Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2013 21:47:59 GMT -5
I'll keep it short and smple: how does atheism explain its belief in relative morality because of their belief that morality differs and is valid according to the beliefs in various cultures and at the same time believe absolutely in no religion and/or any kind of god/creator/higher power and no culture should. How is that at all logical?
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on May 26, 2013 2:56:11 GMT -5
I'll keep it short and simple: how does atheism explain its belief in relative morality because of their belief that morality differs and is valid according to the beliefs in various cultures and at the same time believe absolutely in no religion and/or any kind of god/creator/higher power and no culture should. How is that at all logical? It isn't logical because logic doesn't apply to everything, something, something else and/or nothing in toto. But that has nothing to do with atheism in particular, but rather it has to do with psychology. That is how short I can do it, Lily The rest is a "wall of text".
|
|
|
Post by Bob Marks on May 26, 2013 9:57:47 GMT -5
I'll keep it short and smple: how does atheism explain its belief in relative morality because of their belief that morality differs and is valid according to the beliefs in various cultures and at the same time believe absolutely in no religion and/or any kind of god/creator/higher power and no culture should. How is that at all logical? Not all atheists believe in relative morality. Objectivists, for example, base their ethics on what they claim are objective criteria. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 26, 2013 11:27:39 GMT -5
Is there a god? The answer is either yes or no. This is not a moral question. It is a question of fact. Either god exists or god does not exist. As an atheist, I answer “No, there is no god.”
Morality is a human construct, and as such, we can expect to see some differences between cultures. But my acceptance of relative morality is limited (see Bob’s message above).
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on May 26, 2013 13:34:04 GMT -5
Objective as in: 1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind 1d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectiveSo an objective criteria is either independent of all minds/brains or objective as without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. The latter has been tried and it always ends here - you can value anything you like, but that means that you have chosen not to value something else; i.e. you have chosen with personal feelings, prejudices, and/or interpretations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2013 14:02:41 GMT -5
Does anyone here really believe that any one's individual beliefs or non-beliefs in anything (and I'm not talking about scientific stuff) should be foisted on other individuals, societies, entire cultures if one actually had the power to do that? Just pretend you had the power--would you be willing to or feel it's imperative to do so for the good of humankind?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 26, 2013 15:49:12 GMT -5
No, I don't think my beliefs should be foisted on others.
Since "absolute power corrupts absolutely," it is a good thing that your question is hypothetical. I would hope that given such power I would not use it. But the temptation might be overwhelming, and it would probably get easier to use such power each time it was used.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2013 19:02:14 GMT -5
Objective as in: 1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind 1d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectiveSo an objective criteria is either independent of all minds/brains or objective as without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. The latter has been tried and it always ends here - you can value anything you like, but that means that you have chosen not to value something else; i.e. you have chosen with personal feelings, prejudices, and/or interpretations. So if I choose to value food, this is only the result of a personal feeling, prejudice, and/or interpretation and not because of the fact that without food I will starve? Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2013 19:05:03 GMT -5
Does anyone here really believe that any one's individual beliefs or non-beliefs in anything (and I'm not talking about scientific stuff) should be foisted on other individuals, societies, entire cultures if one actually had the power to do that? Just pretend you had the power--would you be willing to or feel it's imperative to do so for the good of humankind? No. You don't foist. You may, however, persuade. Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2013 23:12:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on May 27, 2013 4:51:46 GMT -5
Objective as in: 1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind 1d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectiveSo an objective criteria is either independent of all minds/brains or objective as without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. The latter has been tried and it always ends here - you can value anything you like, but that means that you have chosen not to value something else; i.e. you have chosen with personal feelings, prejudices, and/or interpretations. So if I choose to value food, this is only the result of a personal feeling, prejudice, and/or interpretation and not because of the fact that without food I will starve? Bob Marks That it is objective that you need food(the objective part) if you want to live, but that you want to live, is the subjective part.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 28, 2013 7:17:05 GMT -5
Like we've said before, there is no central Atheist HQ. Except for not believing in the supernatural, atheists have no other common ground. Of course, that's pretty much the same for believers. Despite the claim that their ethics come from the same god or from the Bible, Christianity has over 30,000 different denominations and there is a huge variety of beliefs - Amish, Mormons, Baptists, Branch Davidians, Pentecostals, snake handlers, nuns, TV evangelists, etc. So why would you expect atheists to believe the same things any more than Christians do? 8->
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 28, 2013 9:07:09 GMT -5
A related story I noticed on CNN - Famous atheists and their beliefs. This is a short of list mostly actors and writers, but they could easily add hundreds more to the list, especially with various European folk who are not well-known in the US. A couple of well-known American atheists would be Carl Sagan and Joss Whedon. Like I said, even limiting the list to famous people, it could be much, much longer. www.cnn.com/2013/05/25/living/gallery/atheists/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 12:04:58 GMT -5
That sounds good, Fred. But you know very well that each group stereotypes the other--as groups. Individually mainly not so. By the way you didn't list any liberal denoninations.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 28, 2013 14:53:09 GMT -5
No liberal denominations? Hey, in my childhood believer days, all of those would have been considered either liberal or at least suspicious. 8-D
Guess it all depends on what you mean by liberal. I've met many liberal Christian individuals, but am not aware of many liberal denominations. Only one comes to mind - Unitarians - the faith for those who have lost belief but miss going to church. LOL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 15:07:32 GMT -5
For one, the United Church of Christ. ucc.org/
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on May 29, 2013 2:29:29 GMT -5
Is there a god? The answer is either yes or no. This is not a moral question. It is a question of fact. Either god exists or god does not exist. As an atheist, I answer “No, there is no god.” Morality is a human construct, and as such, we can expect to see some differences between cultures. But my acceptance of relative morality is limited (see Bob’s message above). Whether a fact is a fact or a question of morality is a human construct. You, raybar, don't hold objective authority whether a fact is a fact or a question of morality or whether morality is a human construct or a fact. Each individual can to the effect of cognitive and ethical subjective relativism get away with everything is physical, (from) God or meaningless. Or any other variant that makes sense to the individual! The makes sense part is the subjective part of reality and yes, it is connected to the objective part.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 29, 2013 7:08:55 GMT -5
Lily - I'm not familiar with the United Church of Christ. The Church of Christ that I knew on the Texas panhandle was more strict than the Baptists. Basically, it was made up of locals who were too poor to be proper Baptists. And they eagerly anticipated the End of the World because that's when those snooty Baptists and Methodists would be flung into burning pools for their arrogance. LOL.
So what makes the UCoC "liberal" in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 29, 2013 14:43:26 GMT -5
Whether a fact is a fact or a question of morality is a human construct. You, raybar, don't hold objective authority whether a fact is a fact or a question of morality or whether morality is a human construct or a fact. Each individual can to the effect of cognitive and ethical subjective relativism get away with everything is physical, (from) God or meaningless. Or any other variant that makes sense to the individual! The makes sense part is the subjective part of reality and yes, it is connected to the objective part. Well, some people say that it's all subjective, including everything that some other people consider objective, because we do not experience anything directly, but only through the filter of our senses, which makes everything we know a human construct, and therefore subjective. But I usually don't expect that what I say will be analyzed all that closely, so I am usually speaking from an ordinary human perspective where we don't have to worry too much about it.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2013 17:04:59 GMT -5
So if I choose to value food, this is only the result of a personal feeling, prejudice, and/or interpretation and not because of the fact that without food I will starve? Bob Marks That it is objective that you need food(the objective part) if you want to live, but that you want to live, is the subjective part. Not totally. If you get hungry, your "natural" urge is to eat. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2013 17:08:04 GMT -5
Is there a god? The answer is either yes or no. This is not a moral question. It is a question of fact. Either god exists or god does not exist. As an atheist, I answer “No, there is no god.” Morality is a human construct, and as such, we can expect to see some differences between cultures. But my acceptance of relative morality is limited (see Bob’s message above). Whether a fact is a fact or a question of morality is a human construct. You, raybar, don't hold objective authority whether a fact is a fact or a question of morality or whether morality is a human construct or a fact. Each individual can to the effect of cognitive and ethical subjective relativism get away with everything is physical, (from) God or meaningless. Or any other variant that makes sense to the individual! The makes sense part is the subjective part of reality and yes, it is connected to the objective part. No. It is a fact that water consists of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. If you claim otherwise, please give me the name of the people who constructed the water molecule. Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2013 13:47:23 GMT -5
Lily - I'm not familiar with the United Church of Christ. The Church of Christ that I knew on the Texas panhandle was more strict than the Baptists. Basically, it was made up of locals who were too poor to be proper Baptists. And they eagerly anticipated the End of the World because that's when those snooty Baptists and Methodists would be flung into burning pools for their arrogance. LOL.
So what makes the UCoC "liberal" in your opinion?
Fred, the Church of Christ is not the same as the United Church of Christ. But you knew that, so I don't understand your comment about it. As far as what makes the UCC "liberal" "in my opinion", is not relevant. It is categorized as liberal. And if you will look at least at the first page of the website you will somewhat see why. www.ucc.org
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Jun 1, 2013 0:53:28 GMT -5
Let us play science, I will concentrate on 4 aspects - falsification, observable, replication and objective in the strong sense as far as the observer goes.
For something to be science in the Popper sense it must be open to falsification through observation. What you anticipate to observe must be able to "go wrong", i.e that you can observe something else. First example - can we image a world where people don't believe in God(hypothesis); yes. Further we can deduce from the words that belief in God is something people do, so we can ask them and we have 2 possible outcomes: They believe or they don't(there is more variance that this, but we can reduce it down to yes and no). It means it is open to falsification because there are different outcomes. Further it is objective in the sense that the answers we get are not dependent on how we as scientists think/feel. Whether other people believe in God or not is objective in relationship to you. And you, I and everybody can do this - ask and that is the replication part. So do we live in a world where all people don't believe in God? No, it is a fact that some people believe in God!
So that is it for now, only one example for now and a question to all the functional atheists - is it a fact that some people believe in God? For all I care we can vary God to different Gods and other variants of the supernatural, but the question still stands - is it a fact that some people believe in the supernatural?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 1, 2013 23:26:52 GMT -5
Let us play science, I will concentrate on 4 aspects - falsification, observable, replication and objective in the strong sense as far as the observer goes. For something to be science in the Popper sense it must be open to falsification through observation. What you anticipate to observe must be able to "go wrong", i.e that you can observe something else. First example - can we image a world where people don't believe in God(hypothesis); yes. Further we can deduce from the words that belief in God is something people do, so we can ask them and we have 2 possible outcomes: They believe or they don't(there is more variance that this, but we can reduce it down to yes and no). It means it is open to falsification because there are different outcomes. Further it is objective in the sense that the answers we get are not dependent on how we as scientists think/feel. Whether other people believe in God or not is objective in relationship to you. And you, I and everybody can do this - ask and that is the replication part. So do we live in a world where all people don't believe in God? No, it is a fact that some people believe in God! So that is it for now, only one example for now and a question to all the functional atheists - is it a fact that some people believe in God? For all I care we can vary God to different Gods and other variants of the supernatural, but the question still stands - is it a fact that some people believe in the supernatural? Yes, it is a fact that some people believe in the supernatural. Therefore...? Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Jun 3, 2013 2:48:18 GMT -5
Yes, it is a fact that some people believe in the supernatural. Therefore...? Bob Marks Well, we can always play therefore at some point, but first I want to play everything is objective versus everything is physical versus everything is (from) God. The first question I will ask I will phrase so: What do these claims have in common? - Everything is a pronoun - "any of a small set of words in a language that are used as substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and whose referents are named or understood in the context"
- Is is a verb - "an intransitive verb is a verb that has no direct object"
- Objective, physical and God says respectively something about what everything is - it is a naming act
See, Bob - all 3 are definitions of sorts or "naming acts" or words about words. So let us do it differently - besides thinking "everything is objective" and writing "everything is objective", try this - do "everything is objective" otherwise. What I am asking you to do is something I can do also; try this - do "everything is objective" otherwise. Otherwise as not thinking/writing "everything is objective" but do something else with "everything is objective". So here is what I have found when I try to do all 3 variants otherwise. I can't eliminate that they all 3 takes place as something I think. Further when I try to do them otherwise they end up in part being the idea that everything is not me, but is to me a contraction. So everything to me is rather about relationships between something and something else. Or if you like - everything appears to be an interconnected web of a multitude of regularities/variations. So here it is as a limit of logic - everything is A and/or non-A. It appears to be so, because logic is about something as it is how ever it is, but never about something else. That is "eliminated" away the moment someone goes "everything is A" and all I do is to do something else - namely non-A or no! With regards Mikkel
|
|
|
Post by arthur on Jun 4, 2013 9:26:14 GMT -5
I'll keep it short and smple: how does atheism explain its belief in relative morality because of their belief that morality differs and is valid according to the beliefs in various cultures and at the same time believe absolutely in no religion and/or any kind of god/creator/higher power and no culture should. How is that at all logical? Athiesm has nothing to say of morality. Morality has no part in the absence of belief in god or gods. Once you have got that out of the way then you can start to unpick (if you think it might be profitable) how people with different outlooks justify their morality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 19:36:34 GMT -5
I'll keep it short and smple: how does atheism explain its belief in relative morality because of their belief that morality differs and is valid according to the beliefs in various cultures and at the same time believe absolutely in no religion and/or any kind of god/creator/higher power and no culture should. How is that at all logical? Athiesm has nothing to say of morality. Morality has no part in the absence of belief in god or gods. Once you have got that out of the way then you can start to unpick (if you think it might be profitable) how people with different outlooks justify their morality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, Arthur, famed atheist, Sam Harris ( The End of Faith; Letter to a Christian Nation) disagrees with you. From his The Moral Landscape - How Science Can Determine Human Values: Moral relativism, however, tends to be self-contradictory. Relativists may say that moral truths exist only relative to a specific cultural framework--but this claim about the status of moral truth purports to be true across all possibe frameworks. In practice, relativism almost always amounts to the claim that we should be tolerant of moral difference because no moral truth can supercede any other. And yet this commitment to tolerance is not put forward as simply one relative preference among others deemed equally valid. Rather, tolerance is held to be more in line with the (universal) truth about morality than intolerance is. The contradiction here is unsurprising. Given how deeply disposed we are to make universal moral claims, I think one can reasonably doubt whether any consistent moral relativist has ever existed.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jun 4, 2013 20:24:02 GMT -5
I can't seem to get the "quote" function right. It all becomes one long quote. arrgh. Lily - It looks like you are placing your message within the material you are quoting. You need to be sure to type after the last [/quote] at the end of the text displayed when you click the quote button.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 20:53:09 GMT -5
I can't seem to get the "quote" function right. It all becomes one long quote. arrgh. Lily - It looks like you are placing your message within the material you are quoting. You need to be sure to type after the last [/quote] at the end of the text displayed when you click the quote button. Okay, I click on the quote button, and than I get the quoted stuff all bunched together in a couple of lines, but in 2 seconds it's out of that format, and I can't tell where the quote ends and even when I space down, my reply and the quote all mooshes together. Let's see how this one turned out. Also, why doesn't my "Preview" button work?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jun 4, 2013 21:38:06 GMT -5
Lily - I have no idea why you are having the problems you mention. Everything seems to be OK for me on my home desktop, my iPad, and my desktop at work.
Computers can sometimes be a royal pain like this. We have one printer at work that neither our MIS guys nor the guys from Lexmark can get to use the correct font -- any font you want except the one we actually want.
|
|