Saying that all religion is bad and must be destroyed no matter the cost is something else. I don't really know that Dawkins has said that. Maher pretty well has.
Note the bolded part. Neither Maher, nor any other public atheist person in the present day, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said that. Most contemporary atheists are humanists, meaning that violence in the pursuit of political goals is off the table. Period. Calling these people "militant" is therefore a grotesque mischaracterization -- because the whole basis of their philosophy is not harming others. Do they claim religion is harmful? Yes, outspokenly. Do they advocate violence as a means to get rid of it. No. Not ever. "No matter the cost" implies through any means -- violence included -- which isn't what's happening here.
If Maher, or Richard Dawkins, or Chris Hitchens gets arrested throwing a pipe bomb at a church -- or advocating that anyone else do so -- I'll not only happily retract all of the above, but willing offer sanctuary to any churchgoers who feel threatened.
However, I think that the Pope is an extreme case. He doesn't speak for me and isn't a representative of what I believe.
I'm not saying he does. What I am saying is that he's said and done stuff WAY more than sufficient to get any atheist branded as an "extremist," yet anyone criticizing him for it is the one who gets the epithet applied to them.
"I'm rubber, you're glue!"
Kirth - can you explain a little more how you're getting to this?
Sure. Let's look at his statement:
Even in our own lifetime, [1]we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. [2]I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. [3]As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, [4]let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny."
Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that [5] more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. [6]Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.
Okay,
[1] He says the Nazis wanted to eradicate God from society. Not historically true at all, but that aside, no offense yet.[2] Again, the Catholic Church was an ethusiastic supporter of the fascist regimes in Spain and Italy, and Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich held a special mass thanking God after Hitler escaped an assassination attempt, but again, the blatantly revisionist history here isn't offensive beyond that.
[3] He means the Nazis, evidently.
[4] Here's where it gets interesting. The Catholic stance is that the Church defines "virtue," so really he's saying that excluding God and religion from public life leads to this "reductive vision," which, again, in context is referring to the Nazis (and their treatment of the Jews, which he just alluded to). Atheists exclude God and religion from their public lives. QED.
[5] Now he specifies that he's not just talking history, but that current atheists are denying God, etc., etc. Remember that an "aggressive" secularist, as we've seen in the last 2 pages here, is one who says that we'd be better off without the Church, or without religion in general. That includes Maher, Dawkins... and myself.
[6] Of course, only Christianity supposedly leads to freedom, he's quick to remind us. Those non-Christians secularists? He already talked about them.
|
Saying that all religion is bad and must be destroyed no matter the cost is something else. I don't really know that Dawkins has said that. Maher pretty well has.Note the bolded part. Neither Maher, nor any other public atheist person in the present day, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said that.
That's not what I got out of "Religilous" (sp?). The way it came across to me was that he was saying that religion was so evil that it needed to be stopped -- through force if necessary. It really surprised me because I felt that the rest of the movie was fair (although reasonably biased) and pointed without the "extremism". But the last 15-20 minutes really concerned me about him.
That's not what I got out of "Religilous" (sp?). The way it came across to me was that he was saying that religion was so evil that it needed to be stopped -- through force if necessary. It really surprised me because I felt that the rest of the movie was fair (although reasonably biased) and pointed without the "extremism". But the last 15-20 minutes really concerned me about him.
Interesting; I had the opposite take on it. I thought the bulk of the movie presented so skewed a view of religion as to be a joke, whereas the end -- when he finally says, "Look, do we want the same religious people who flew planes into the Towers to have nuclear weapons?" was worth thinking about. Violence? I gathered he was in favor of protecting ourselves against terrorism, but I didn't see that as a call to arms to go beat up or shoot some Sunday church-goers.
I should be quick to point out that the atheist/skeptic community as a whole thinks Maher is a well-meaning but totally addled fruit loop; his stance on anti-vaccination makes it hard to take him seriously about anything.
|
|
That's not what I got out of "Religilous" (sp?). The way it came across to me was that he was saying that religion was so evil that it needed to be stopped -- through force if necessary. It really surprised me because I felt that the rest of the movie was fair (although reasonably biased) and pointed without the "extremism". But the last 15-20 minutes really concerned me about him.Interesting; I had the opposite take on it. I thought the bulk of the movie presented so skewed a view of religion as to be a joke, whereas the end -- when he finally says, "Look, do we want the same religious people who flew planes into the Towers to have nuclear weapons?" was worth thinking about. Violence? I gathered he was in favor of protecting ourselves against terrorism, but I didn't see that as a call to arms to go beat up or shoot some Sunday church-goers.
I should be quick to point out that the atheist/skeptic community as a whole thinks Maher is a well-meaning but totally addled fruit loop; his stance on anti-vaccination makes it hard to take him seriously about anything.
That is interesting. I'd see the movie again except the last bit of his "message" really pissed me off. It's kind of odd (looking back on it) that I wasn't really offended by his skewed representing of religion.
And I guess that he isn't your spokesperson like the Pope isn't mine.
I missed that one, and, yeah, I'd be inclined not to link that to any official stance of the Church or the Pope. I thought you were referring to the clarification of the Pope's atheist remarks by the Catholic League:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to “reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century.” Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of “a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.”
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
67 million for Stalin? Where the heck did they get that number? He's responsible for WWII maybe? Its a number pulled out of someones rear end. 10 million in the purges and in the industrial buildup prior to World War II.
Beyond that...well consider...
Everything Stalin achieved could have been done without sacrificing 10 million people. It would just take about twice as long.
Honestly what is the urgent need to have massive numbers of factories beyond European Russia? To have created massive collectivist agriculturalist areas halfway to Siberia? To stockpile critical resources on a scale almost unfathomable in their magnitude in order to run newly built factories at full blast as if, all of a sudden European Russia will drop off the map? All by around 1940? Whats wrong with 1950?...why sacrifice 10 million people for a 10 years bump in industrial and agricultural productivity? You had to be an actual certifiable paranoid maniac to believe that the price was worth paying.
P.S. I'm getting the 10 million number from This Book. Its really very good and I highly recommend it. Just in case your concerned its not some kind of 'apology' for Stalin. It also does not delve much into my industreal output point above...for that you need to do some research on the economic/industrial history of World War Two (I'm a buff of the topic and read everything I can find on all the major powers involved).
It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Sebastian, are you reading this? Bill Donohoe is president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, an organization of 233,333 paid members as of 1999. Here he's helpfully "clarifying" the Pope's remarks, in case we missed the thrust of them. Granted, he's not an official papal spokesperson, but he's hardly a nobody, either.
If that's not enough, how many people went to see Ben Stein's "Expelled," which made the exact same comparison, claiming that atheism leads inexorably to Nazism and mass murder? Per Wikipedia (maybe incorrect, but I'm too lazy to double-check right now): "Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, more than any other documentary before it, and grossed over $2,900,000 in its first weekend. It earned $7.7 million, making it the 13th-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States."
The Pope just threw in his support, and by extension that of the Catholic Church as a whole, for this false and morally-bankrupt smear campaign against atheists.
Bill 'I'm an Idiot' Donohoe who belongs in the same breath as Fred Phelps, You take anything he says as speaking for anyone of any sort of intelligence or for any opinion for anyone who is actually catholic? And people wonder why I think this thread is a lost cause. If Bill Donohoe says it is catholic please understand that official church response will be the exact opposite.
With that I am for good out of here so no response will be needed it is obvious minds have been made up without any facts or caring what others may think.
Bill 'I'm an Idiot' Donohoe who belongs in the same breath as Fred Phelps, You take anything he says as speaking for anyone of any sort of intelligence or for any opinion for anyone who is actually catholic? With that I am for good out of here so no response will be needed it is obvious minds have been made up without any facts or caring what others may think.
Fred Phelps' little shack has nowhere near a quarter of a million members. But that's totally beside the main fact being discussed, which you're skirting: that the Pope himself is saying the same stuff. If I'm misinterpreting his remarks, then, pray tell, what do they really mean? You could address that, and actually, you know, give your own point of view, instead of claiming "no one cares what you think" and running away.
1. Does the Pope speak for you?
2. If he didn't mean the same things as Donohoe and Stein, then what exactly was he trying to say?
3. Exactly what facts am I "making up"?
Maybe no response is "needed," but I actually do care what you think (contrary to your assertion). The question is, are you willing to share it?
Exactly. I'm deeply opposed to violence, or to the repression of anyone based on their belief system, yet I've been called an "extremist" and "intolerant" so many times, here and elsewhere, that I've literally lost count.
+1
And also I think Bill Maher is a jackass. Have for years. He's an occasionally funny jackass, but still a jackass. I often enjoyed Politically Incorrect as a model for what a political talk show actually should be, but almost every time Maher opened his mouth to support a position I also supported I wished I had a better advocate on the panel than him.
1. Does the Pope speak for you?
2. If he didn't mean the same things as Donohoe and Stein, then what exactly was he trying to say?
3. Exactly what facts am I "making up"?
I'd like answers for those too. If that would encourage CJ to give them, anyway. If not, then let's say I do not want CJ to answer. Maybe then he will.
I missed that one, and, yeah, I'd be inclined not to link that to any official stance of the Church or the Pope. I thought you were referring to the clarification of the Pope's atheist remarks by the Catholic League:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to “reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century.” Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of “a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.”
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Calling Mao an Atheist is technically correct but also pretty misleading. The reality is he is a Confucianist or maybe more accurately a kind of Neo-Confucianist and its not at all hard to be a Confucianist and also an Atheist.
He's getting the label Atheist via the fact that he also espouses a brand of Marxism (one that might well also be described as Neo-Marxism) but the Atheistic elements of Marxism are pretty incidental to Mao and the country he creates. He's a Marxist in large part because Marxism and Confusciasm easily co-exist. When China is strong, historically speaking, its been strong because of its famed bureaucracy.
China's religions don't really conflict with Marxism in the way that the Wests religions where seen as being anathema to the movement. Mao certainly targets Christianity and Islam but these groups represent only small numbers of the population and they are being targeted not because they are not Atheists but simply because they are not seen as Chinese. The Taoists basically get a pass because they are considered Chinese and Mao's brand of Marxism is deeply entwined with Chinese Nationalism.
In essence saying its Atheism that leads to Mao's excesses is less accurate then saying its Confuciasm and Chinese Nationalism. An understandable Nationalism considering how far China had sunk and the glories which it looked back on.
What if I never friended him to begin with?
What if I never friended him to begin with?
To the Pit with us, naturally.
Texas weighs bid to rid schools of 'pro-Islam' books
The Texas school board is set to vote on a resolution urging publishers to keep "pro-Islamic/anti-Christian" language out of textbooks in the state.
The Texas school board is set to vote on a resolution urging publishers to keep "pro-Islamic/anti-Christian" language out of textbooks in the state.
"It's the pro-Islamic, anti-Christian teachings in these books, that is what we are concerned about," Mr Rives told the BBC.
But if it was pro-Christian, of course that would be ok.
Stuff like this is why History of Western Civ amounts to "everything you know is wrong" when you get to college.
The Catholic Church is going to make an Australian a saint, the very first one from there. There's usually little for outsiders to care about or even note in these cases. However, in this case the church is canonizing a nun who it excommunicated and threw penniless out on the street. For reporting a molesting priest up the holy grapevine.
While serving with the Sisters of St Joseph, MacKillop and her fellow nuns heard disturbing stories about a priest, Father Keating from the Kapunda parish north of Adelaide, who was allegedly abusing children.
They told their director, a priest called Father Woods, who then went to the Vicar General.
The Vicar General subsequently sent Father Keating back to his home country of Ireland, where he continued to serve as a priest.
Father Paul Gardiner, who has pushed for MacKillop's canonisation for 25 years, says Father Keating's fellow Kapunda priest Father Horan swore revenge on the nun for uncovering the abuse.
"The story of the excommunication amounts to this: that some priests had been uncovered for being involved in the sexual abuse of children," he said.
The pattern here is the same as it always is. A molesting priest is uncovered and reported confidentially to his holy superiors. Secular authorities are kept in the dark. The church realizes it can't leave the molester around news of his deeds and so transfers him somewhere he can continue without obstruction.
I have long suspected that this is standard operating procedure. It's obvious across national lines, from diocese to diocese. The question was how far back it went. Now we've got another signpost. Mary MacKillop was excommunicated in 1871.
I would be happy that the church was recognizing a whistleblower who stood up for the right thing and paid a price for it. But that's not really MacKillop. She started out to do the right thing, but then fell down along the way and didn't notify the police. Accomplices to molestation now join kidnappers among the ranks of the sainted.
Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking. He went on to connect the loss of the moral compass provided by religion to an inevitable decline in respect for individual rights.
I don't think that implies that all atheists are Nazis. It implies that Nazi conduct is morally permissable in an atheist society in a way it's not in a religious society.
|
Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking. He went on to connect the loss of the moral compass provided by religion to an inevitable decline in respect for individual rights.
I don't think that implies that all atheists are Nazis. It implies that Nazi conduct is morally permissable in an atheist society in a way it's not in a religious society.
This is a false and idiotic line of thinking.
Being an atheist does not mean that you are without morals and/or do not respect human life. If anything, the bible is one of the most morally corrupt tomes available. Genocide, god telling a guy to off his own kid, slavery, misogyny, etc. A christian trying to talk to me about morality is laughable.
This is a false and idiotic line of thinking.
I also disagree with this line of thinking, but it's not the equivalent to Ratzinger calling all atheists Nazis.
Being an atheist does not mean that you are without morals and/or do not respect human life.
But it does mean that you accept that your decision to do so is subjective, and without universalizable moral force. Only deity can provide objective morality -- Hume's is-ought disconnect.
If anything, the bible is one of the most morally corrupt tomes available. Genocide, god telling a guy to off his own kid, slavery, misogyny, etc. A christian trying to talk to me about morality is laughable.
I disagree -- but then again, I expect the way the Bible has been presented to you is fundamentally inaccurate.
|
|
I also disagree with this line of thinking, but it's not the equivalent to Ratzinger calling all atheists Nazis.
Having read the original quote by Ratzinger, I believe that's exactly what he was doing.
But it does mean that you accept that your decision to do so is subjective, and without universalizable moral force. Only deity can provide objective morality -- Hume's is-ought disconnect.
It is in an atheist's best interests to hold to a morality that respects all human life and dignity regardless of race, religion, etc. If they do not, they are only harming themselves in the long run. How does religion provide a "universalizable" moral force? Morality varies from one religion to the next. That's definitely not universal...
I disagree -- but then again, I expect the way the Bible has been presented to you is fundamentally inaccurate.
So I presented it to myself wrong? Please use your apologetics to explain these away:
Genocide: flood kills off all life but one family
God tells guy to off his own kid: Abraham (IIRC) was told to sacrifice his child to god and god stopped him at he last minute...it was just a test (how cruel is that to ask a man to kill his own child?).
Slavery: Guidelines on how to treat your slaves
Mysogyny: Guidelines on how to sell your daughter, when and where a woman should be allowed to speak, etc.
The bible was the single greatest factor that drove me away from religion. I was fine with religion until I actually read what it was I was subscribing to.
But it does mean that you accept that your decision to do so is subjective, and without universalizable moral force. Only deity can provide objective morality -- Hume's is-ought disconnect.
Wait -- some priest's interpretation of a book of Bronze Age fables is impeccably objective, is what you're claiming here? Please. Objective morality in terms of net-gain solutions for a communal society can be worked out without reference to any particular holy book. Appealing to one's personal spin on what a supposed overseer may or may not want, as interpreted from one of the many religions chosen for personal reasons, isn't "more objective" than that -- indeed, it seems rather less so, to me.
Wait -- some priest's interpretation of a book of Bronze Age fables is impeccably objective, is what you're claiming here? Please.
The fact of deity can be used as the basis for a fact-based moral standard. In the absence of an objective source for morality or other teleological basis for the world, all morality is subjective.
Objective morality in terms of net-gain solutions for a communal society can be worked out without reference to any particular holy book.
This is an attempt to bridge the is-ought gap by assuming a common objective. This will work -- but it's just moving back the subjectivity one level, to the assumed common objective.
In other words, both utilitarian morality and theistic morality solve the is-ought fallacy by pushing it back to an earlier point. The utilitarian hides it in the assumptions of utilitarianism; the theist hides it in the assumptions of theism. Accept neither, and the fallacy remains.
The fact of deity can be used as the basis for a fact-based moral standard. In the absence of an objective source for morality or other teleological basis for the world, all morality is subjective.
Because all the holy books contradict themselves and each other, and because there is no objective basis for selecting one over the others, there is therefore ZERO objectivity in the method you describe. At least "moving back the subjectivity one level" is a start, unlike the approach you describe.
The "fact of deity" isn't a demonstrable fact at all, especially when we start asking "which deity"? And then the small matter of what that deity actually considers moral -- genocide is on the list (or is it?). And stoning disobedient children? Subjugating women? Most Christians I know reject these things as immoral, despite their explicit endorsement in the Bible. Just as most Muslims I know reject the lesser (violent) jihad, despite its endorsement in scriptural Islam. Because using the literal statements in any scriptural text as an "objective standard of morality" -- without using empathy and human consciousness as a massive filter -- instead gives you people like Al Quaida.
The fact of deity can be used as the basis for a fact-based moral standard.
What 'fact of deity' are you speaking of?
|
|
Avalon, I find it insulting and disingenuous of you to try to charactarize atheists as amoral.
One thing to consider when making this attack is the underrepresentation of atheists and the overrepresentation of christians in the US prison system. IIRC, while atheists make up upwards of 10% of the US population at large, they only make up 1% of prisoners. Christians, OTOH, make up around 70% of the population at large and 90% of the prisoners. Your (the christian your, not you specifically) moral superiority astounds me!
Avalon, I find it insulting and disingenuous of you to try to charactarize atheists as amoral.
I don't believe I've been either insulting or disingenuous. I also haven't characterized atheists as amoral.
What I've espoused is an acknowledgement that the "is-ought" disconnect actually exists -- in other words, that atheism precludes the existence of an objective morality.If God doesn't exist, then morality is subjective. If God does exist, then morality may be objective. Is anyone actually disagreeing with these two statements? Or have I been unclear?
One thing to consider when making this attack is the underrepresentation of atheists and the overrepresentation of christians in the US prison system. IIRC, while atheists make up upwards of 10% of the US population at large, they only make up 1% of prisoners. Christians, OTOH, make up around 70% of the population at large and 90% of the prisoners. Your (the christian your, not you specifically) moral superiority astounds me!
Socioeconomic status is the confounding factor -- the less wealthy (and the less white) are more religious and also more likely to be in prison.
I wouldn't conflate likelihood of incarceration with moral status -- unless you believe there's something about being either poor or black that makes you immoral. If you believe that, I doubt we have enough in common to even have a discussion.
The "fact of deity" isn't a demonstrable fact at all,
I understand that this is the atheist position.
My entire point was that, if this is the case, then morality is inherently subjective.If a creator God does exist, then it is possible to argue for an objective morality using this being as a source. If a creator God doesn't exist, then it is not possible to argue for an objective morality at all.
|
|
If God doesn't exist, then morality is subjective. If God does exist, then morality may be objective. Is anyone actually disagreeing with these two statements? Or have I been unclear?
In either of these two states, morality is still subjective. Why, you ask? Because there has been no definitive "word of god" regarding what is moral and what is not. The current interpretation of morality is based of of clergyman deciding what it is based upon a 2000 year old text. Hardly objective.
Socioeconomic status is the confounding factor -- the less wealthy (and the less white) are more religious and also more likely to be in prison.
I wouldn't conflate likelihood of incarceration with moral status -- unless you believe there's something about being either poor or black that makes you immoral. If you believe that, I doubt we have enough in common to even have a discussion.
Wow, way to insinuate that i'm a racist...that's even more insulting than your atheists are immoral remarks.
Some religions OTOH, have attached morality (or lack thereof) to race. For the longest time mormons wouldn't allow black clergy because they would "trace" their lineage to Cain. Being black was their mark of Cain. Gotta love that religiously objective morality, eh?
If a creator God doesn't exist, then it is not possible to argue for an objective morality at all.
And even if one does exist, He's left such a garbled mess of His desires that it is not possible to argue for an objective morality at all -- but I notice that you're carefully avoiding addressing any of this, as if it will just go away if you ignore it enough.
If God doesn't exist, then morality is subjective. If God does exist, then morality may be objective. Is anyone actually disagreeing with these two statements? Or have I been unclear?In either of these two states, morality is still subjective. Why, you ask? Because there has been no definitive "word of god" regarding what is moral and what is not.
I agree with your point that the existence of God is not sufficient to establish an objective morality -- we would also have to determine what God objectively wants.
Again, the point is that a universe where a creator God exists (and we know something about Him) is a universe where objective morality is logically tenable. A universe without any such Being is a universe where morality must be consequently subjective, for the reasons that Hume outlines so well.Wow, way to insinuate that i'm a racist...that's even more insulting than your atheists are immoral remarks.
Since I've done neither of the above, I don't know how to respond to that.
For the longest time mormons wouldn't allow black clergy because they would "trace" their lineage to Cain. Being black was their mark of Cain. Gotta love that religiously objective morality, eh?No-True-Scotsman Fallacy in 3, 2, 1...
Since the argument is itself a Hasty Generalization fallacy, I don't see the need to respond past that point.
Avalon, your claims for objective morality need to take this into account:
And then the small matter of what that deity actually considers moral -- genocide is on the list (or is it?). And stoning disobedient children? Subjugating women? Most Christians I know reject these things as immoral, despite their explicit endorsement in the Bible. Just as most Muslims I know reject the lesser (violent) jihad, despite its endorsement in scriptural Islam. Because using the literal statements in any scriptural text as an "objective standard of morality" -- without using empathy and human consciousness as a massive filter -- instead gives you people like Al Quaida.
Ignoring this won't make it go away, and it destroys your whole argument unless you can satisfactorally address it. The crux of the problem is that the things most clearly spelled out as "moral" in scriptural texts of various religions are often things that, by standards of empathy and reason, are immoral. Do you then reject empathy and reason both?
If a creator God does exist, then it is possible to argue for an objective morality using this being as a source.
God, especially one with the capacity to do anything, does not have to be any more moral than any of his creations. It seems to me you are confusing some base assertions with logic.
Ignoring this won't make it go away, and it destroys your whole argument unless you can satisfactorally address it.
I'm afraid it doesn't.
If we agree that morality is inherently subjective under atheism, and it appears we now do since we've moved on to tu quoque arguments exclusively, then it appears I've made my point. :-)
God, especially one with the capacity to do anything, does not have to be any more moral than any of his creations.
Teleology is an acceptable objective basis for a moral code.
My entire point was that, if this is the case, then morality is inherently subjective.
If a creator God does exist, then it is possible to argue for an objective morality using this being as a source. If a creator God doesn't exist, then it is not possible to argue for an objective morality at all.
This isn't the case any more than physics is subjective or arbitrary if there isn't a creator god.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
God, especially one with the capacity to do anything, does not have to be any more moral than any of his creations.Teleology is an acceptable objective basis for a moral code.
Oooh! Are we at the point in the thread where we get to make bald-faced assertions as if they are facts? Cause I want to play too!
Flipping coins is an acceptable objective basis for a moral code.
Dolphins are sufficiently awesome that we should build a translator so they can share their moral code with us!
Tinfoil will protect you from the atheist mind lasers!!!
I'm afraid it doesn't. (1) If we agree that morality is inherently subjective under atheism, and (2) it appears we now do since we've (3) moved on to tu quoque arguments exclusively, then (4) it appears I've made my point. :-)
1. We do not -- indeed, it is more objective under rational/humanist standards than religious ones;
2. No; your assertion does not constitute agreement;3. You're arguing by false dichotomy -- pointing that out is not a fallacy, but a logical need;
4. That you are incapable of addressing opposing arguments, however valid, except by lamely claiming non-existent agreement and falsely claiming fallacies on others' parts?
|
|
Since the argument is itself a Hasty Generalization fallacy, I don't see the need to respond past that point.For the longest time mormons wouldn't allow black clergy because they would "trace" their lineage to Cain. Being black was their mark of Cain. Gotta love that religiously objective morality, eh?No-True-Scotsman Fallacy in 3, 2, 1...
"Hasty Generalization"? The fact about the Mormons that Xpltvdeleted mentioned is true. I don't understand how pointing out a piece of religious racism is a hasty generalization. Also, I don't think "Hasty Generalization Fallacy" is an actual recognized logical fallacy, you sly minx :p
|
I understand that this is the atheist position.
My entire point was that, if this is the case, then morality is inherently subjective.
If a creator God does exist, then it is possible to argue for an objective morality using this being as a source. If a creator God doesn't exist, then it is not possible to argue for an objective morality at all.
You don't need God to be objective with your morals. I believe God exists but does not hand out revelations. But I believe in there being acts that are completely evil. For the purpose of my morality, God does not factor into it.
Teleology is an acceptable objective basis for a moral code.What.
First causes, dude. Like, if you have a bloody nose because I hit you in the face, that's an "objectively moral" outcome, because I caused it all by myself. Granted, those "subjective athestic" morals make a stronger point in arguing against that act...
Teleology is an acceptable objective basis for a moral code.
Then an objective basis for a moral code can just as easily be reached by an atheist as a theist. The only difference is where we place the final cause.
This isn't the case any more than physics is subjective or arbitrary if there isn't a creator god.
I disagree. Physics statements can all be "is" statements -- every one of them can be quantified on the basis of what we observe. Predictions can be made about what we will observe in the future. Physics can be completely objective in an atheistic universe, whether deterministic or not.
On the other hand, as Hume pointed out, it's impossible to move from statements of facts and observations about the world into a conclusion about how things should be. Before you can make your very first "ought" statement, you have to start with a conditional assumption that has an implicit or implicit "ought" in it.It's that initial assumption that renders morality subjective. Because enough information about God can eventually include an "ought" fact, it's possible (although, as Kirth has correctly pointed out, not necessary) that a universe with a Creator can have an objective morality. It's not possible otherwise.
You don't need God to be objective with your morals. I believe God exists but does not hand out revelations. But I believe in there being acts that are completely evil. For the purpose of my morality, God does not factor into it.
There's an infinite regress in "ought", however, which eventually requires an initial "ought" assumption. This may be an assumption we can agree on, but it's still a subjective assumption (not based on verifiable facts or direct observation.)
We might start here:A human being ought not to cause suffering to another human being.
That's not a bad place to start (although sophisticated systems of morality will usually have exceptions to this rule). But if you start from that rule, that's still your subjective assumption -- and there's no objective argument that refutes someone who chooses to question it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm confused. If morality is objective, why can't everyone agree about it? Isn't that like disagreeing about whether gravity exists? Shouldn't all cultures have discovered the same divine being and the same morality? If it's objective, does that mean we can measure and test it?
Maybe I don't understand what objective is. If there's an objective morality, but we can't perceive, measure, describe, or prove what it is/means, is that really any better than some other non-objective morality?