That does not address the point. The demand on the level of proof in the OP, proof of a superior ethical system in the physical to the standards expressed, a near impossible task, requires a supernatural being such as God to accomplish this, thus demanding God reveals him/herself in the process.
Believing in something you can’t prove isn’t faith? Then you would agree that belief in God is not faith.
Anyone who wants to assert it as true.
Then you must agree that all moral statements, without exception, have no more basis than an itch.
The statement “Women should have control over their own bodies” has exactly the same validity as “God hates fags”. These statements are completely morally equivalent. Correct?
Regards,
Shodan
I think I really need a cite for that, and a cite that distinguishes religiosity from “moral” behavior as that is the entire thrust of this conversation. I’m quite willing to believe that chimps act in ways that we humans find to be moral or ethical. I’m hard pressed to understand how we could possibly tell if they have religious views.
Sure. If it’s “yeah, I think God probably exists”, that’s not really faith. If it’s “God definitely exists”, that’s faith.
Since it is in relation to a human created system (like any moral system), this “truth” is relative.
We can make decisions about which moral statements we value and which we don’t, based on shared assumptions. Which is how its done anyway, in all religious and non-religious systems.
They’re not equivalent in my moral system, and probably not in yours.
Obviously not, the first assumes that women and bodies exist, the second assumes that God and fags exist. A statement about the properties of something nonexistent makes no logical sense so to an atheist the second statement cannot be assessed as to moral content.
I can think of no male mythological deity whose moral system was anything but bullshit. Particularly not the Lord of Hosts. If you read the various commands of Yahweh to the Israelites as they prepared to invade Canaan without the names attached, it’s obvious that he’s a psychopathic monster.
No, they are not. “Women should have control over their own bodies” is the expression of a desire; it expresses how the utterer believes the world–no, scratch that–how society should be. It is normative but not descriptive. In fact it is the opposite of descriptive, as the very fact that persons feel the need to utter it indicates that they believe that society has historically or is currently been oriented otherwise. (No one feels the need to say “People should walk only on the ground, not in air.”
“God hates fags” is a description. It assumes that three conditions are true: God exists; fags exist; and God has feelings that can be described as “hatred.” The first and last of these are matters that can only be taken on faith.
You reveal yourself on this.
But anyway, as per my previous statement, you are tempting God to prove you are wrong to your standards with a starting premise, that is claimed in the OP, as ‘self evident’ (actual word used: axiom)
Please try to stay on subject, what you have here really has no bearing on the subject.
Well, if you need the phrasing explained, then make the statements “women should have control over their bodies” vs. “homosexual activity should be punished by death”. Both are based on unprovable axioms, and therefore have equal moral weight.
Regards,
Shodan
As I’ve said, this is false, because something’s moral weight is always determined by the opinion of an individual human, even if that human thinks he’s basing his opinion on the absolute values of a deity.
I am not tempting God. It is as impossible to tempt God as it is to tug on Superman’s cape. (I mean that in the most insulting way possible, so perhaps I should say Batman’s cape. 
)
And I never used the term “self-evident” in the OP. I specifically noted that it is conceivable to me that my axioms might be disproven to me, or might be wrong in different circumstances. That is why I used the geometry analogy. Euclid’s theses are true in a certain sort of space but not in another.
My ethical axioms are essentially aesthetic; they are my choosing the foundations of a system I can live with, not a description of what came down from on high. I make no claim to special knowledge, unlike persons who take their morality from God, whom they cannot demonstrate to exist or to have any genuine moral wisdom or authority.)
First please look up the word ‘axiom’ which was the word I said you used…
I know the definition of the word. I am pointing out that it can be taken in more than one sense, and that you are disingenuously ignoring that I specifically noted the sense I was using.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
“Women should have control over their own bodies” is the expression of a desire; it expresses how the utterer believes the world–no, scratch that–how society should be.
[/QUOTE]
What we are discussing is if that desire can be rationally established, or if it is faith-based.
If someone asks me “Why should women have control over their own bodies” and I respond “because that’s God’'s will” and cannot prove that God’s will is a valid basis for morality, then I assume you would not think the answer had established any moral weight to the position. If I respond “because that will make them happy” but cannot prove that happiness is a valid basis for morality, then the same is true and no moral weight can be assigned to the position.
Atheists are caught on the horns of a dilemma, as I am sure you recognize. If one can simply assign validity to a moral position by making an unproven assumption, then all moral positions are equally valid, including religiously-based ones. If one can’t, then all moral positions are equally invalid, including non-religiously based ones.
There is, IOW, absolutelly no difference between killing an abortionist, and performing an abortion. None.
Regards,
Shodan
This is not a dilemma. Most atheists recognize that their moral system, as with all other moral systems, are based on “unproven assumptions”. This isn’t a weakness (especially since it’s the case for every one of us), it’s a strength. It allows us the flexibility to modify our moral systems as we grow and gather more information. Religions do this as well – the moral guidance of the Catholic church is quite different today than it was in past centuries, and it’s hardly unique in this respect.
Unless proven to your standards, yes that was self evident in the OP
Let’s back up, since you mentioned the monster you call the lord of hosts, this seems to involve some rejection of what you may have take as handed down from LoH.
But you drew a line in the sand.
Irrelevant in this discussion.
It’s a pretty intrinsic part of that term and I have not seen that you have sufficiently distanced yourself from that aspect of that definition.
Morality works for creatures who can remember and communicate, mathematically. Ergo, both evolution and intellect solve for it.
Generally, faith is taken to mean “accepting something as true, for no particular reason”.
Let’s say that you want to punch someone, because they’re being annoying. If you have been told that punching people is not how you should behave, and you choose to obey that just because you’re the obedient sort, then you’re taking it on faith that you shouldn’t punch the guy. If you’ve been told that God will punish you for eternity if you punch the guy, then you have faith in God, but you’re not punching the guy out of self-interest. For any one case of religious morality, it depends on the individual whether they’re holding that belief out of faith or self-interest. Since I believe that Hell and Damnation aren’t in the vogue in most American churches, presumably faith-based morality is more common.
If, on the other hand, you think to yourself, “Wait a second, if I punch this guy, then that means that anyone could punch me. I could get a broken nose, I could end up with brain damage. Someday I might get someone so angry that they just keep punching and I die. I don’t want that for me, I don’t want that for my family. It makes more logical sense to accept that sometimes humans make each other angry, but violence doesn’t solve that in any way.” Then that’s not faith, that’s simple logic. One might call it self-interested, but usually (as a species) we care about our “pack” besides ourselves, it’s a little more hazy than that, though one could simplify it down to self-interest.
I agree with your opening sentence (rendered in red, above).
Efforts to create axioms making up an ethical system are more political than philosophical. There are advantages for rulers (both secular and religious; both in the household as well as in the nation) if the ruled behave in certain ways; the “ethical system” is all about motivating the ruled to behave in these ways. The basic message is something along the lines These axioms are derived logically–it’s not me telling you what to do, it’s LOGIC!!!
Systems of ethical axioms are probably better or worse–more useful or less–according to how far they stray from (as you say) observations. Primate studies are not a bad starting place for developing such axioms. The ‘ethical’ choices made by a chimp or a rhesus may not be identical to the choices a human would make, but there will certainly be similarities that are, at the very least, suggestive.
I agree; it’s a mug’s game. But, as mentioned above, it’s the game that humans play in our efforts to impose our will on others–which is to say: in politics, in its broad sense.