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

[Belz...]

Anyone, theist or atheist, doing something good is tuning into objective moral truth.

Or maybe they're just following natural tendencies.

Still, you haven't explained what is "good", beyond what YOU think is good, and you still haven't explained what is the objective moral truth, beyond what you THINK is good.

almost everyone will perceive the chair as red, some won't
the chair remains objective

Exactly. This is precisely why opinion has NOTHING to do with objective reality and why your 10,000 mothers in the auditorium example is worthless.

laws and morality are not the same thing.

They're not ?

 

[Furi]

so for you, valuing humanity is on the same level as liking chocolate

OK to put it another way, it is an opinion like liking chocolate is just like believing in a deity. both are sickening when forced on others

 

[plumjam]

If God has a clear view that the Beatles are more musically beautiful than kabuki, is this not then an Objective Moral Truth?

I'm just trying to nail down an example of what you would consider to be an Objective Moral Truth. You keep running and hiding from Darat when he requests a clear articulation of the same, so I thought it might help to narrow it down a bit.

You have only provided us with analogies. Please respond to Darat and put some meat on the bones of your argument so that we all can proceed. As it stands we are on a long road to nowhere.

I've already provided examples of objective moral truth.
Raping and killing a child purely for fun is wrong.

 

[Stitch]

I have no idea what you're on about.

At the risk of getting in to a no true humanist debate;

1) Humanism is about putting people first, treating them in a reasonable and equal manner. If somebody claims to be a humanist and then states they think some races are "better" than others then I'd question if they were actually a humanist, much as I would if somebody told me they are a Christian but don't consider Jesus to be their saviour.

2) Science doesn't say anything about "better", better is subjective and science can't help you determine if one race is better than another. It can give you data to show subtle differences, which, outside of science (and humanism), you can manipulate to suggest one race is inferior to another if that is your wont.

Does that help?

 

[Furi]

I've already provided examples of objective moral truth.
Raping and killing a child purely for fun is wrong.

so just like throwing acid, it's wrong?

in some peoples eyes (badum tish)

ETA - with that it is about time I scarpered, time for a definate pint or 6 and maybe a parmo on the way home. g'night all happy hangovers

 

[Belz...]

Kidding, right?
Where did all those "inalienable rights" come from, if not the Deists?
That is moral objectivity.

No, no, no. Atheists also believe in human rights, just not because they're afraid of some angry deity.

IMO beauty/aesthetics, as well as morality, are objective realities

Which is funny considering how different people's tastes are.

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

WHAT ? On what do you base this assertion ? Or are you just trolling ? Do you really believe that ? And, if so, why ? Is it because MOST people would prefer the Beatles ? Or because the Beatles are, for some unknown reason, "better", objectively ?

 

[Stitch]

Not really. There are common elements shared by AFAIK all forms of theism.

Again???

The ONLY thing you can say for sure they share is a belief in 1 or more gods.

These would include things like moral objectivity, spiritual practice and development, some form of afterlife, the notion that life is objectively directional and meaningful, that reality was intentionally created rather than a random accident, a notion of an endpoint i.e. salvation/enlightenment/nirvana/theosis/fana/moksha
etc...

I've already shown why this wrong. If you want to claim this of a subset of Theists, then fine, but please tell us which subset (as Darat keeps asking for) you are talking about. Again, Deists explicitly deny an afterlife.

The kind of materialist beliefs I routinely come across on this forum are...hmm...let me think back... well apart from other theists I would say that I have never seen anyone on this board whose belief system contains any of the above.
(at least they have never expressed their beliefs as such)

And there are Theists that will disagree with you, Deists for a start.

That's a pretty clear cut divide.

No it isn't

Under those circumstances I don't understand why you keep insisting I choose one particular form of theism.

Because not ALL forms of theism agree with what you are saying, I've shown you one that doesn't. As such that generalisation isn't available to you, so you'll have to point to a sub-set of Theists that do actually hold that belief. We can then examine if they do, or once again if your assumptions are incorrect.

 

[Darat]

(Rearranged by me to answer the last question first)
Under those circumstances I don't understand why you keep insisting I choose one particular form of theism.

I haven't.

...snip...

Not really. There are common elements shared by AFAIK all forms of theism. These would include things like moral objectivity, spiritual practice and development, some form of afterlife, the notion that life is objectively directional and meaningful, that reality was intentionally created rather than a random accident, a notion of an endpoint i.e. salvation/enlightenment/nirvana/theosis/fana/moksha
etc...

You are merely repeating your fundamental misunderstanding of what theism is.

However lets leave that to one side for the moment and examine your new claim. If as you claim ("AFAIK") all beliefs systems that also incorporate a theistic belief share an objective morality it should be simple to demonstrate this using say Christianity and Islam (which between them represent a belief system which incorporates a theistic belief that over half the worlds population apparently subscribe to).

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Still, you haven't explained what is "good", beyond what YOU think is good, and you still haven't explained what is the objective moral truth, beyond what you THINK is good.

And he can't, as objective moral truth, again, would've been subjectively written down, translated and interpreted (see my example about Societies A-C) by humans.

 

[plumjam]

so just like throwing acid, it's wrong?

in some peoples eyes (badum tish)

ETA - with that it is about time I scarpered, time for a definate pint or 6 and maybe a parmo on the way home. g'night all happy hangovers

have a skinful Furi; enjoy

(I wonder what colour the chair will be in 5 hours time)

 

[Belz...]

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

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

Ah, yes. Prefering music that plumjam doesn't like means I can't appreciate real music.

Sorry, Plum, but that's a kid's philosophy. Kids don't understand that many people can have different opinions and tastes that are just as good because they do not represent an objective truth. You think that EVERYTHING represents an objective truth.

Which is even more confusing considering the sophist philosophy you keep throwing at us.

'objective' is a mental interpretation

I'm sure. Hit your finger with a hammer while simultaneously claiming the hammer to be subjective, and see what happens.

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

A better question would be: what would be a logical reason NOT to assume human equality ?

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?

Exactly the same thing that happens when a religion determines that another part of humanity does not deserve to live.

 

[Belz...]

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.

So you're saying that God prefers the Beatles ?

That's not very objective, is it ?

you obviously didn't read it carefully

We seem to have all interpreted it in the same way. You should blame yourself.

Actually, Plum, you should at least interpret the complete disagreement by ANYONE on this critical thinkers' forum as an indication that you COULD be wrong. Instead you seem to be bolstered by that fact. That's unsettling.

 

[Tricky]

I've already provided examples of objective moral truth.
Raping and killing a child purely for fun is wrong.

In some variants of theism, God demands human sacrifice. If God asked for a deflowered child to be sacrificed, then under that kind of theistic system, it would be immoral NOT to rape and murder a child.

Sorry Plum. You just can't seem to grasp the meaning of "objective" can you?

 

[plumjam]

I haven't.





You are merely repeating your fundamental misunderstanding of what theism is.

However lets leave that to one side for the moment and examine your new claim. If as you claim ("AFAIK") all beliefs systems that also incorporate a theistic belief share an objective morality it should be simple to demonstrate this using say Christianity and Islam (which between them represent a belief system which incorporates a theistic belief that over half the worlds population apparently subscribe to).

see bolding
this is either an innocent misunderstanding on your part, or willful trickiness

that phrasing you have chosen implies that the moral systems of Christianity and Islam should be the same. If that was intentional, nice try, but you got caught.

what I have, in fact, been saying is that all theisms believe morality to be objective

what you're trying to imply I'm saying is entirely other

 

[plumjam]

In some variants of theism, God demands human sacrifice. If God asked for a deflowered child to be sacrificed, then under that kind of theistic system, it would be immoral NOT to rape and murder a child.

Sorry Plum. You just can't seem to grasp the meaning of "objective" can you?

where did I say all forms of theism have an equally accurate perception of objective moral truth?

 

[SonOfLaertes]

So you're saying that God prefers the Beatles ?

That's not very objective, is it ?



We seem to have all interpreted it in the same way. You should blame yourself.

Actually, Plum, you should at least interpret the complete disagreement by ANYONE on this critical thinkers' forum as an indication that you COULD be wrong. Instead you seem to be bolstered by that fact. That's unsettling.

PJ, does God prefer the Beatles, or not? Yes or no.

 

[Stitch]

what I have, in fact, been saying is that all theisms believe morality to be objective

Let me get this straight, All theisms (which they don't) believe morality to be objective, but just not the same objective morality. So what is moral in 1 thesim may not be in another?

 

[Darat]

see bolding
this is either an innocent misunderstanding on your part, or willful trickiness

that phrasing you have chosen implies that the moral systems of Christianity and Islam should be the same. If that was intentional, nice try, but you got caught.

what I have, in fact, been saying is that all theisms believe morality to be objective

what you're trying to imply I'm saying is entirely other

If this is your claim then, as others have pointed out, you do not know how the word "objective" is used in the English language. Or to put it more more succinctly: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[plumjam]

ok folks, time for a break

think I'll leave you with an objectively beautiful piece of music
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eI3GC87q6QE

 

[SonOfLaertes]

I've already provided examples of objective moral truth.
Raping and killing a child purely for fun is wrong.

But the Bible seems to include a little bit of gratuitous child killing here and there, and you have clearly held Christianity up before our eyes as an example. So I'm confused.

Or is child killing an Objective Moral Truth when God commands it?