Atheism, Regimes and belief systems

Unfortunately I've been following what is probably an off-topic line of thought here, getting into the question of the possibility of an absolute morality, which more properly belongs on the Morality and Subjectivity thread, so I'll end it here. I haven't been addressing atheism as such.

And the only thing that all humans could begin to agree upon is that human wisdom is a possible source.I personally believe that God is the source, and I fear and mistrust human wisdom only because I see a scenario whereby our bodies are the temple filled with the spirit of self versus the Spirit of God.Probably read too many apocolyptic books as well!

That argument doesn't hold up unless you can substantiate that a God could be the only basis for an absolute morality. If God is merely one source of a potential absolute morality, which seems to be the farthest you'll go, that tells us nothing about atheists lacking a source of absolute morality. I trust I don't have to go into the logic of that. (The fallacy would be one of denying the antecedent.) This reality, for those that hold this position. (I don't know that I agree with them, just so you know that we're not talking about my own personal stance on morality etc. here.) Why not? Physical reality certainly implies restrictions on what we can and cannot do. Why couldn't it also imply restrictions on what we should and should not do? Well, I don't think it does, either, but I'm a moral relativist. I'm just saying that the argument could be made that reality does imply some obscure absolute moral code that we have to discover by whatever means. I don't see any argument against it. I don't see one for it, either, but just because something is not necessary, doesn't mean it's nonexistent.Sorry, I'm not trying to confuse you, but the question was, I believe, "how could an atheist believe in an absolute moral code" and I guess I'm trying to answer that question by hinting at what that position would look like. Basically, it would be the position that reality itself implies a certain moral code.I can't defend that position, though, because I don't hold it. I don't believe that moral absolutes exist. But the opposite idea doesn't seem immediately untenable, either. Doesn't mean you or I have to agree with it, of course.

well then tell robin to quit repeating it, and this is not remotely true and he has yet to make a convencing argument that it is. There is no absolute purpose for anything, execpt what we construct for ourselves then you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit i think, i know i get that way sometimes

Yep - more or less. Weak atheism (which is roughly what I subscribe to - although toward the harder end of the continuum) - basically says that disbelief is justified by the lack of evidence. This position doesn't say deities don't exist. Toward the really weak side in fact, there is an implicit assumption that a deity or deities could exist.Hard atheism is a positive statement that deities don't exist. IMO, hard atheism may in fact be epistemologically untenable - which is why I never state this. I mean, how can you "prove" the nonexistence of a deity? The basic argument revolves around where you draw the line on level of confidence. eg., At what point does lack of evidence in support indicate no evidence exists (i.e., "there ain't no such animal")? Hard atheists feel they have passed that line. Me, I'm not so sure - although I confess I think the likelihood to be pretty small after all this time.Atheists don't even agree with each other on the basics! Good luck trying to come up with any kind of overall philosophy out of it .

Bibilical assertions are irrelevant. No, that would be God's subjective standard -- not an objective one. As you said later:

quote:

---

I mean: external to our psyches

---

...and it would need to be external to God's as well; ie, intrinsic to the object/act.Here: In Grand Theft Auto 2, if you kill a cop, you get a certain number of points. It doesn't matter what you think this act is worth, it doesn't matter what I think it's worth, it doesn't matter what God thinks it's worth, and it doesn't matter what the Bible asserts it's worth -- the act garners you the same amount of points regardless. This is objective. There is a value tied to the act that is independent of what anyone thinks/asserts the act is worth. You have the same thing even if you have a creator god.
Purpose is assigned, not imbued.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-17-2006 02:04 AM

This would be an "argument from nature." That which is natural is good; that which is unnatural is bad. Hitler devised such an argument in Mein Kampf. It is natural and therefore good for the superior group to dominate the weaker.

Irrelevant to what? If the God of the Bible exists, He provides an external moral standard and this is certainly relevant to the point I'm making. That's just plain silly. The Creator God provides an objective standard or there is no such thing. Nonsense. God is over and above our own fallen and fallible psyches. His mind is infallible and His standards absolute. I have no idea what you think you are saying. If there is a Creator God who made us then He made us for a purpose and that is an objective absolute purpose, same as with anything we make for a specific purpose -- that's what an objective purpose is.

Ok assuming for the sake of argument that we got cast-iron proof that there indeed was an omnipotent omniscient Creator God out there who has, in fact, made the definitive list of morality that he/she/it/ in it’s infinite wisdom expects us to live by. Then yes you could argue that then there is an ABSOLUTE morality that we should live by: but only if you recognise that deity’s authority over us. Of course you then have the problem of knowing what that mega list of do’s and don’ts actually contains.Any Christian may claim that the Bible IS that list but (putting aside all it’s internal moral contradictions) as a non-believer, and outside observer if you will, there is very little reason to weight any religion’s text as being more representative of the God’s list, than any other.The Bible is just as valid when it comes to morality as the Torah, Koran, the writings of L Ron Hubbard or the oral tradition of an obscure Amazonian tribe. If we could actually ask that Deity to actually tell us all which is the correct one you have to realise that the answer we get could, in all probability, actually be “D: None of the above . .” Just as the nations of the world can’t decide on a single morality, nether can the religions of the world, and so their ideas on the subject must be treated on the same playing field as that of Manchester United supporters with no special treatment of either.That field is the realm of social acceptance, and tolerance. An individual is at perfect liberty to subscribe to whatever moral absolutes they wish to. If they choose the same moral absolutes as the society around them then odd on their life will be smooth and harmonious. On the other hand should their personal morality fall outside the majority’s accepted morality then there will be friction, unpleasantness and even murder (just look at the plight of the Gays, Jews and those who liked the ”Phantom Menace’). When we scale this up to the national level then intolerance of competing (equally valid moral codes) can get extremely nasty. In the modern world of unprecedented migration, influxes of other, alien, cultures into otherwise sedate areas and force different moralities to clash: and we all know where that can lead...In other words there is no global moral absolute (religious or social) just a vast network of interconnected, overlapping moralities in which any individual must decide where they stand, and lest it all dissolve into one huge messy fight then each individual/group/nation must accept and recognise the right of any other individual/group/nation to chose to stand anywhere else on that grid. (Pleasant enough in theory but that gets seriously complicated when one morality directly affects another, to which there are no workable easy solutions.)Anyway as an Atheist {strong} I am a moral being it’s just that some entries on my list may not match yours. To label Atheists as immoral simply because we don’t, necessarily subscribe to your ”morality’ is simply bigoted intolerance. In fact the vast majority of my morality would match with that of Christianity. It is, if you think about it, much harder for an Atheist to follow a moral code than a religious person, as there is nothing saying to me ”follow this moral code, or I will smite thee’. We are free (within social bounds) to forget our morality and do whatever we wanted, but we don’t. We stick to our morality because we believe it is right to do so, and not simply because we fear a metaphorical spanking in the ”afterlife’.

I don't think we need cast iron proof. If this God exists His morality is binding whether or not anybody believes in Him or recognizes His authority etc. Yes, but I've been positing this as a logical if/then and within the confines of my if/then, what I've said is correct. If the Biblical God is the true God, then His moral judgments are absolute and binding. Also it follows that other religions or systems are therefore wrong wherever they contradict Him. Nobody here, least of all me, has labeled atheists as immoral. My view is that all human beings carry a morality given by God but broken in various ways due to our disobedience of God and resultant alienation from Him. Certainly atheists have a moral sense.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-17-2006 08:59 AM

If he exists then his morality is no more valid or binding that that of your parents, village, city or nation. You have to agree to be bound by that morality. The fact that if he did exist, and had the power to seriously pwn whom ever upset him, would be powerful incentive acquiesce to his moral code, but that doesn’t automatically bind me to his moral code any more than I have to accept my parents moral code once I’m old enough to make up my own mind on how to live my life.In-fact the OT shows the biblical god to be a right foul git, imposing his will through blunt force. No, even if he does exist his will is not binding unless you agree to be bound by it. As a member of a religion you have agreed to bind your self to one particular moral code. I chose not to. Through your doctrine you may believe that your morality is also binding on me, but it not. If you go and live in another country you are de-facto accepting to be bound by its laws and customs and morality. If you don’t want to be bound by those social rules and moralities then you go and live elsewhere. what you said was: {my bold}In other words you didn’t say the ”biblical god’. You just invoked an all-powerful deity to whom we are all beholden to by default. There may well be such a god but there is no reason to assume it is one particular god over the others, (unless you subscribe to that particular theology that is). And as I have spelled out above, even if there was an all-powerful Deity (any of them), I still can’t see how his morality would be binding to me unless I recognised his authority to assert such a morality.It’s very much like the USA trying to tell me, a British Citizen and a resident of Australia how to run my life and what morals I should live by, simply because the US thinks everyone actually wants to be American, and are jealous of the ”American Dream’. Do you think the morality of the USA has any hold on me? Do you think it should? Do you think the USA has a right to force me to subscribe to its morals? (Answer ”yes’ to any of those and you will have put your finger on one of the main reasons why a vast chunk of the world isn’t that keen on the good ol’ USA) Possibly not directly, but my gripe is mainly with Dictionary.com and their source ”The American Heritage Dictionary’ who list ”immorality’ as one of the definitions of Atheism.Nice.But indirectly your sentence (below) speaks volumes. Surely this is tantamount to saying that because Atheists don’t obey [the one true] God, and have been alienated from him due to their turning from the church (if indeed they were ever members) then they are not living by his, god given, morality and thus by definition, they must be living ”immorally’. As to the “Certainly atheists have a moral sense” is near as damn it saying “Well they KNOW how to live morally, but they choose not to!” and if THAT isn’t saying we Atheists are immoral then I don’t know what is.Gee thanks. If you feel I am immoral for not believing in god and following the bible religiously then just come out and say it.

Yes what I described all originated within the human spirit, but what I described was not all possible beliefs held by atheists.Any belief that does not include one or more gods is consistent with atheism.

What if somebody does think that? What difference does it make?

In reality not one jot. But it's truly not very nice is it?

Objectivity. And if the Borg existed, they could be used to provide a standard external to humanity. So what? All you're doing is adding subjective standards.
And remember, might does not make right. The creator god would've had to imbue the acts themselves with a value for it to be objective.Here: The creator gods of GTA2 assigned a value to killing animated cops. This was a subjective valuation. They then imbued the act in the game universe with the value. Now it's objective, as it's no longer dependent on what they think. Killing cops in GTA2 is worth X amount of points, regardless of what anyone thinks the act is worth. No, it's subjective, and all purpose is relative to a goal.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-17-2006 10:47 PMThis message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-17-2006 11:04 PM