumbled upon the objective truth, Gord.

 

[plumjam]

Humanity.

and if part of humanity chooses to believe that it is better than another part of humanity, and uses science to try to justify this... what does humanism do then?

 

[plumjam]

I've posted twice now in this thread about Meher Baba. PJ says to read his works to understand the truth about the Universe as PJ does.

Meher Baba believed he was God. Meher Baba was a certifiable lunatic.

I think somehow this explains a lot.

Chubby Cheeks, I'm glad your studies are progressing.

 

[plumjam]

That's very possible. I mean I like the beatles and am not fond of kabuki at all.

I just wonder, which one is closer to the objective beauty standard?

To have perfect knowledge of something like objective beauty (or anything else), what is needed is a perfect merging of the subjective and the objective. This only exists in God. If you were to become God-realised, Joobz, I dare say you'd have a clear view of where the beatles stood in relation to kabuki, vis-a-vis musical beauty.
I'm not really familiar with Kabuki, but my money'd be on the cheeky scousers.

 

[plumjam]

My goal, as A scientist, is to become as objective as possible, removing interpretation from reality and stripping it down to truth. At this, I will never be nearly perfect, certainly not nearing the perfection in your incorrectness above, but I will try. Approaching objective truth is one of the things that gives this atheist's life meaning and direction. One might even choose to call it moral.

would it be fair for you, as a scientist, to assume that we can only approach objective truth via the 5 senses?

 

[Stitch]

and if part of humanity chooses to believe that it is better than another part of humanity, and uses science to try to justify this... what does humanism do then?

and if a part of christianity chooses to believe that christ is not the saviour, and uses a copy of Viz to try to justify this, what does christianity do then?

 

[Stitch]

Duplicate post

 

[Beerina]

would it be fair for you, as a scientist, to assume that we can only approach objective truth via the 5 senses?

That knowledge of "out there" is derived via observations using these senses does have an aspect of dealing with "reality", whatever that is, as if we were building a ship in a bottle using clumsy, long tools.

The philosophical error is that no useful or accurate information can be gleaned from this.