Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Well, it's all the same to me. I can't differentiate between your god and another save for a few character traits.
I justify morality as a human construct, nothing more. There is no pre-existing, non-subjective morality that exists outside our minds. It doesn't involve a god at all. I don't have beliefs about god, the lack of belief is not belief. If I was presented with material proof of a god and then chose not to believe in it, that would be a belief about god.
Okay so it is all subjective?
Do you think there is nothing immaterial?
I do not believe that the transcendant is relative in the physical world, or anywhere outside the model our brains build of our environment. I suspect that makes me a materialist, but I'm not intimately familiar with materialist beliefs en toto.
Is that a yes? Sorry I do not have my PhD you know. :)
That is not a yes, because it isn't a yes or no question except from a presuppositional stance. And I am a high school drop out who didn't even finish the first semester of 11th grade, so I doubt you need a phd to understand me.
The absolute, no frills answer would be yes to the first question and no to the second.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand you. I understand it was not really a yes or no question, but I had a hard time getting past some of those bigger words.
You then believe that everything is subjective, so is the belief that everything is subjective subjective? If so, then there really are some things that are not subjective. Does that make sense?
Also, if there are actually immaterial things, have they always existed? If not how did material give rise to something immaterial?
Wow, thanks for the softballs.
"You then believe that everything is subjective, so is the belief that everything is subjective subjective?"
"If so, then there really are some things that are not subjective. Does that make sense?"
Not really. My belief that everything is subjective is in itself subjective. As an auto-didactic I don't have the skills to explain this correctly and/or eloquently.
To me, the world is a model that my brain builds using sensory input, experience, and some hardwired "firmware". My senses detect a small slice of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, along with some tactile feedback, detection of matter displacement (vibration/sound), chemical analysis, and probably some other stuff I really don't know anything about.
My sense of self and my experience as a living thing in this universe is based upon some assumptions: that I am real; that the rest of the universe is real; that the model my brain builds is a reasonalble facsimilie of the world around me and not just a dream that my mind has created for it's own amusement. That makes both my perspective of the universe and everything I think subjective.
"Also, if there are actually immaterial things, have they always existed?"
"If not how did material give rise to something immaterial?"
Through imagination, the imperfectness of our senses, the limited processing ability of our brains, and hallucination.
I experience the transcendental every day, and I can enjoy it and sometimes it even gives me comfort. I like to talk about ideas and feelings, I enjoy pretending to go "outside" myself through meditation, I spend hours basking in the beauty of nature, I use terms like 'spirit' or 'soul' in connection with parts of my psyche. But these immaterial things are all products of my material brain.
I'm sure there is someone who has really done a lot of study and research into these things and really knows what they are talking about who could explain it professional terms; for me these are just things my life experience has led me to along the way.
Nice Job, maybe you should become a baseball player.
So if your belief that everything is subjective isn't absolutely true, then that means it is false and why do you subscribe to it? Right?
So, the laws of logic are just something we imagine? Or don't you believe that the laws of logic are immaterial?
I was being a tad glib, there. I didn't think they were softball questions as my answers should have indicated.
"So if your belief that everything is subjective isn't absolutely true, then that means it is false and why do you subscribe to it? Right?"
Nowhere did I imply that I think if a thing is not absolutely true then it is absolutely false. True, some things do not have a middle-ground or gray area; there are some yes or no questions. I'm not convinced this is one of them. I suspect that most of the human experience is not a simple case of material or not material, true or not true, false or not false. I know there are limitations to my senses and my processing ability, that my perception of the universe is subjective to those limitations. That does not make my perception completely false, if it did I would likely expire the first time I try to interact with my environment.
"So, the laws of logic are just something we imagine? Or don't you believe that the laws of logic are immaterial?"
The Laws of Logic is not something I am qualified to discuss. I can only say that laws are usually characteristics that have been observed to function in a certain way consistently and reliably enough to be useful in making predictions. I don't know that this means they will always be immutable in every instance. Logic (not the Laws of Logic) I see as having material and immaterial aspects.
"Nowhere did I imply that I think if a thing is not absolutely true then it is absolutely false."
I meant that, if the statement that everything is subjective is in itself subjective, then there must be something objective. If there is something objective the the statement that everything is subjective is false. If there is nothing objective, then there is nothing subjective about the statement that everything is subjective.
I admit that I don't know all about logical laws and all that, so let's talk about a simple logical law, the law of non-contradiction, which states, "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A = NOT-A)." (Wikipedia)
Do you believe that this law will change over time? Say tomorrow two contradictory statements will be true? Or will this law change with geography, like in Africa can two contradictory statements be true?
Whether or not a deity can be disproven depends upon the definition of said deity. So, if you define the deity clearly, I can then tell you whether or not I can disprove the existence of that deity.
Witness, assuming you aren't one, why aren't you a murderer?
Because I believe there is a God who will hold us morally accountable. Why aren't you one?
If the only thing stopping you from being a murderer is you gawd, then by all means, keep believing! I don't murder because I think it's a shit thing to do.
"Because I believe there is a God who will hold us morally accountable."
No, you can't claim this and still have even a shred of intellectual integrity. You are not accountable unless you commit blasphemy of the holy spirit. You can't have it both ways.
God will hold us all morally accountable and we will all be found guilty. The only way to be pardoned is through Jesus Christ. To accept that pardon, you have to repent, turn from your sins, (murder) and trust in Jesus Christ.
I am deeply familiar with the concept of scapegoating, specifically as regards Christian salvation. It is like saying, "You are accountable for stealing the cookies, Jimmy. Because I love you I'm going to spank Johnny here in your place, but only if you accept it as payment for your transgression. And if you do it again, I'll just have to punish Johnny again, but only if you accept it."
Several problems with that analogy. First, God isn't "spanking" some other individual, God took our own punishment. It would be like a Judge whose son walks into the court room and is in trouble because he doesn't have the money to pay a $50,000 fine. As a Judge he condemns, as a loving Father, He steps down and pays the fine.
I am not a murderer because I have empathy, compassion, and value for human life. I do not refrain from murder for personal gain (to achieve a reward - heaven - or avoid a punishment - hell). I submit to you that makes me MORE moral than someone who refrains from murder purely for personal gain.
You nailed it and exposed typical theist amorality, despite their claims to be more moral.
Morality is the consideration of others in decisions about your actions. Avoiding hell or gaining heaven does not consider others, = amoral. Arguably immoral, but definitely amoral.
And do you agree Jeff Vella Leone, "There is no basis" referring to morality?
I would not agree as written, but reading his comments, I suspect he meant, "no objective basis." With that, I do agree.
Is morality up to the individual then? If there is no objective basis by which to determine something is good or bad?
I would say yes, in part. Morality involves considering the impact of your actions on others, so there is a social component.
Besides, if you claim an objective basis, how would you demonstrate its objectivity? Many objective bases have been claimed, and the fact that they often conflict is calls their objectivity into question.
"Morality involves considering the impact of your actions on others, so there is a social component." Now is that an objective standard for morality?
If an individual thinks it is moral to rape women, wouldn't it be immoral for him not to? Since morality is up to the individual, his individual believes raping women is moral and good.
"Now is that an objective standard for morality?"
Of course not. The whole point you have heard consistently from us is that there is no such thing.
"Since morality is up to the individual, his individual believes raping women is moral and good."
I did not say morality is up to the individual. I said there is a social component, which you quoted in that very post. That means society has a say.
Claiming that your god created an objective standard doesn't really help your case. As I mentioned above, many objective bases have been claimed, and the fact that they often conflict is strong evidence that any claim to objectivity is suspect. We skeptics will want objectivity demonstrated to accept the claim.
Unfortunately for you, this would involve demonstrating your god's objective existence first, which has never been done in history.
But even if you made the greatest documented discovery in humanity's existence, we haven't gotten to how an all-powerful deity could objectively communicate a standard to all humans.
The method you believe can be summed up as, "Some guy said god told me to tell you..." Objectivity is unceremoniously dumped from the get-go.
"I said there is a social component, which you quoted in that very post. That means society has a say." And the society Hitler created said killing Jews was right, does that make it right? The society in the 1800s said slavery was okay, does that make it right?
Again, in order to reason there has to be invariant, universal, laws of logic, laws of logic are only possible with a biblical God, reasoning is possible therefore the Biblical God exists.
"And the society Hitler created said killing Jews was right, does that make it right? The society in the 1800s said slavery was okay, does that make it right?"
No. Who here has claimed that every society's morality is always right? As several have pointed out, the morals of the societies in the book you get your morals from were even worse.
Now, please answer how you intend to demonstrate the objectivity of your moral basis in contrast to any competing claim of an objective basis that contradicts it.
" Who here has claimed that every society's morality is always right?"
So who gets to decide which society is actually moral? After all everything is subjective to you, right?
As I said, only the Biblical God makes sense of the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality, the Biblical God is neither Arbitrary, Inconsistent, or fails to provide preconditions of intelligibility. Hinduism says all is one, they can't believe in the law of non-contradiction because it calls for distinction. Atheism doesn't account for those thing either, so that can't be true. Any other world belief is either, Arbitrary, Inconsistent, or fails to account for the preconditions of intelligibility, (laws of logic etc.) I'd be happy to go through any other world system, but your an Atheist, so let's stick with that.
"the Biblical God is neither Arbitrary, Inconsistent, or fails to provide preconditions of intelligibility."
Assumes facts not in evidence. You cannot demonstrate that your god is not arbitrary, much less not fictional. Until you can, we have no basis to continue a discussion involving objectivity.