'No such thing as a good atheist'.

[Sunstone]

It's not so hard. Just restore the word "objective" to its natural sense, that being "of or about the object."

Why then don't you just go right ahead and restore away until your heart is content and blissful -- and then lay out a logically sound argument demonstrating precisely how all of that restoration work allows us to verify with certainty an objective morality.

In the meantime, I'll just slip on this gas mask because I feel the sewers might back up with all the BS that's about to flow.

 

[Willamena]

Why then don't you just go right ahead and restore away until your heart is content and blissful -- and then lay out a logically sound argument demonstrating precisely how all of that restoration work allows us to verify with certainty an objective morality.

In the meantime, I'll just slip on this gas mask because I feel the sewers might back up with all the BS that's about to flow.

Okay, you do that.

 

[Sunstone]

I think that the author is right about much of what he says. But is overshadowed by his poorly attempted quasi-attack on atheists. What he should have said, in my opinion, is that there's no such thing as good or bad people.

What I mean by this is that the morality of, say, one country is not the morality of another. In Saudi Arabia a man can have as many wives as he can afford. In America you may only have one wife, and having more than one wife is considered illegal and immoral. In America (growingly) homosexuality is considered okay, where as in Saudi Arabia homosexuality is considered immoral.

In the above examples Religion was the prime dictator in those particular moralities. Particularly in the case of homosexuality, which is why it is now undergoing review and revolution.

I think what the reverand should have said instead is that there is 'no such thing as a good or a bad person'. In that everyone is normal according to the country, society or culture they grow up in. You grow up to consider the goings on of your country, society or culture to be normal behaviour. If you lived in Ancient Maya where the people sacrificed someone (often children) to appease the gods every day, and if that was your only experience of life, being within that culture, then that behaviour would seem normal to you.

If you grew up in Nazi Germany and your only influences in life were Nazi propaganda, you would become a Nazi, that would seem quite normal to you. Your whole family would be Nazi, your friends, friends of friends. It would just seem like the normal and natural thing to do to be a Nazi.

What about religious people in different countries. I am sure that the western Christian considers himself right and moral, going about his business in his idea of what he thinks is good and moral but never once stopping to consider that his iPhone may have been made using slavery and sweatshops, and that his clothes may have been made using forced labour, and so on. Is it moral to use goods made by force labour or slavery?

I believe it quite possible you have not yet grasped the fact that some folks to one extent or another think outside the box of their culture and society. But I assure you, there are people like that who are not only real, but frequent this very Forum.

 

[nazz]

*Then, please tell, why is a theist's morality any less ultimately subjective than an atheists?opcorn:

It's not.

 

[nazz]

Isn't the meaning you attribute to the universe and to your own life sufficient?

There is no meaning to the universe. It just is.

 

[nazz]

Actually, objective good could still exist regardless of whether god exists.

really? On what basis would one determine what is objectively good?

 

[nazz]

Suppose, wise Nazz, there exists somewhere a pig that can think. Further suppose this pig thinks there exists somewhere a deity that is alarmingly like a pig super-sized in powers and made undetectable to the senses. Suppose again, the pig ascribes to this porcine god moral preferences that quite conveniently match the pig's own moral preferences. If all of the proceeding were the case, how would you, a merely human theist, manage to demonstrate to the pig, beyond any subjective leap or assumption made by you, that it was your own view of the cosmic order, and not the pig's view, which was the objectively true one? opcorn:

nope..

 

[nazz]

Objective as in existing like the gravity.
Just like we perceive reality through our senses, it just might be case that we are perceiving morality through our moral compass. So, if there is a major agreement between humans on what is good ( or evil ) on any subject, it could be said that such is objectively good ( or evil ).

However, I don't subscribe to this view.
My point was that if such a thing as objective good exists it doesn't depend on the existence of a god.

If such an objective morality existed everyone would have to agree with it. Either that or deny reality.

 

[nazz]

We atheists are no good, what else is new?

I am amazed so many people are not understanding, or perhaps not even reading, the article.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

really? On what basis would one determine what is objectively good?

THe basis of their society.

While we participate in a bunch of systems, it is possible to participate in relatively closed ones. In a relative closed system (say your particular society) there is an objective look.

 

[nazz]

It might or might not be relevant to this thread to bear in mind that the notion that at least somethings can be "objectively verified" is operationally meaningless sewage most likely pumped out in the hopes those dear folks who either did not take their university's sophomore philosophy of science class, or who somehow managed to flunk out of an introductory level philosophy class, will foolishly take their bath in it.

In fact, there is no such thing as "objective verification". All verification in necessarily subjective, as should be quite obvious to anyone who is themselves a subject and who experiences perception from a point of view -- which means every person on this planet with a functioning brain and senses. i.e. everyone but Rush Limbaugh.

There is, of course, inter-subjective verification, and that, in most practical ways, gives the appearance of what some people mean by "objective verification".

Just thought I'd mention all that before the next person comes along to assert that "we can know with certainty of an objective morality". For, if that's so, then how are they going to verify that?

And it usually turns out at that point that they've never really taken a moment to think through the fact that, if there exists an objective morality, and it cannot be objectively verified for the simple reason that there is no such thing as objective verification, but instead can only be subjectively verified, then for all practical purposes and intents -- for all we or they can know -- that objective morality of theirs might just as well be a subjective morality.

Moral of the story: Never flunk an introductory philosophy of science class. Never! Unless you're Rush Limbaugh, and then, well maybe you couldn't help it.

Well said, Sunstone. A frubal for you.

 

[Sunstone]

The good pastor Henderson asserts the following:

Intelligent people ask serious questions. Serious questions deserve serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I'm asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true? If a worldview can't answer this question, it doesn't deserve you

Henderson is merely assuming that objective meaning and morality are "true" without, however, bothering himself with demonstrating their "truth". I believe he makes that assumption because he -- like everyone else on this planet -- cannot actually demonstrate that so called "objective meaning and morality" are true in any significant sense of the word "true". But whatever the reason for his merely assuming them to be true, the simple fact that he assumes them to be true before he has demonstrated them to be true amounts to no more than the intellectual equivalent of a premature ejaculation.

 

[nazz]

THe basis of their society.

While we participate in a bunch of systems, it is possible to participate in relatively closed ones. In a relative closed system (say your particular society) there is an objective look.

Well I often strongly disagree with the ethics of my society. Does this mean slavery was objectively good at one time?

 

[Sunstone]

nope..

I will take that in its context to mean you gracefully concede that neither you nor anyone else would be able to demonstrate to the pig the objective existence of any particular morality. Thank you for your intellectual honesty!

 

[Sunstone]

It's not.

We are in agreement, then, on at least the one point that a theist's morals are no more objective than an atheist's morals.

 

[nazz]

I will take that in its context to mean you gracefully concede that neither you nor anyone else would be able to demonstrate to the pig the objective existence of any particular morality. Thank you for your intellectual honesty!

You are quite welcome!

 

[nazz]

We are in agreement on at least that one point, then.

I'm not sure where we are in disagreement

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well I often strongly disagree with the ethics of my society. Does this mean slavery was objectively good at one time?

Yup.

Human morality grows and changes...it has not stood stagnant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well I often strongly disagree with the ethics of my society. Does this mean slavery was objectively good at one time?

"objectively good" is as cognitively meaningful as "introspectively chocolate"

 

[nazz]

"objectively good" is as cognitively meaningful as "introspectively chocolate"

Tru dat