Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[buttercup]

Much more objective, practical, and moral than your morality, that's for sure.

That may be your view, but when it comes to debating, merely stating an opinion does jack squat. You have not shown how or why your basis for morality is "much more objective, practical or moral" than anyone else's, let alone the objective morality from the Source of truth itself.

And neither do you. I didn't say an atheist or secular morality isn't based on human sentiment or opinion, what I did say is that your morality is just as subjective as mine.

I don't think you realize that you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you stated that your morality "holds to a superior, more constructive, life-affirming system of morality than a Christian".... and now you're saying that they're both subjective, in your view.

You can't have it both ways. If morality is purely subjective, then no particular morality can ever be better than any other.

Whether you realize this or not, by your logic, the morality of Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy is just as right as the morality of someone who cares about life and believes in helping and respecting others.

It is impossible for one to be better than the other, if all morality is subjective, which you just stated is your view.

That's just one of the many problems with your view.

Thankfully, your view is wrong. There is a true objective moral standard that exists, whether one follows it or believes it or not. The basis for that true objective standard is not the fallible, limited human mind, but the eternal, unchanging source of truth and goodness itself, the Creator.

Your religious morality is no more objective than mine.

Just like Blues Man, you are conflating mere religion with God. The two are not the same. It's not about "religious morality", it's about the true morality that comes from God, the Creator, the highest power who has the final say.

I don't care who holds my opinion, my concern is whether the opinion is true or at least reasonable.

Once again, I don't think you see the illogic in your position. Your opinion cannot be "true" if it is subjective. It can only be true in your own mind, not in reality.

If it IS true in reality, then it's not subjective.

Yeah sure, whatever.

If you don't want to stop misrepresenting the views of others, we'll just continue to correct you.

There's no evidence Stalin killed even 1/10th the figure you cited. You're just regurgitating old Capitalist Cold War propaganda.

Oh, brother. You sound like someone who went to a left-wing college and got brainwashed to accept communism.... which is understandable, since the people who run this world (the globalists) want to eventually implement a one world government that will be similar to communism. And they control pretty much everything, including public education. Churning out good little commies.

 

[alang1216]

I keep wondering why you care though? I'm perfectly fine with you following your conscience. I don't think you can say the same thing. I'm not fond of uniformity. I prefer diversity. Why do you want me to be like you? Is there something special about you that I should aspire to be?

I want to understand people like you, not change them into me. If you were just like me you'd probably never hear from me again.

 

[Red Front]

That may be your view, but when it comes to debating, merely stating an opinion does jack squat. You have not shown how or why your basis for morality is "much more objective, practical or moral" than anyone else's, let alone the objective morality from the Source of truth itself.




I don't think you realize that you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you stated that your morality "holds to a superior, more constructive, life-affirming system of morality than a Christian".... and now you're saying that they're both subjective, in your view.

You can't have it both ways. If morality is purely subjective, then no particular morality can ever be better than any other.

Whether you realize this or not, by your logic, the morality of Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy is just as right as the morality of someone who cares about life and believes in helping and respecting others.

It is impossible for one to be better than the other, if all morality is subjective, which you just stated is your view.

That's just one of the many problems with your view.

Thankfully, your view is wrong. There is a true objective moral standard that exists, whether one follows it or believes it or not. The basis for that true objective standard is not the fallible, limited human mind, but the eternal, unchanging source of truth and goodness itself, the Creator.





Just like Blues Man, you are conflating mere religion with God. The two are not the same. It's not about "religious morality", it's about the true morality that comes from God, the Creator, the highest power who has the final say.





Once again, I don't think you see the illogic in your position. Your opinion cannot be "true" if it is subjective. It can only be true in your own mind, not in reality.

If it IS true in reality, then it's not subjective.





If you don't want to stop misrepresenting the views of others, we'll just continue to correct you.




Oh, brother. You sound like someone who went to a left-wing college and got brainwashed to accept communism.... which is understandable, since the people who run this world (the globalists) want to eventually implement a one world government that will be similar to communism. And they control pretty much everything, including public education. Churning out good little commies.

All human morality is created by human beings. It originates with us from our desire and need to survive. The only difference between your morality as a religious person and that of a secular person is that you attribute the source of your morality to a being you call "GOD" and then pretend your morality is absolute and objective, while the secularist admits that his or her morality is made by humans to establish a certain degree of order, allowing human beings to peacefully co-exist with each other and function in society.

To maintain social cohesion and trust between the members of society, we all accept a "social contract" obligating us to abide by the rules of the community. To do otherwise is to violate the trust of the community and undermine its order and peace. It behooves us to commit ourselves to keep the trust of our community and live by the rules. It generally contributes to our survival when we behave this way.

 

[buttercup]

All human morality is created by human beings. It originates with us from our desire and need to survive. The only difference between your morality as a religious person and that of a secular person is that you attribute the source of your morality to a being you call "GOD" and then pretend your morality is absolute and objective, while the secularist admits that his or her morality is made by humans to establish a certain degree of order, allowing human beings to peacefully co-exist with each other and function in society.

To maintain social cohesion and trust between the members of society, we all accept a "social contract" obligating us to abide by the rules of the community. To do otherwise is to violate the trust of the community and undermine its order and peace. It behooves us to commit ourselves to keep the trust of our community live by the rules. It generally contributes to our survival when we behave this way.

I can see that your position is based on your atheism, and that is what comes first for you, even if it means ignoring the logical problems with moral subjectivism. Instead of putting truth first, and going where it leads, to me it's clear that you're shoe-horning everything to fit into your atheistic worldview.

And as I'm sure you'd agree, when one is starting with a false premise, the conclusion will be false.

The bottom line is, as the OP stated, atheism has no objective basis for good or evil. And if the basis is subjective, then at the end of the day it's meaningless, and ultimately anything goes.

 

[Red Front]

I can see that your position is based on your atheism, and that is what comes first for you, even if it means ignoring the logical problems with moral subjectivism. Instead of putting truth first, and going where it leads, to me it's clear that you're shoe-horning everything to fit into your atheistic worldview.

And as I'm sure you'd agree, when one is starting with a false premise, the conclusion will be false.

The bottom line is, as the OP stated, atheism has no objective basis for good or evil. And if the basis is subjective, then at the end of the day it's meaningless, and ultimately anything goes.

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. If you want to continue deluding yourself thinking your morality is objective whereas mine is merely subjective, go right ahead.

 

[buttercup]

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. If you want to continue deluding yourself thinking your morality is objective whereas mine is merely subjective, go right ahead.

^ Says the person who didn't realize he contradicted himself and clearly hasn't given this topic much thought.

And we barely scratched the surface of all the logical problems and absurdities of moral subjectivism.

 

[Blues Man]

So
A. Why are you bitching about guns?
B. I’m sure those 700 people care.

Where have I "bitched about guns"?

Go to the 2A thread and read any of my posts and find one where I "bitch about guns" and quote it.

You're the one who was just whining about mass shootings not me.

 

[Blues Man]

How exactly do you know God had anyone killed? Or anything else for that matter? What is your source?

The Bible. maybe you should read it.

 

[Blues Man]

No, I don't accept your interpretations. If I did, I would believe as you do. But since I don't interpret these passages like you do, I don't believe God is a psycho. Instead I believe you are ignorant for interpreting ancient texts the way you do.

And you don't think that calling God a psycho is an insult to me. It's as much as an insult as your silly insistence as using the word "gods." You condemn respect for people of faith because you don't believe they deserve respect because according to you they worship a psycho.

I don't believe you would accept any interpretation but the one your church gives you.

And no calling a god a psycho is not an insult to you

and the god you worship is just one of the many thousands of gods that people have invented to worship therefore no capital G is warranted.

 

[Red Front]

^ Says the person who didn't realize he contradicted himself and clearly hasn't given this topic much thought.

And we barely scratched the surface of all the logical problems and absurdities of moral subjectivism.

All morality is subjective and created by human beings. How is yours not?

 

[dblack]

All morality is subjective and created by human beings. How is yours not?

Once someone has committed to believing in the irrational (faith), there's not much point in debate.

 

[ding]

I want to understand people like you, not change them into me. If you were just like me you'd probably never hear from me again.

What is it that you don't understand about me?

 

[ding]

The Bible. maybe you should read it.

And you don't see the flaw in your logic? Do you have an direct evidence of God killing anyone? Have you personally witnessed God killing anyone?

 

[ding]

I don't believe you would accept any interpretation but the one your church gives you.

That's odd considering there are interpretations I don't accept and the vast majority of my interpretations I came up with on my own. But my point still stands you are taking an interpretation that you yourself reject and then use your rejected interpretation as a statement of fact that God kill babies. You'd have to really hate someone to frame them like that.

 

[ding]

And no calling a god a psycho is not an insult to you

Correct. It is you demonstrating how much you blame God for your sad and pathetic life.

 

[ding]

and the god you worship is just one of the many thousands of gods that people have invented to worship therefore no capital G is warranted.

You misspelled perceptions of God. You make the arguments of an eight year old.

 

[alang1216]

What is it that you don't understand about me?

You speak of logic but believe some very illogical things. IMHO. The whole universe is an intelligence creator is a good example.

 

[ding]

You speak of logic but believe some very illogical things. IMHO. The whole universe is an intelligence creator is a good example.

Illogical? No. Improbable? Possibly.

How is it illogical to believe intelligence creates intelligence? Wouldn't it be more illogical to believe that non-existence creates existence?

 

[alang1216]

Illogical? No. Improbable? Possibly.

How is it illogical to believe intelligence creates intelligence?

Speaking for me, I see it as an illogical assumption that an intelligence existed before there was a physical world. One we can't explain or understand.

Wouldn't it be more illogical to believe that non-existence creates existence?

If you're talking about life, we obviously exist and inhabit a world that didn't exist 4.5 billion years ago. Seems logical to me to believe there was a time when we didn't exist but the creation of our world led to the creation of life. If you're talking about the universe existing, I don't know and I don't believe any else knows either.

 

[ding]

Speaking for me, I see it as an illogical assumption that an intelligence existed before there was a physical world. One we can't explain or understand.

It's not an assumption. It's a premise. And I agree it's hard for material beings to comprehend anything beyond the material world, but it's not impossible. Everything is information. If I say the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff, that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff?

The linkage between mind and matter isn't a new concept. It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind. Were Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald being illogical too?