Theists...

[rojse]

For you... and mine for me. Okay.

It doesn't help me understand how "personal perception and personal interests" are bad if there is no God (or what this has to do with blistering babies). Unless I"m missing something.

I guess I'm just not drawing a connection.

I am saying that we deem events as good or bad depending on our personal interests and beliefs.

 

[rojse]

In other words, if it's to my advantage and my pleasure, murder is okay.

It depends who you ask, which is all that I am trying to say.

In most circumstances, I would say no, but I am sure that there are exceptional circumstances that would make me say yes, and I am sure that there are other people would say yes, too.

A good example would be the death penalty. The families of the victim of the person being killed might say yes, it is okay. There might be some that don't. The family of the accused might say it is not. If I have personal opinions about the event, or capital punishment, I would have my own opinions, too. All of our opinions stem from our personal interests in the event, and/or our experiences.

 

[yossarian22]

In other words, if it's to my advantage and my pleasure, murder is okay.

That's a great mischaracterization.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It depends who you ask, which is all that I am trying to say.

In most circumstances, I would say no, but I am sure that there are exceptional circumstances that would make me say yes, and I am sure that there are other people would say yes, too.

A good example would be the death penalty. The families of the victim of the person being killed might say yes, it is okay. There might be some that don't. The family of the accused might say it is not. If I have personal opinions about the event, or capital punishment, I would have my own opinions, too. All of our opinions stem from our personal interests in the event, and/or our experiences.

That's called "relativism." I suggest you see the movie The Incredibles.

 

[rojse]

That's called "relativism." I suggest you see the movie The Incredibles.

The one with all of the cartoon superheroes?

 

[camanintx]

In other words, if it's to my advantage and my pleasure, murder is okay.

It may be okay to you but unless you live in a society that condones murder, it probably won't be okay to anyone else.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It may be okay to you but unless you live in a society that condones murder, it probably won't be okay to anyone else.

So what?

The one with all of the cartoon superheroes?

That's the one.

 

[camanintx]

It may be okay to you but unless you live in a society that condones murder, it probably won't be okay to anyone else.

So what?

Since morality is about our relationship with others, don't you think that other people's opinion might matter?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Since morality is about our relationship with others, don't you think that other people's opinion might matter?

Why should it matter to an atheist?

 

[Willamena]

That's called "relativism." I suggest you see the movie The Incredibles.

You speak as if (your misrepresented generalized straw-man representation of relativism) was a bad thing.

Didn't you enjoy the movie? (Or am I reading someting worng?)

 

[yossarian22]

Why should it matter to an atheist?

Why should it matter to a theist?

 

[Willamena]

I am saying that we deem events as good or bad depending on our personal interests and beliefs.

Okay, I give up. How is it any different for the person with God from the person without God?

 

[yossarian22]

Okay, I give up. How is it any different for the person with God?

Not to over generalize but

(most) Theists believe that morality is derived from their god, even though said god is a product of society. The atheistic perspective is that society determines morality.

There is no qualitative difference between them, but one stance is more mutable.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You speak as if (your misrepresented generalized straw-man representation of relativism) was a bad thing.

Not bad, just useless.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Not to over generalize but (most) Theists believe that morality is derived from their god, even though said god is a product of society. The atheistic perspective is that society determines morality.

There is no qualitative difference between them, but one stance is more mutable.

Thank you for saying "most," although I don't know any who would agree with. The ones I know are are more likely to say that God affords them a direction, which is a qualitative difference than what relativism offers. "The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power." For if everyone's opinion is worth the same or context dependent (determined by society), personal likes and dislikes and political power are the measure of the good.

 

[camanintx]

For if everyone's opinion is worth the same or context dependent (determined by society), personal likes and dislikes and political power are the measure of the good.

Even a cursory study of human history will show that morality has always been determined by personal likes and dislikes and political power. Secularists are just being more honest about the source of their morality and not trying to dress it up with the trappings of religion. That doesn't make it any less valid.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Even a cursory study of human history will show that morality has always been determined by personal likes and dislikes and political power. Secularists are just being more honest about the source of their morality and not trying to dress it up with the trappings of religion. That doesn't make it any less valid.

So, Stalin's way of thinking is just as valid as Christ's. Pathetic.

To paraphrase Sri Aurobindo:

"It is well that we should recognize the enormous the indispensable utility of the rationalistic materialism through which humanity has been passing. For that vast field of evidence and experience which now begins to reopen to us [as the result of science] can only be safely entered when the intellect has been severely trained to a clear austerity. For seized on by unripe minds, it lends itself to the most perilous distortions and misleading imaginations, which in the past encrusted a real nucleus of truth with such an accretion of perverting superstitions and irrational dogmas that all advance in true knowledge was rendered impossible. It became necessary for a time to make a clean sweep at once of the truth and its disguise in order that the road might be clear for a new departure and a surer advance. The rationalistic tendency of materialism has therefore done mankind this great service.

"For the faculties that transcend the senses, being enmeshed in matter in order to function in a physical body and draw us along with emotional desires and nervous impulses, are exposed to a mixed functioning in which they are in danger of illuminating confusion rather than clarifying truth. This mixed functioning is especially dangerous when men with unchastened minds and unpurified sensibilities attempt to rise into the higher domains of spiritual experience. In their semi-brilliant fog or a murk, they are visited by flashes which blind more than they enlighten and lose themselves in a rash and premature adventure."

Atheists don't even have that.

 

[yossarian22]

Thank you for saying "most," although I don't know any who would agree with.

I would say most people who believe in an Abrahamic God

The ones I know are are more likely to say that God affords them a direction, which is a qualitative difference than what relativism offers. "The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power." For if everyone's opinion is worth the same or context dependent (determined by society), personal likes and dislikes and political power are the measure of the good.

Society still provides the direction, because society provided the god.
Now to address your point above:
Why is Stalin's stance so repulsive to you? Why is it any less valid?
Because that is what society says. Look back 150 years ago. Tarring and feathering was still practiced. We do not do it anymore. Why?
Do we still offer human sacrifices to volcanoes even though a religion demands it? Not a chance; that religion died out. Why did it die out? People picked another belief system which society just churned out.
All theism offers in morality is an illusion. Society still decides whether to reject or accept.
Everybody's has their own version of right and wrong.
Some people just have a more convincing version.

 

[camanintx]

So, Stalin's way of thinking is just as valid as Christ's. Pathetic.

Valid in what way? Since Stalin's way of thinking failed to outlast his reign, I would have to say that most people found it less valid than the alternative. However, that did not prevent Stalin from enforcing his way of thinking while he had political power.

To paraphrase Sri Aurobindo:

"It is well that we should recognize the enormous the indispensable utility of the rationalistic materialism through which humanity has been passing. For that vast field of evidence and experience which now begins to reopen to us [as the result of science] can only be safely entered when the intellect has been severely trained to a clear austerity. For seized on by unripe minds, it lends itself to the most perilous distortions and misleading imaginations, which in the past encrusted a real nucleus of truth with such an accretion of perverting superstitions and irrational dogmas that all advance in true knowledge was rendered impossible. It became necessary for a time to make a clean sweep at once of the truth and its disguise in order that the road might be clear for a new departure and a surer advance. The rationalistic tendency of materialism has therefore done mankind this great service.

"For the faculties that transcend the senses, being enmeshed in matter in order to function in a physical body and draw us along with emotional desires and nervous impulses, are exposed to a mixed functioning in which they are in danger of illuminating confusion rather than clarifying truth. This mixed functioning is especially dangerous when men with unchastened minds and unpurified sensibilities attempt to rise into the higher domains of spiritual experience. In their semi-brilliant fog or a murk, they are visited by flashes which blind more than they enlighten and lose themselves in a rash and premature adventure."

Atheists don't even have that.

So your only argument is that there must be something supernatural and since atheists reject the supernatural they are incapable of seeing it?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Valid in what way? Since Stalin's way of thinking failed to outlast his reign, I would have to say that most people found it less valid than the alternative. However, that did not prevent Stalin from enforcing his way of thinking while he had political power.

Valid, to you, because it got Stalin what Stalin wanted. Citing what other people is a non sequitur (and some still regard him as a hero).

So your only argument is that there must be something supernatural and since atheists reject the supernatural they are incapable of seeing it?

What's "supernatural"? What's "objective"?

Does circular thinking ever make you dizzy?