[QUOTE=mswas]
Well at this point if we are accepting moral relativism as fact, there isn’t much disagreement.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: “Money is worth something” isn’t a moral question in the first place. Relative or otherwise.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yeah, we demonstrated that murder is wrong by murdering people. 
[/quote]
Executing the guilty isn’t the same as killing the innocent.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Well at this point if we are accepting moral relativism as fact, there isn’t much disagreement.
[/QUOTE]
It depends on what you mean by moral relativism. As I’ve said above, the fact that morality is a social construct does not mean that individuals get to determine right and wrong for themselves. Just as the fact that currency is a social construct does not mean that I can decide unilaterally that I want to pay my gas bill with dried leaves.
Which is why sociopathy is not a rational response to atheism.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, they simply exchanged one religion for another. And I see no evidence that they evinced “much worse records of atrocity”.
[/quote]
This is why you inspired this thread. Your ‘No True Scotsman’ approach to atheism. When it is convenient, there is no single definition for atheist. When it’s more convenient my OP is an insult to all atheists regardless of my stated intention. When someone points out that the greatest excesses of the 20th century were carried out by atheists, you say the exchanged one religion for another. If I were to say that civil organization in and of itself were a religious institution you’d argue against me. Yet, communism is another religion, and America is evil because it is still clinging to its Christian roots. You define morality as ‘what is best for society’, but you consider pretty much every form of social organization to be evil. So how would you even define society, let alone what’s best for society?
Right, but how do we know that your definition is superior to that of Mao’s? You seem to be fairly socially isolated, so why should we listen to anything you have to say about real world political organization? Theory is all well and good, but it’s when you are dealing with people who have real opinions that the practicum of your theory becomes apparent.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
:rolleyes: “Money is worth something” isn’t a moral question in the first place. Relative or otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Try to keep up. Go and reread all of Pochacco’s arguments.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
It depends on what you mean by moral relativism. As I’ve said above, the fact that morality is a social construct does not mean that individuals get to determine right and wrong for themselves. Just as the fact that currency is a social construct does not mean that I can decide unilaterally that I want to pay my gas bill with dried leaves.
Which is why sociopathy is not a rational response to atheism.
[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying is if I desire a certain outcome I have to act morally to achieve that outcome?
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
It makes you truthful and honest and it also makes you an atheist if you haven’t come to believe God/gods exist. I don’t know if there’s a God either and most atheists on this board will tell you the same thing (and so will many theists). Knowing and not knowing is not what makes one an atheist or theist- belief does.
That’s true. So is one who is without theism. Most atheists as far as I can tell do not assert there is no god.
I’m not arguing this just to quibble word definitions. I bring it up because you said “One doesn’t have to beleve in God nor not believe in God. They are called agnostics, and a position that is very logical if one is unsure.”
First of all, that really made no sense. You are defining an agnostic as one who is unsure, then you go on to say to be an agnostic is a logical position to be in if one is unsure. It’s not a position to be in if you’re unsure; it’s just a label.
If you think it’s a logical position to be in, then you should think the way the majority of us atheists define ourselves as atheists are being logical, as all we’re saying is that we are without belief (usually because of lack of evidence).
[/QUOTE]
I think the whole word play is a cop-out. If you don’t believe there is a God you are an atheist. If you don’t know whether God exists or not you are agnostic. If you believe in God you are a theist. It is real simple and straight-forward, anyone can understand it. Why all the fishtailing? People are responsible for what they believe whether or not they accept that responsibility. Does being poor mean you are without a belief in money.
I think the OP has pretty well described atheists, but not all atheists. I have atheist friends that do not believe they are superior or more intelligent than theists as most on this board have indicated they do by calling theists ignorant.
Actually, there was an experiencer that posted briefly on this board amid the usual insults. Notdeadnow. She was kind and loving and showed respect for all. I say that is the superior person, if the world had only people like her there would be no wars, greed, lying,and hate. I call that superior to what we now have.
lekatt sigh
An atheist does not believe in the existance of God.
An agnostic doesn’t know.
You are expecting an active disbelief, rather than a passive lack of belief.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I think the whole word play is a cop-out. If you don’t believe there is a God you are an atheist. If you don’t know whether God exists or not you are agnostic. If you believe in God you are a theist. It is real simple and straight-forward, anyone can understand it.
[/quote]
I agree with everything you just said. Where am I guilty of word play and what am I copping-out to? Keep in mind that not believing in God also entails being without belief in God, not just asserting there isn’t one.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Why all the fishtailing? People are responsible for what they believe whether or not they accept that responsibility. Does being poor mean you are without a belief in money.
[/quote]
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
[QUOTE=mswas]
So what you are saying is if I desire a certain outcome I have to act morally to achieve that outcome?
[/QUOTE]
Well, you should act to achieve that outcome. If acting morally, or acting foolishly, or acting pretentiously, or acting magnanimously, or acting with any particular adverb achieves that outcome… cool.
[QUOTE=mswas]
This is why you inspired this thread. Your ‘No True Scotsman’ approach to atheism. When it is convenient, there is no single definition for atheist. When it’s more convenient my OP is an insult to all atheists regardless of my stated intention.
[/quote]
A stated intention that no one believes, as far as I can tell. And if the OP was meant as a slam at me, it’s not only in the wrong forum but a pathetic attempt.
[QUOTE=mswas]
When someone points out that the greatest excesses of the 20th century were carried out by atheists, you say the exchanged one religion for another. If I were to say that civil organization in and of itself were a religious institution you’d argue against me. Yet, communism is another religion, and America is evil because it is still clinging to its Christian roots. You define morality as ‘what is best for society’, but you consider pretty much every form of social organization to be evil.
[/quote]
A silly claim, since religion is nowhere near “pretty much every form of social organization.”
And I didn’t claim that the Communists weren’t atheists; just that they were not non-religious; Communism was their religion. Religion and theism aren’t the same thing.
[QUOTE=mswas]
So how would you even define society, let alone what’s best for society?
[/quote]
A group of people interacting with each other. As for what’s best; history has largely done that.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Right, but how do we know that your definition is superior to that of Mao’s? You seem to be fairly socially isolated, so why should we listen to anything you have to say about real world political organization? Theory is all well and good, but it’s when you are dealing with people who have real opinions that the practicum of your theory becomes apparent.
[/QUOTE]
Because history shows me to be correct. Everywhere is the world and in history, taking religion seriously has been a disaster. Religion, you see, suffers from the little problem of being wrong. It’s stupid, and basing society on something stupid and wrong is always a bad idea.
[QUOTE=mswas]
So what you are saying is if I desire a certain outcome I have to act morally to achieve that outcome?
[/QUOTE]
I’m saying that as an individual you exist embedded within a culture. Your understanding of right and wrong cannot be separated from that cultural context any more that your use of language can.
As an individual you’re free to imagine whatever sort of hypothetical morality you want. But its a meaningless exercise. You can make up an imaginary language in your head as well, but with no one to speak to it’s literally MEANING-less as well.
Morals exist as a social consensus made real by demonstrative acts.
You may choose whether or not you act morally for a variety of reasons. But right and wrong do exist as an objective social fact apart from whatever you think as an individual. Just as it is objectively true that the word “squirrel” refers to a particular species of fluffy-tailed mammals.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
No it doesn’t make me an atheist, it makes me truthful, and honest. If I don’t know I don’t know. An atheist is one who asserts there is no God.
[/QUOTE]
That would be what I’ve heard referred to as “strong atheism” or “positive atheism”. “Strong atheism” entails asserting a positive belief that god does not exist. On the other hand, you have what is sometimes called “weak atheism” or “negative atheism”, which is a statement of lack of belief. It’s the difference between, “I believe that there is no God,” and, “I do not believe that there is a God.”
Many people who call themselves agnostic actually fit into the “weak atheist” category.
I think history shows you to be wrong. You seem to show a distinct lack of knowledge of history.
But…please prove to me that history bears this out.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
I’m saying that as an individual you exist embedded within a culture. Your understanding of right and wrong cannot be separated from that cultural context any more that your use of language can.
[/quote]
That was the argument I made for discarding with morality and love altogether. That they could not be separated from cultural context that was dominated by a religious construction.
Except I was talking about throwing out morality, not redefining it.
Sure, so they can be used or not at will.
But they change depending upon culture.
[QUOTE=mswas]
lekatt sigh
An atheist does not believe in the existance of God.
An agnostic doesn’t know.
You are expecting an active disbelief, rather than a passive lack of belief.
[/QUOTE]
I just see no need to distinguish between the two, ever heard of a passive theist as compared to an active theist. I never have. Some theists want to tell everyone and some don’t, same with atheists. Some are talkers and some not. No need to have a special catagory. It’s like saying I am a passive computer tech or I am an active computer tech. If you are a computer tech, theist, or atheist, that’s what you are. Why complicate things?
lekatt One assumes that a belief in God is the default position, the other assumes that a belief in God is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
It makes you truthful and honest and it also makes you an atheist if you haven’t come to believe God/gods exist. I don’t know if there’s a God either and most atheists on this board will tell you the same thing (and so will many theists). Knowing and not knowing is not what makes one an atheist or theist- belief does.
That’s true. So is one who is without theism. Most atheists as far as I can tell do not assert there is no god.
I’m not arguing this just to quibble word definitions. I bring it up because you said “One doesn’t have to beleve in God nor not believe in God. They are called agnostics, and a position that is very logical if one is unsure.”
First of all, that really made no sense. You are defining an agnostic as one who is unsure, then you go on to say to be an agnostic is a logical position to be in if one is unsure. It’s not a position to be in if you’re unsure; it’s just a label.
If you think it’s a logical position to be in, then you should think the way the majority of us atheists define ourselves as atheists are being logical, as all we’re saying is that we are without belief (usually because of lack of evidence).
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you don’t understand when people don’t know and therefor just keep an open mind. You are trying to eliminate that position, why I don’t know. I was an agnostic for many years, I just didn’t know whether there was a God or not, I was not ready to say there is no God. Why is that so hard, the general public understands it.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
And since most of the great mass murderers of the twentieth century took your first step of abandoning religion, and then displayed much worse records of atrocity, your notion that abandoning religion thus leads to a better society is thus refuted.
[/QUOTE]
And there it is. I was wondering when you’d get around to bringing up that particular argument.
Since most of the great mass murderers were raised by religious parents (or, at least, were raised in a theist society), then obviously religion is responsible for all of the mass murders.
[QUOTE=mswas]
That was the argument I made for discarding with morality and love altogether. That they could not be separated from cultural context that was dominated by a religious construction.
[/QUOTE]
So what? Christianity may be wrong about many things but it’s right about many things as well. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? I think charity makes the world a better place regardless of what motivates it. Plus a moral system that values charity is so ingrained in my personality that I couldn’t excise it if I wanted to.
Good luck with that. If you can convince enough people to live in a society completely devoid of all morals you will have constructed a new social reality for yourself.
But isn’t that true in Christianity as well? No one is forced to follow God’s rules. Free will allows choice.
No one is forcing you to follow moral rules. However the one thing you can’t do is claim that you can make your own moral rules all by yourself. Moral rules exist only as a collective enterprise.
Indeed they do. But deciding whether or not to impose your moral criteria on another culture is a moral choice itself. Sometimes conscience compels us to judge a different culture by our own standards.
[QUOTE=mswas]
From what I can tell those who are in power are either in power based upon some social authority conferred upon them to be the custodians of some ancient structure based on a higher power, like the Pope or the President or a King. The Pope is supposed to be Christ’s vicar on Earth. George Washington swore his oath of office on the bible like a Freemason, and a King is supposed to be appointed by God. Since God is a bunch of BS, why should I bother with these arcane authority systems?
[/quote]
Because you want to be a part of the underlying society? If that isn’t the case, then no, you shouldn’t bother with these arcane authority systems. You may not last long, though.
All this to basically say, “personal responsibility is… being responsible for my own actions”, right?
Love is an emotion. If you don’t see any evidence for love, then you surely don’t see any evidence for fear, happiness, hate, etc., right? What kind of evidence are you looking for, to confirm the existence of these feelings? What kind of evidence would satisfy you to confirm the existence of something like hunger?
For all you know, sure. Is it possible for someone who has never been in love to understand what love is? Sure it is - in the same way that its possible for someone to cringe when they see someone else drop a large box on their foot. The box didn’t drop on their own foot, but it sure does look like it hurts!
I can kind of see how this would make sense.
Why do you consider this to be the “best course of action”? That is, how did you determine which course of action would be better than another? Surely, feelings entered into your assessment at some point, right? (e.g., “Gaming the mechanisms within the state will make me successful. Why do I want to be successful?”)
Well, except for an obligation to yourself, and your own well being, right?
Whew. From what you’ve just described, it was a good thing you got out while you could!
Absolutely. Here’s someone who agrees (agreed) with you.
I should point out, though, that it would be fallacious to think that the mechanisms that are in place will compel us to operate at a more enlightened and honest level - they only provide us with the opportunity.
I’m confused as to how you came to this conclusion. The notion of “mental illness” could just be a method of keeping the weak in line, but - as you said - psychology uses science as a foundation. So, the more logical conclusion is that the notion of “mental illness” is simply the categorization of a certain behavior. Much like the notion of an “element” being the categorization of an object, according to the number of protons in its chemical nucleus.
Any prejudices that stem from these categorizations, come from an individual’s feelings - not from the science itself.
Because it’s a lot of work.
You mentioned earlier that people are at a point in time where they can operate at a more enlightened and honest level. How did you come to that conclusion? Why should people operate at a more enlightened and honest level?
I contend that it’s because it’s in your best interest. You shouldn’t rob, cheat, defraud, rape, or murder, because you don’t want someone to rob, cheat, defraud, rape, or murder you. If this is way of thinking is accepted as some “given” rule, it benefits everyone.
Ironically, this kind of rule is sometimes referred to as “The Golden Rule”. You may have been thinking that this rule was just a construct of religion - but I’ve just demonstrated how it could come about without religion. Pretty neat, eh?