Jordan Peterson presents a radical and new idea

[Old Things]

My views are antitheist, but I have not advocated at all for antitheist views here. You know my conclusion but I have not provided any premise for or tried to convince anyone of, that position in this thread. In fact, I have argued against it because I don't think the antitheist arguments in this thread are very good. My position coming into this thread was that you are all wrong to imagine you can know what will happen in the absence of religion. It's indeterminate:

Wiping out religion is highly unlikely, and it won't easily solve the problems you think it will. At the same time, atheism is not going to cause people to turn into Stalin, but it might give people the opportunity to be horrific in ways they wouldn't otherwise have.

You can comment on some third narrative all you want, just don't address that stuff at me because I literally don't know what you're talking about. I don't consume antitheistic content, I'm not part of any antitheistic communities, and I don't talk to any antitheists about antitheism. I read some books on philosophy 15 years ago but nothing in those books touched on institutions in religion. That's not to say I haven't somehow absorbed such a conclusion through osmosis, but it's not some party line I'm toting. If you think institutions aren't core to the reproduction of religious beliefs, show me a counter-example and stop deciding what I'm saying for me.

What does it mean for you personally to be an anti-theist?

 

[Puffy]

I think I agree with Hado that these convos are a bit disingenuous / pointless, at the very least I know so for myself. The reality is that I’m not going to convert to Christianity no matter how these threads go. I can appreciate or see value in Christianity, I’ve seen beautiful expressions of it, but I’ve already been Christian to know what it’s like for me and I’m not doing it again.

I think you need to ask yourself similarly to what extent you’re open to non-Christian perspectives. Otherwise it’s just being an apologist. Which isn’t any different to an anti-theist apologist or any other kind of apologist really, just two sides same coin: I.e two people debating who aren’t going to budge in their positions. This forum has gone through the Christian apologist vs anti-theist apologist debate many times and I’m getting a bit bored of this now and will try to duck out where I can. I’m not saying don’t discuss religion but if we could contain this rather than spreading across threads it’d be good.

 

[Hadoblado]

What does it mean for you personally to be an anti-theist?

It's a subset of my stance on indoctrination being a product-over-process epistemic endeavor. I see truth as largely unknowable (or at least less knowable than we tend to treat it), and our relationship to truth as Darwinian (beliefs that don't work for us on a sociological level don't reproduce). Due to the unprecedented rate of change, the truths that served yesterday don't necessarily serve tomorrow. Essentially, truth is best treated as a variable not a constant. Therefore, what we teach children should not be any specific thing we believe (such as there is or is not a God), but rather the tools to figure it out for themselves.

So as religions require the preservation of belief within society and across generations through institutionalised indoctrination, I am against religion and therefore against the belief in God (as defined by religion). If belief in God were divorced from indoctrination, then I would be merely atheistic and not antitheistic.

 

[Old Things]

What does it mean for you personally to be an anti-theist?

It's a subset of my stance on indoctrination being a product-over-process epistemic endeavor. I see truth as largely unknowable (or at least less knowable than we tend to treat it), and our relationship to truth as Darwinian (beliefs that don't work for us on a sociological level don't reproduce). Due to the unprecedented rate of change, the truths that served yesterday don't necessarily serve tomorrow. Essentially, truth is best treated as a variable not a constant. Therefore, what we teach children should not be any specific thing we believe (such as there is or is not a God), but rather the tools to figure it out for themselves.

So as religions require the preservation of belief within society and across generations through institutionalised indoctrination, I am against religion and therefore against the belief in God (as defined by religion). If belief in God were divorced from indoctrination, then I would be merely atheistic and not antitheistic.

That's very post-modern of you, and not really uncommon at all.

 

[Hadoblado]

What the fuck. Literally cannot be treated like an individual by you.

I'm not a post-modernist. I reject grand narratives because I believe truth is largely indeterminate, not because I think it's relative.

Can you please stop allocating me to tribes? It's driving me nuts.

 

[Old Things]

Can you please stop allocating me to tribes? It's driving me nuts.

I can try. I will learn as I go.

 

[Hadoblado]

Thanks.

 

[ZenRaiden]

False. Besides, if you think Christian nations are more dangerous than Atheist regimes, then you don't know much about the history of these things. Joseph Stalin alone has done more harm with his atheism than any known figure in Christendom.

Why ascribe this to atheism though.
Industrialization was pretty much brutal process for most nations.
Especially those nations that were under developed and then jumped into industrial nations.
The way I understand it Japan, Russia, or China were extremely damaged countries when they started the process of industrialization.
Industrialization was fairly brutal process even in cases of well developed nations.

Historically people focus on the most visible and brutal stuff.
The key part is also to observe history in its less unstable forms.

I think its tempting to say that x amount of dead = better or worse.
To some degree this is obvious, problem.
No one wants that.
But who knows, maybe the x amount of dead is matter of efficiency.
If you are efficient like in industrial world, when you get things wrong you hurt more.
I think it has less to do with Christianity.
The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.
Not in sense that it tells you what people do or stand for.
Also lack of deified cosmology is not equal to soviet socialism and its failures in its post war economy or pre war economy.

I have heard that Christians prevented people from using condoms, which caused HIV epidemic.
I also heard this was done with full knowledge. So it was genocidal.
I also heard that Christians tend to follow contradictory rules.

So I believe people need to hold off generalizations on atheism.

I can also get behind the idea of not generalizing Christian principals as long as they make sense.

 

[Old Things]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Could be.
I think it depends, if your moral framework has some structure that also reflect some sort of function.

Ill put it this way.

Some behaviorist research shows that people who change environments get clean.
Sometimes when they go back to certain environments they take drugs again.

Las Vegas Casinos are tailored to be made so that people spend ton of money every year.

Environmental circumstances change our attitudes, our cognitive behaviors etc.

It may sound like I am making light of morals, but actually environments and the way we tend to be shaped by them can sometimes oddly influence us lot more than anything else.

People might think this is not the case, but I fear that your perfect, not so perfect Christian morality where you repeat certain things can break up in certain environments.
Atheist morality does not exist.
There is not atheist morality since atheism is not moral stance.

 

[Puffy]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

 

[Old Things]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

 

[Puffy]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

 

[Old Things]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Well what standard you speak of?
Even Christianity does not adhere to the same standard.
Absence of Christian Standard means there is not a moral bone in Christians?
Do you yourself believe in such things as standards of morality and adhere to them?
If so what they are?
I never heard of position of atheism is without morals, what I did hear is that it people intrinsically build morals and make decisions as they learn.

But I think morality to an extent limited as well.
We need to work first and then as we go we make decisions.
At some point these decisions include some people and then you make moral decisions or what benefits more than single person.

These decisions are often group effort anyway.
So I would say there are group morals and personal individual morals as well.

I doubt Christians morals actually would reflect individual morals.

For instance today I had 2 cigs too many against my better judgment.
On some personal level that is wrong.
Its a soft error, but its hardly a moral thing.
One could extrapolate moral dilemma here. Health vs no health.

I don't think I ever lack morals. I do however lack ability to sometimes know how to apply or use it.
I often felt as if morals were not always applicable or useful or meaningful in circumstances.

When it comes to groups you are also pulled by morals of others, so often times, you cannot truly have "clean moral" stance.

Or you can, but you are kind of adhering to individual rather than group.

 

[Old Things]

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Well what standard you speak of?
Even Christianity does not adhere to the same standard.
Absence of Christian Standard means there is not a moral bone in Christians?
Do you yourself believe in such things as standards of morality and adhere to them?
If so what they are?
I never heard of position of atheism is without morals, what I did hear is that it people intrinsically build morals and make decisions as they learn.

But I think morality to an extent limited as well.
We need to work first and then as we go we make decisions.
At some point these decisions include some people and then you make moral decisions or what benefits more than single person.

These decisions are often group effort anyway.
So I would say there are group morals and personal individual morals as well.

I doubt Christians morals actually would reflect individual morals.

For instance today I had 2 cigs too many against my better judgment.
On some personal level that is wrong.
Its a soft error, but its hardly a moral thing.
One could extrapolate moral dilemma here. Health vs no health.

I don't think I ever lack morals. I do however lack ability to sometimes know how to apply or use it.
I often felt as if morals were not always applicable or useful or meaningful in circumstances.

When it comes to groups you are also pulled by morals of others, so often times, you cannot truly have "clean moral" stance.

Or you can, but you are kind of adhering to individual rather than group.

The most basic value Christians have is to love one another not in a romantic sense, but in goodwill toward anyone you might come across. This is the Christian ethic. And as you say (as I presume you are an atheist of some sort or at least an agnostic), there are a lot of times from your own interpretation that loving your neighbor isn't valid or at least isn't applicable. That's exactly what I am talking about here. Without a grounding of morality in something that transcends yourself, then morality is just whatever you make of it. So in an extreme case (not saying you would do this), someone might extort large sums of money from their employer over time which impacts thousands or millions of people because it benefits them. This is done because they don't think they will get caught. So clearly getting caught is a detriment, but doesn't prevent the evil they would do if given the opportunity.

This is why Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them to do good even when the incentive to do good isn't there.

 

[Puffy]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Atheists don’t have religious reasons to adhere to moral standards, hence my reasoning that morality is something inside a person independent of religious upbringing that spirituality can certainly strengthen or guide.
The presence of crime doesn’t prove anything, there’s always been crime even in times that Christianity was a cultural norm. Personally I find it impressive society is as functional as it is if we have no reason at all to be moral without being Christian

 

[Old Things]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Atheists don’t have religious reasons to adhere to moral standards, hence my reasoning that morality is something inside a person independent of religious upbringing that spirituality can certainly strengthen or guide.
The presence of crime doesn’t prove anything, there’s always been crime even in times that Christianity was a cultural norm. Personally I find it impressive society is as functional as it is if we have no reason at all to be moral without being Christian

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

 

[Puffy]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Atheists don’t have religious reasons to adhere to moral standards, hence my reasoning that morality is something inside a person independent of religious upbringing that spirituality can certainly strengthen or guide.
The presence of crime doesn’t prove anything, there’s always been crime even in times that Christianity was a cultural norm. Personally I find it impressive society is as functional as it is if we have no reason at all to be moral without being Christian

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

Okay, to try and get where I’m coming from. Regardless of the words we string together here:

1) There are predominantly secular societies in existence right now
2) Where people seem to be able to cooperate and live together to an extent that the society is able to function

In contrast according to “objective morality” women would have unequal rights, homosexuals would be abominations, pagans like me would be burned alive. Secular people are doing alright overall really.

 

[Hadoblado]

As raiden points out, there is something deeply troubling in that you believe without God telling you not to, you would fall to the deepest depravity.

Moral conduct is heavily incentivised societally. Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While it's not "objective", each culture has its own set of moral norms and these norms have a lot of overlap between cultures.

Love thy neighbor is just overall good advice 99% of the time whether God tells you to or otherwise. There's a reason that parents who want their children to succeed teach them not to steal etc.

If you think atheists have no reason to be moral, as Puffy suggests, I think you need to ask yourself some tricky questions regarding why secular societies function at all.

 

[washti]

Where are Judaism disciples on the immoral hierarchy?

 

[Old Things]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Atheists don’t have religious reasons to adhere to moral standards, hence my reasoning that morality is something inside a person independent of religious upbringing that spirituality can certainly strengthen or guide.
The presence of crime doesn’t prove anything, there’s always been crime even in times that Christianity was a cultural norm. Personally I find it impressive society is as functional as it is if we have no reason at all to be moral without being Christian

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

Okay, to try and get where I’m coming from. Regardless of the words we string together here:

1) There are predominantly secular societies in existence right now
2) Where people seem to be able to cooperate and live together to an extent that the society is able to function

In contrast according to “objective morality” women would have unequal rights, homosexuals would be abominations, pagans like me would be burned alive. Secular people are doing alright overall really.

You say to see where you are coming from and then you bring up a whole bunch of controversial issues (within Christendom) that you assume I agree to.

I'm confused.

 

[Hadoblado]

Why is their disagreement within Christendom if they have an objective morality?

How do Christians ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

If you get to pick and choose how you interpret the bible, isn't it ultimately subjective, the same as atheist morality?

 

[Old Things]

Why is their disagreement within Christendom if they have an objective morality?

How do Christians ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

If you get to pick and choose how you interpret the bible, isn't it ultimately subjective, the same as atheist morality?

Hado, is it ever morally acceptable to torture a baby for fun? If it isn't ever morally acceptable to torture a baby for fun, then objective morality exists. My beliefs are a separate issue. The issue at hand is whether there exists an objective morality. Whether we know what that objective morality is is a separate issue.

 

[Hadoblado]

You scoped the question unfairly. You are asking for me to provide a reason why an action could possibly be moral, and then also dictate what reasons I'm allowed to give.

Morality may not be objective, but this does not mean it is arbitrary. Similar to how a market works, the price of an item is variable, but this does not mean it can be anything at any time. Just because a price can vary based on market forces, does not mean I can buy a new car for pocket money. There are objective realities that determine what price points can work.

Natural selection is a better analogy, but I'm not sure what your stance or familiarity is with evolution so I went with the market example. Basically, only things that work survive, and categorising baby torture as a moral good does not work so does not survive.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The most basic value Christians have is to love one another not in a romantic sense, but in goodwill toward anyone you might come across. This is the Christian ethic. And as you say (as I presume you are an atheist of some sort or at least an agnostic), there are a lot of times from your own interpretation that loving your neighbor isn't valid or at least isn't applicable. That's exactly what I am talking about here. Without a grounding of morality in something that transcends yourself, then morality is just whatever you make of it. So in an extreme case (not saying you would do this), someone might extort large sums of money from their employer over time which impacts thousands or millions of people because it benefits them. This is done because they don't think they will get caught. So clearly getting caught is a detriment, but doesn't prevent the evil they would do if given the opportunity.

This is why Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them to do good even when the incentive to do good isn't there.

I don't think you need religion to know what is right or wrong at all times.
It might help though.

Definitely understand your point.
Atheism does lack moral structure, clearly because its not a moral stance and never had structure.

Atheism is not a group of homogeneous people was my point.

As agnostic I simply state that I do not truly know of God, therefore belief in God is simply arbitrary choice.

 

[Old Things]

You scoped the question unfairly. You are asking for me to provide a reason why an action could possibly be moral, and then also dictate what reasons I'm allowed to give.

Morality may not be objective, but this does not mean it is arbitrary. Similar to how a market works, the price of an item is variable, but this does not mean it can be anything at any time. Just because a price can vary based on market forces, does not mean I can buy a new car for pocket money. There are objective realities that determine what price points can work.

Natural selection is a better analogy, but I'm not sure what your stance or familiarity is with evolution so I went with the market example. Basically, only things that work survive, and categorising baby torture as a moral good does not work so does not survive.

It isn't just whether it is EVER permissible to torture a baby, but the reason it is done. Can you imagine a culture that would say this is okay to do? Would you consider that a moral society?

The most basic value Christians have is to love one another not in a romantic sense, but in goodwill toward anyone you might come across. This is the Christian ethic. And as you say (as I presume you are an atheist of some sort or at least an agnostic), there are a lot of times from your own interpretation that loving your neighbor isn't valid or at least isn't applicable. That's exactly what I am talking about here. Without a grounding of morality in something that transcends yourself, then morality is just whatever you make of it. So in an extreme case (not saying you would do this), someone might extort large sums of money from their employer over time which impacts thousands or millions of people because it benefits them. This is done because they don't think they will get caught. So clearly getting caught is a detriment, but doesn't prevent the evil they would do if given the opportunity.

This is why Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them to do good even when the incentive to do good isn't there.

I don't think you need religion to know what is right or wrong at all times.
It might help though.

Definitely understand your point.
Atheism does lack moral structure, clearly because its not a moral stance and never had structure.

Atheism is not a group of homogeneous people was my point.

As agnostic I simply state that I do not truly know of God, therefore belief in God is simply arbitrary choice.

I understand your struggle with Agnosticism. I'd rather talk on that level because it is very easy to get in the weeds of particulars of this and that. For people who are Agnostic, you can either think there are good arguments on both sides or bad arguments on both sides. Which way do you land on that in your Agnosticism?

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes, I can imagine it. Get the right set of beliefs and people are capable of anything.

Spoiler

A cult arises that believes that one is released from suffering upon death so long as one has sufficiently suffered in life, otherwise, they are eternally damned. It then follows that abortion will damn the soul of the child. In hard times, people are starving and cannot afford to feed additional children, but they cannot condemn their child's soul to damnation. Parents might not have the heart to torture their newborn due to any number of preservation instincts, so the task of torturing children is assigned to a specialised institution. The more suffering, the less likely the soul is damned. It is therefore incumbent upon the torturer to cause as much pain as possible before the newborn's body gives way. A society that arises from these beliefs might celebrate the baby torturing psychopath, seeing the enjoyment they experience as the approval of the divine in their work.

Don't believe that a society can condone the torture of a newborn? Is genital mutilation really that far away from torture? The right set of beliefs will justify any behaviour as moral.

Would I call this a moral society? No, but I would be hard-pressed to name a single society in existence that I'd class as moral. Would this be comparable to the barbaric practices that societies practice both today and throughout history? Absolutely.

 

[Old Things]

Yes, I can imagine it. Get the right set of beliefs and people are capable of anything.

Spoiler

A cult arises that believes that one is released from suffering upon death so long as one has sufficiently suffered in life, otherwise, they are eternally damned. It then follows that abortion will damn the soul of the child. In hard times, people are starving and cannot afford to feed additional children, but they cannot condemn their child's soul to damnation. Parents might not have the heart to torture their newborn due to any number of preservation instincts, so the task of torturing children is assigned to a specialised institution. The more suffering, the less likely the soul is damned. It is therefore incumbent upon the torturer to cause as much pain as possible before the newborn's body gives way. A society that arises from these beliefs might celebrate the baby torturing psychopath, seeing the enjoyment they experience as the approval of the divine in their work.

Don't believe that a society can condone the torture of a newborn? Is genital mutilation really that far away from torture? The right set of beliefs will justify any behaviour as moral.

Would I call this a moral society? No, but I would be hard-pressed to name a single society in existence that I'd class as moral. Would this be comparable to the barbaric practices that societies practice both today and throughout history? Absolutely.

Fair enough. So then, certainly you can see my point about there being an objective morality that transcends what a culture thinks is moral, right?

 

[Hadoblado]

I can see the point but disagree with it. Morality arises organically from other factors, and these factors are subject to change. You can see this in the patterns of morality between cultures. The factors that are somewhat universal result in near-uniform morality (e.g. don't kill people), but evaporate with context (e.g. war). The patterns you see as transcendental absolutes are the result of shared determinants between cultures.

Just because I experience morality and make moral judgments does not mean that my morality is objective. When I judge a society as "morally wrong", this judgment is reducible to their actions being incompatible with the world I would prefer to build.

 

[Old Things]

Just because I experience morality and make moral judgments does not mean that my morality is objective. Moral "wrongness" is reducible to actions that are intentional and incompatible with the world I would prefer to build.

Exactly. Your morality foundation is on what you feel is right. It has no grounding at all. One day it is okay to tell a lie to your significant other. The next day it is not. It is flimsy and untenable.

 

[Hadoblado]

just fyi I edited as you posted. Didn't really change the meaning much.

That's not what I said though. My SOs are constants, and so my response to them are constants. I have specific conditions under which it is okay to lie, and I even do people the service of telling them what (most of) those conditions are. For example, I will lie to protect privacy, especially someone else's. People are aware of this and are okay with it.

It's really hard to understand your model of other people. Do you think we're rolling dice to make decisions? Why would our moral positions change daily? Just because our worldviews are not mapped to an external construct does not mean they are not internally consistent. Nobody wakes up out of the blue and decides they're going to be a rapist today. Beliefs, behaviour, and perspective all have inertia.

 

[Old Things]

just fyi I edited as you posted. Didn't really change the meaning much.

That's not what I said though. My SOs are constants, and so my response to them are constants. I have specific conditions under which it is okay to lie, and I even do people the service of telling them what (most of) those conditions are. For example, I will lie to protect privacy, especially someone else's. People are aware of this and are okay with it.

It's really hard to understand your model of other people. Do you think we're rolling dice to make decisions? Why would our moral positions change daily? Just because our worldviews are not mapped to an external construct does not mean they are not internally consistent. Nobody wakes up out of the blue and decides they're going to be a rapist today. Beliefs, behaviour, and perspective all have inertia.

Consider, Hado, that you probably cannot hold to your own system of morality. I mean, let's be honest here: have you ever broken your personal moral code? If you have then this proves that your morality, based on your feelings, is always subject to change. Further, based on what you have said, you have to develop your own morality as you go. Because, as you say, you are not born with the moral system that you currently have. So it changes over time. And that's exactly my point. How do you know it won't change next year? Or next week? Or next day? All this to say, if morality is subjective, as you say, then any and all behaviors could be morally justified with the right culture. And I would press against that by saying it is never right to torture a baby for fun.

 

[Puffy]

The problem is that atheism is not an actual stance on morals or anything.

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all. So even in the case that Christians have contradictory rules (which I don't think we do and that would need to be demonstrated) the fact that they have some rules they have to follow means this leads to better moral behavior overall. A lot of the atheists I engage with regularly are absolutely rotten people and they will call you all kinds of names and mock you and all sorts of stuff. Christians are not perfect, so don't think I am saying that. But their noses are a lot cleaner when it comes to treating people with decency because they have it repeated in the Bible over and over "love one another" while atheists have exactly zero frameworks for morality in any kind of objective or agreed-upon way.

Atheism isn't a moral position, it's independent of someone's moral philosophy in most cases. Atheists could still take up a range of other philosophies like humanism or environmentalism (or even Buddhism) that might come with moral positions. Statements like "they don't care how it affects other people" are too sweeping - it might be true for some people but it can't be true for all.

Where I'm from (the UK) the majority of people are atheists or agnostic. Despite this, I meet many people who are decent and law abiding. It's enough to conclude that religion isn't the only factor that determines if someone will come out with good moral character. So it also means it's not necessary to be religious to produce moral character. I'm not saying that spirituality isn't helpful in providing a common framework in that regard, I think it's just important to stick to the facts that not all atheists are bad. Which means that the essence of goodness or badness in someone can't be due to atheism and must be effected by other factors.

In terms of the slack you get. I appreciate where you're coming from and how it could be difficult dealing with stigma for being Christian. But I don't think this is indicative of those who deal out slack being bad people. A lot of bad has been done by Christianity and while you're not the person to project their frustration onto, it's reasonable and understandable that a lot of people would have qualms with Christianity or even be angry about it. It doesn't make them bad people.

Probably a lot of Christians you talk to are not real Christians either. Christians are supposed to be better morally than other people. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living in them which empowers them for good works. Most Christians only take a passing interest in Christianity. As such, they may not even be saved.

Saying religion isn't required to be a good person just proves my point; most people who call themselves Christians may not actually have the Holy Spirit living in them. Christ requires loving your neighbor as yourself. You can say "religion" has no impact on how moral someone is, but then I'd just say you haven't met real Christians.

I didn’t say it has no impact on someone’s morality, I said that someone doesn’t need to be religious to be moral. Or indeed Christian to be moral, there are many spiritual cultures with impressive ethics. That’s a part of why the ethic you cite is called the golden rule, it’s cross-cultural, even among atheists (*gasp*)

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

Atheists don’t have religious reasons to adhere to moral standards, hence my reasoning that morality is something inside a person independent of religious upbringing that spirituality can certainly strengthen or guide.
The presence of crime doesn’t prove anything, there’s always been crime even in times that Christianity was a cultural norm. Personally I find it impressive society is as functional as it is if we have no reason at all to be moral without being Christian

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

Okay, to try and get where I’m coming from. Regardless of the words we string together here:

1) There are predominantly secular societies in existence right now
2) Where people seem to be able to cooperate and live together to an extent that the society is able to function

In contrast according to “objective morality” women would have unequal rights, homosexuals would be abominations, pagans like me would be burned alive. Secular people are doing alright overall really.

You say to see where you are coming from and then you bring up a whole bunch of controversial issues (within Christendom) that you assume I agree to.

I'm confused.

It’s not off topic. You’re claiming that morality is objective based off the Bible. I’m then citing a bunch of historical precedents set by Christian normative cultures from the past that secular people have arguably taken more moral stances on.

There are some cultures in which human sacrifice was legitimised in certain contexts. But Christians can’t look down their noses at this as there were times they horrifically tortured and killed people for thinking differently than them.

I really don’t think Christians are that different to other people in the relativeness of their morality in this respect. If you spoke to Christians in these periods in history these things were moral, now they’re not. Because times and culture has changed and with it morality. Your Christian culture is subject to the same change as everything else.

 

[Hadoblado]

Err maybe an analogy will help.

I decide what music is "good" based on my feelings, but my taste in music does not change very quickly at all. Musical and moral tastes are more like developments that take time and are shaped by experience and new understandings. Same for culinary taste.

Moral reasoning is a faculty that is developed whether you have a bible or not. Children are not reliable moral agents, and most people (religious or otherwise) do not achieve the higher stages of moral reasoning.

 

[Old Things]

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

Okay, to try and get where I’m coming from. Regardless of the words we string together here:

1) There are predominantly secular societies in existence right now
2) Where people seem to be able to cooperate and live together to an extent that the society is able to function

In contrast according to “objective morality” women would have unequal rights, homosexuals would be abominations, pagans like me would be burned alive. Secular people are doing alright overall really.

You say to see where you are coming from and then you bring up a whole bunch of controversial issues (within Christendom) that you assume I agree to.

I'm confused.

It’s not off topic. You’re claiming that morality is objective based off the Bible. I’m then citing a bunch of historical precedents set by Christian normative cultures from the past that secular people have arguably taken more moral stances on.

There are some cultures in which human sacrifice was legitimised in certain contexts. But Christians can’t look down their noses at this as there were times they horrifically tortured and killed people for thinking differently than them.

I really don’t think Christians are that different to other people in the relativeness of their morality in this respect. If you spoke to Christians in these periods in history these things were moral, now they’re not. Because times and culture has changed and with it morality. Your Christian culture is subject to the same change as everything else.

It's a completely separate discussion since I am not arguing for Biblical morality. We can take these issues one by one if you want, but then we will lose the context of the bigger picture.

All I'm really getting at in this discussion is whether morality is objective or subjective. I think subjective morality is self-refuting.

Ball is in your court.

 

[Old Things]

Err maybe an analogy will help.

I decide what music is "good" based on my feelings, but my taste in music does not change very quickly at all. Musical and moral tastes are more like developments that take time and are shaped by experience and new understandings. Same for culinary taste.

Moral reasoning is a faculty that is developed whether you have a bible or not. Children are not reliable moral agents, and most people (religious or otherwise) do not achieve the higher stages of moral reasoning.

Whether morality changes quickly or slowly makes no difference.

If you want to develop moral reasoning from a subjective morality PoV then I recommend reading up on moral philosophy to see what philosophers have to say. But I think you would agree that just because you are a philosopher does not mean you are right. It just means you have developed your own understanding of things (which, there are about as many views about things as there are philosophers).

The real question is how do you cultivate a "better morality" tomorrow than you have today? How does one ascend to a "better morality" over time simply through navel-gazing? At one point, you were a horrible person and now you have become a saint? How does that work? If so, then there is no substance to what we would call "goodness". Further, I could be mistaken in this, but it seems like what you are trying to do is find a "better morality" over time. Then how do you say there is not an objective morality to try and find over time? If you are reaching for a "better morality" then surely a "better morality" exists. But if a "better morality" exists, then why is there not a "perfect morality" at the end of it all, which I would say would be objective morality?

 

[Hadoblado]

One day it is okay to tell a lie to your significant other. The next day it is not. It is flimsy and untenable.

Whether morality changes quickly or slowly makes no difference.

You made a claim about how secular morality works. I feel that you don't understand how we work so I explain why this is incorrect and you then claim it doesn't matter. I'm trying to help you understand other people's perspectives because quite frankly you seem uncharacteristically stunted in this regard.

I try (and fail) to be the best I know how to be. As I grow, I compare new possibilities to old, and what makes sense to me is what becomes my new MO. Direction does not imply destination. If I take any number and half it, then half it again, and keep on halving forever, I will approach but never reach zero. Does zero exist? By definition, no.

 

[Old Things]

One day it is okay to tell a lie to your significant other. The next day it is not. It is flimsy and untenable.

Whether morality changes quickly or slowly makes no difference.

You made a claim about how secular morality works. I feel that you don't understand how we work so I explain why this is incorrect and you then claim it doesn't matter. I'm trying to help you understand other people's perspectives because quite frankly you seem uncharacteristically stunted in this regard.

I try (and fail) to be the best I know how to be. As I grow, I compare new possibilities to old, and what makes sense to me is what becomes my new MO. Direction does not imply destination. If I take any number and half it, then half it again, and keep on halving forever, I will approach but never reach zero. Does zero exist? By definition, no.

Alright, why does it matter how quickly or slowly morality changes? Zoom out to 30,000 feet and it really doesn't matter.

My first statement does not contradict the second. The first is an illustration of the second.

Your argument is absurd. It is that zero does not exist. Does zero literally not exist? If zero actually does exist (for example, the null hypothesis) then your example is objectively wrong (not in a moral sense but in a logical sense).

 

[Puffy]

With this my 3333rd post I make my ascension into Christ Consciousness known.

I shall cease to post herein and by my 13th forum birthday on the 7th November my spirit and its physical temple shall have transformed into deeper communion with the Divine Father and Mother (yes, Her as well).

First off:

1) COVID-19 was not an inside job - sorry, it's the truth
2) I have been shitposting most of the time here - please don't cite my words here as some kind of objective reference
3) Old Things - it's okay if you like Satanic Black Metal. It doesn't have to have Christian lyrics to be cool
4) Climate change is real - get your shit together everyone
5) Since my day your minds have gotten a bit too big and your hearts too small. Focus on reversing this

P.S. I am an androgynous polyamorous bisexual who prays to deers. Deal with it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Honestly the zero argument came into my head and I thought it sounded cool so I wrote it haha

I think it makes more sense than you give it credit for (the null hypothesis literally does not exist, it is a hypothetical construct that does not inhabit space), but it doesn't matter (pun intended).

Regarding why the rate of change in belief is important: If you argue that objective morality is better than subjective morality, and the reasons you give don't map to reality, then this highlights this as a possible area for growth. What you are saying will categorically not land with anyone who's lived experience so obviously contradicts it.

One of the arguments you made is that people who lack an objective sense of morality are likely to change their ideas all the time, implying that it is based on nothing and subject to mere whim. This is not the case for anyone who develops morally. It might be worth your while to look up Kohlberg's stages of moral development. They're old and I'm not sure how well they hold up, but they give a general framework for how people develop in this domain.

RIP puffdaddy

 

[Old Things]

With this my 3333rd post I make my ascension into Christ Consciousness known.

I shall cease to post herein and by my 13th forum birthday on the 7th November my spirit and its physical temple shall have transformed into deeper communion with the Divine Father and Mother (yes, Her as well).

First off:

1) COVID-19 was not an inside job - sorry, it's the truth
2) I have been shitposting most of the time here - please don't cite my words here as some kind of objective reference
3) Old Things - it's okay if you like Satanic Black Metal. It doesn't have to have Christian lyrics to be cool
4) Climate change is real - get your shit together everyone
5) Since my day your minds have gotten a bit too big and your hearts too small. Focus on reversing this

P.S. I am an androgynous polyamorous bisexual who prays to deers. Deal with it.

Well, it was nice knowing you. I hope your journey leads you to a brighter existence.

Honestly the zero argument came into my head and I thought it sounded cool so I wrote it haha

I think it makes more sense than you give it credit for (the null hypothesis literally does not exist, it is a hypothetical construct that does not inhabit space), but it doesn't matter (pun intended).

Regarding why the rate of change in belief is important: If you argue that objective morality is better than subjective morality, and the reasons you give don't map to reality, then this highlights this as a possible area for growth. What you are saying will categorically not land with anyone who's lived experience so obviously contradicts it.

One of the arguments you made is that people who lack an objective sense of morality are likely to change their ideas all the time, implying that it is based on nothing and subject to mere whim. This is not the case for anyone who develops morally. It might be worth your while to look up Kohlberg's stages of moral development. They're old and I'm not sure how well they hold up, but they give a general framework for how people develop in this domain.

RIP puffdaddy

Just one thing to correct about my view. My view is not that people change their views "all the time" it is that it changes at all.

Let me ask you another question here: if the narrative in society for what is true, or moral, or good changes over time, but your own personal convictions conflict with the trend (either because you are developing differently than the culture or because your personal convictions stay the same while society changes), how do you make sense of that? Who would be right in that scenario?

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay I'll believe that that's what you think, but that's not what you have been saying. You have repeatedly characterised non-religious moral beliefs as whimisical and lacking in any structure. You have painted it as completely arbitrary and fleeting, when in fact many beliefs are about as endurant as your religious ones.

Spoiler: See here, here, here, and here

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all.

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

Exactly. Your morality foundation is on what you feel is right. It has no grounding at all. One day it is okay to tell a lie to your significant other. The next day it is not. It is flimsy and untenable.

Let me ask you another question here: if the narrative in society for what is true, or moral, or good changes over time, but your own personal convictions conflict with the trend (either because you are developing differently than the culture or because your personal convictions stay the same while society changes), how do you make sense of that? Who would be right in that scenario?

I frequently find myself at odds with the views of society. In some ways, I do believe I'm ahead of the curve. I have explored many ideas further than can be expected from your average citizen. But at the same time, I am also behind. I am not a naturally empathetic person, for example. I learned to value empathy from those around me, and there are still many avenues of social and moral growth that I am not currently treading but still hold open for myself. There is no rule dictating who is morally "right". In fact, for the most part, the biggest areas where I disagree with people are how to achieve goals that we share (as these answers are a lot more objective) or inconsistencies within their own worldview.

 

[Old Things]

Okay I'll believe that that's what you think, but that's not what you have been saying. You have repeatedly characterised non-religious moral beliefs as whimisical and lacking in any structure. You have painted it as completely arbitrary and fleeting, when in fact many beliefs are about as endurant as your religious ones.

Spoiler: See here, here, here, and here

Yes, exactly! As such, Atheists have no objective morality they adhere to at all. If it benefits them, they don't really care how it affects other people. In other words, atheists have no moral structure at all.

The point is that atheists do not have the same (or any) reasons to adhere to any moral standard. It's why there is crime in the most poverty-stricken areas to the loftiest businesses.

How do atheists ground morality? They have nothing they can point to that tells them what is right or wrong besides what they think is right or wrong. If that's the case then their morality is grounded subjectively, which is self-defeating because if it's just a matter of opinion on what is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist since one person can say A is right and another person can say A is wrong, which is self-defeating. But if objective morality exists, then it is grounded in something transcendent to the individual.

Exactly. Your morality foundation is on what you feel is right. It has no grounding at all. One day it is okay to tell a lie to your significant other. The next day it is not. It is flimsy and untenable.

Let me ask you another question here: if the narrative in society for what is true, or moral, or good changes over time, but your own personal convictions conflict with the trend (either because you are developing differently than the culture or because your personal convictions stay the same while society changes), how do you make sense of that? Who would be right in that scenario?

I frequently find myself at odds with the views of society. In some ways, I do believe I'm ahead of the curve. I have explored many ideas further than can be expected from your average citizen. But at the same time, I am also behind. I am not a naturally empathetic person, for example. I learned to value empathy from those around me, and there are still many avenues of social and moral growth that I am not currently treading but still hold open for myself. There is no rule dictating who is morally "right". In fact, for the most part, the biggest areas where I disagree with people are how to achieve goals that we share (as these answers are a lot more objective) or inconsistencies within their own worldview.

Alright. So grounding necessitates objectivity. That's number one.

Secondly, I am not at all ashamed of what I said. Those things I said are true - demonstrated by the fact you can't tell me what is right and wrong because there is a conflict between what society says is right and wrong and what you say is right and wrong. Logically, you can't both be right and wrong about the same things if you both have different opinions on things. Of course, as you say, you are "ahead of the curve." But then, this is only talking about the trend of morality in society. The only way you can be "ahead of the curve" is if there is a trend of morality in society. But who is to say the morality of society is getting "better"? How would you know if it was getting better or worse or just changing horizontally? The question is, what are you comparing it to? To yesterday? to a thousand years ago? What tells you morality is getting any better? The problem is, history repeats itself. It has essentially the same problems it had at other points in history. The west today is a lot like Rome, for example. Sure, we have science now, but the problems they had in their day are starting to creep up again. Pedophilia, for example. This is starting to get justified by some people. The details might change about how it is argued for, but it's the same exact behavior people are justifying now compared to then. And it's not just pedophilia. There are all sorts of things that the morality of society today is overlapping with the morality of societies in the past. Frankly, if I am being honest with you, Hado, I think I was right originally when I said you are a post-modern person. You say you are different than them, but you espouse the same exact stances on things as they do. I'm at a loss for how my characterization of you was wrong.

 

[Hadoblado]

Pedophilia never left, it is a constant that flirts in and out of the public eye. Society handles it objectively poorly.

I'm not trying to shame you. I see you as shifting your stance a lot right now. I'm pointing it out so that you can show me the internal logic of what you're saying. You said:

Just one thing to correct about my view. My view is not that people change their views "all the time" it is that it changes at all.

But when I show you that that's not what you were saying, you double down on those exact things.

So in my eyes you sort of have two positions. One is that atheists have no structure and no standards and their beliefs are arbitrary and their minds change like the wind because they have no foundation for their beliefs. This is your sword.

I confronted this, because atheists do not behave or think this way.

The second belief is that actually atheists don't change their mind all the time. But this seems like something you only say to dismiss the challenge. This is your shield. Every time I stop pressuring you about real-life secular behaviour, you go back to your sword which treats atheism as an absence of moral reasoning.

 

[Daddy]

Just for the sake of discussion, I think everybody has their own moral objections that don't change without significant brain damage and other objections that are situation dependent. For example, I'm strongly against pedophilia and that won't change. But I suppose if you could rework my brain to be attracted to children AND not feel bad about it, I wouldn't be against it at all. I'd probably be in one of those creepy MAP groups that want to normalize it. Morality might be subjective, but it's also objective to an extent in each individual. They say opposites attract, but maybe when it comes to morality, people need to have the same baseline.

So 'perhaps' this is what religion ends up coming down to, 'perhaps', at least sometimes, or maybe it's some kind of subconscious drive that underrides it.

P.S. I am an androgynous polyamorous bisexual who prays to deers. Deal with it.

lol, that sounds kind of fun.

 

[Old Things]

Pedophilia never left, it is a constant that flirts in and out of the public eye. Society handles it objectively poorly.

I'm not trying to shame you. I see you as shifting your stance a lot right now. I'm pointing it out so that you can show me the internal logic of what you're saying. You said:

Just one thing to correct about my view. My view is not that people change their views "all the time" it is that it changes at all.

But when I show you that that's not what you were saying, you double down on those exact things.

So in my eyes you sort of have two positions. One is that atheists have no structure and no standards and their beliefs are arbitrary and their minds change like the wind because they have no foundation for their beliefs. This is your sword.

I confronted this, because atheists do not behave or think this way.

The second belief is that actually atheists don't change their mind all the time. But this seems like something you only say to dismiss the challenge. This is your shield. Every time I stop pressuring you about real-life secular behaviour, you go back to your sword which treats atheism as an absence of moral reasoning.

There is no contradiction in what I am saying.

A contradiction is two different opposite statements in the same way at the same time. That is not what I am doing. I am illustrating my points differently to suit the situation, but my position has been consistent the entire time.

Atheists don't have objective morality. As such, their morality is based on what they feel is right or wrong. Whether that is based on the thinking of the culture does not matter.

What do you personally ground your morality in? What is the good thing and the bad thing? You are advocating for subjective morality. "What I think or I feel is right is right. What I think or I feel is wrong is wrong." That is what it boils down to when you get at the root and strip away the sophistication behind it all. People have said very smart things about very wrong positions all throughout human history. Sophistication does not matter that much.

 

[Hadoblado]

Alright, let's try and get to the core. This will probably be my last post for a few days.

Morally right and morally wrong do not exist. Every criticism you have that boils down to there not being a right answer is just you thinking things are wrong because you personally don't believe them. Within your objective framework there must be right and wrong. Therefore frameworks that are not your framework, that do not have this characteristic, must be incorrect.

I do not believe that what I feel is right is right. That assumes an objective framework where there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. Why would you assume thisof me if you know I don't believe in objective morality?

Rather, I believe that what I think is right leads to the world that I want to see. Hence the heavy empirical leanings. Does minimum wage lead to the world I want? Not sure => no opinion. Does contraception lead to a more prosperous society? Yes => make it free. Does the death penalty prevent crime? No => abolish it. Now it's true that the world I want to see comes from values I hold, but this is no different to your own subjective interpretation of the bible. Like you said, there is much contention within Christendom regarding how to interpret these beliefs. In fact, you have mentioned you yourself blaze your own trail a little in this respect. Why is it vapid for me to do this but not you?

Earlier you said that Christians who have different interpretations are not real Christians. But that's a lot of people. If your framework is so objective, why is it that so many people disagree? Why are there so damn many other objective frameworks that disagree with yours?

onelastthing
I'm not trying to convert you away from your objectivist framework. I see that as pointless. I see your theory of mind for looking outside of your own religious perspective to be a recurring theme in our discussions that has culminated in you saying the quiet part out loud multiple times in this thread. I still believe you're pretty reasonable, but there is a gentle arrogance in the way you dismiss perspectives you clearly don't understand. You don't need to understand the nuances of every belief others have, but understanding the general nature of belief systems is important if you want to make meaningful claims about them.

 

[Old Things]

Just for the sake of discussion, I think everybody has their own moral objections that don't change without significant brain damage and other objections that are situation dependent. For example, I'm strongly against pedophilia and that won't change. But I suppose if you could rework my brain to be attracted to children AND not feel bad about it, I wouldn't be against it at all. I'd probably be in one of those creepy MAP groups that want to normalize it. Morality might be subjective, but it's also objective to an extent in each individual. They say opposites attract, but maybe when it comes to morality, people need to have the same baseline.

So 'perhaps' this is what religion ends up coming down to, 'perhaps', at least sometimes, or maybe it's some kind of subconscious drive that underrides it.

P.S. I am an androgynous polyamorous bisexual who prays to deers. Deal with it.

lol, that sounds kind of fun.

Everyone believes in objective morality when it comes to whether or not someone stabs them 20 times.

 

[Old Things]

Alright, let's try and get to the core. This will probably be my last post for a few days.

Morally right and morally wrong do not exist. Every criticism you have that boils down to there not being a right answer is just you thinking things are wrong because you personally don't believe them. Within your objective framework there must be right and wrong. Therefore frameworks that are not your framework, that do not have this characteristic, must be incorrect.

I do not believe that what I feel is right is right. That assumes an objective framework where there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. Why would you assume thisof me if you know I don't believe in objective morality?

Rather, I believe that what I think is right leads to the world that I want to see. Hence the heavy empirical leanings. Does minimum wage lead to the world I want? Not sure => no opinion. Does contraception lead to a more prosperous society? Yes => make it free. Does the death penalty prevent crime? No => abolish it. Now it's true that the world I want to see comes from values I hold, but this is no different to your own subjective interpretation of the bible. Like you said, there is much contention within Christendom regarding how to interpret these beliefs. In fact, you have mentioned you yourself blaze your own trail a little in this respect. Why is it vapid for me to do this but not you?

Earlier you said that Christians who have different interpretations are not real Christians. But that's a lot of people. If your framework is so objective, why is it that so many people disagree? Why are there so damn many other objective frameworks that disagree with yours?

onelastthing
I'm not trying to convert you away from your objectivist framework. I see that as pointless. I see your theory of mind for looking outside of your own religious perspective to be a recurring theme in our discussions that has culminated in you saying the quiet part out loud multiple times in this thread. I still believe you're pretty reasonable, but there is a gentle arrogance in the way you dismiss perspectives you clearly don't understand. You don't need to understand the nuances of every belief others have, but understanding the general nature of belief systems is important if you want to make meaningful claims about them.

If you believe objective truth exists, which I think you do based on prior conversations, then why is morality a completely separate issue from what is true?

I don't condemn any other Christians personally. That's not my job as a Christian.

As I said earlier, THE ethic of Christianity is "love your neighbor as yourself". I also said it is not about whether or not we can know for certain what the objective morality for any given issue is. Rather, it is that there exists, in reality, an objective truth about morality. Whether we know what that objective moral reality is for any given issue is is separate from the fact that an objective moral reality exists.

I believe that objective truth exists, therefore, I believe an objective morality exists as well because morality is a form of truth.