So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[One Bad Pig]

Um, "unspecified" is tautologically true. He is literally not specifying it. It's a somewhat amusing self-referential truth.

I'm certain it amuses him, but he has (perhaps inadvertantly) specified it - which makes it no longer even tautologically true.

[Tassman]

That just does not make sense, what prejudices of the day?

Well, for one, the prejudice against homosexuals, which even today still exists in some quarters. At other times, the prejudice against black people that led to various forms of apartheid or anti-miscegenation laws, or antisemitism or the emancipation of women's rights etc etc...ALL justified by appeals to scripture.

[seer]

What? By "authority" do you just mean "power to punish"? Or is there something else you mean by that word?

In my vocabulary, "authority" is something voluntarily granted to a person by society (e.g. democratically elected politicians have authority to govern), if it not granted voluntarily it is merely "power" / "dictatorship" not "authority". So the phrase "inherent authority" is oxymoronic to me - you can't have inherent authority.

Star, all law, whether from God, a King or the majority dictate what behaviors are acceptable or not. Even in a Democracy you will have a minority who do not recognize the authority of the majority, we call them criminals and often segregate them from civil society (we call that prison). So the majority does in fact claim authority over the minority, often using violence and incarceration to uphold that power and claim. The same with God, we Christians consent to and follow (as best we can) His moral code. People like you are perfectly free not to recognize His authority, but that will make you a criminal, and eventually you will be segregated from civil society (we call that hell).

Yawn. I see zero reason whatsoever to accept this claim on your part as true. It's about as plausible and uninteresting as saying my cat defines right and wrong. If you want to say "I seer, personally follow God's rules as my definition of right and wrong", sure. And I regard that roughly the same way I would regard "I seer, personally flip a coin before taking an action to decide what is right and wrong".

Then who or what defines right? You? The Communists, Muslims? The majority?

Reality would. By learning about the world through observation and experience, and by empirical study and scientific research, we can observe and measure how our actions affect ourselves and others in society. We can come to understand how different actions affect people's freedom, happiness, well-being etc.

Are you saying that all people have the same personal definition of happiness and well being? You can't even get off the ground. I can show you a number of studies showing that devout religion belief make people happier and more content - so then you would support the spreading of said religious belief? Besides your utilitarianism or scientific research are completely superficial and unnecessary, human beings have always known how to create heaven on earth, following the golden rule from the heart would solve most of the world's ills. The problem is, and always has been, we don't, we tend towards selfishness! And all your moral theories won't change that.

[seer]

Well, for one, the prejudice against homosexuals, which even today still exists in some quarters. At other times, the prejudice against black people that led to various forms of apartheid or anti-miscegenation laws, or antisemitism or the emancipation of women's rights etc etc...ALL justified by appeals to scripture.

Tass you said:Interesting how god's moral laws seem to coincide with the social prejudices of the day.

Except the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality goes back close to three thousand years. So it has nothing to do with the prejudices of the day...

[firstfloor]

Why is your designation not "atheist" instead of "unspecified". You are clear here that you believe God does not exist.

Please change your designation.

[crepuscule]

I said most things, and most the moral imperatives in the New Testament are quite clear.

Most laws in the OT are also quite clear. Do you follow them?

Ok, then why bring it in?

As an example of our understanding of an objective law changing, not the law itself.

Correct, but changing a worldview is much more difficult than me (as an agnostic back then) deciding that promiscuity was not immoral. So the case of the theist and non-theists are not analogous. The believer has a moral an objective standard that he attempts to live up to, the atheist only has whatever he decides is right. And if what he thinks is right conflicts with his present desire for whatever, why not just change what he believes is right thereby removing the conflict? It would be perfectly rational do do so.

[seer]

Most laws in the OT are also quite clear. Do you follow them?

Yes, those that have been brought over in the New Covenant that Christ instituted.


Yes I know perfectly well what relativism is, and I am comparing theism with non-theism.

Most importantly, I find it hard to believe you think moral subjectivists can change their moral code on a dime. Back in the days when you were an agnostic, did you truly believe you could will yourself overnight into believing, say, theft or killing was morally permissible?

Except when I was a relativist I did change some moral views rather quickly, as I explained. And yes, I actually did will myself into believing that breaking some laws was perfectly acceptable. Like selling weed or acid.

[firstfloor]

I'm certain it amuses him, but he has (perhaps inadvertantly) specified it - which makes it no longer even tautologically true.

[crepuscule]

Yes, those that have been brought over in the New Covenant that Christ instituted.

Yes I know perfectly well what relativism is, and I am comparing theism with non-theism.

Except when I was a relativist I did change some moral views rather quickly, as I explained. And yes, I actually did will myself into believing that breaking some laws was perfectly acceptable. Like selling weed or acid.

theft or killing was morally permissible? 'Cause I don't think I could ever do that.

[seer]

Sure, some laws may in fact be relative, like all men journeying to Jerusalem three times a year, or the prohibition against wearing blended fibers. The moral laws that transcend both Testaments would be in the non-relative category.

The argument is about the ease with which one may change a moral view. I'm a theist, so I approach it from that position, let the moral realist defend his own position.

theft or killing was morally permissible? 'Cause I don't think I could ever do that.

I just gave you two examples of things I believed were immoral, to believing that they were morally acceptable in a rather quick fashion. It doesn't have to be about killing or stealing.

[Tassman]

Tass you said:Interesting how god's moral laws seem to coincide with the social prejudices of the day.

Except the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality goes back close to three thousand years. So it has nothing to do with the prejudices of the day...

Come now! There are hundreds of prohibitions in Leviticus and elsewhere in the OT that you no longer follow. You merely select those that coincide with your personal prejudices...prejudices not even shared by the majority of people in our society.

Yes, those that have been brought over in the New Covenant that Christ instituted.

Where is the list of these New Covenant Laws that Christ instituted...or do we have to rely on your interpretation of scripture for that?

[seer]

Come now! There are hundreds of prohibitions in Leviticus and elsewhere in the OT that you no longer follow. You merely select those that coincide with your personal prejudices...prejudices not even shared by the majority of people in our society.

No Tass, we select what God has selected - the moral law brought over from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Where is the list of these New Covenant Laws that Christ instituted...or do we have to rely on your interpretation of scripture for that?

I recently listed a number of them for you on the Philosophy board, did you forget already? And BTW - no interpretation is needed, they are quite clear...

[crepuscule]

Sure, some laws may in fact be relative, like all men journeying to Jerusalem three times a year, or the prohibition against wearing blended fibers. The moral laws that transcend both Testaments would be in the non-relative category.

And here's me thinking it was a central Christian tenet that all God's moral laws were absolute.

But it does make me wonder if you really believe it was morally right thousands of years ago to for example stone witches to death.

The argument is about the ease with which one may change a moral view. I'm a theist, so I approach it from that position, let the moral realist defend his own position.

No, you were arguing from a (straw-mannish) atheist position, namely that -given moral subjectivism- it should be easy to change one's personal moral view.

What you propose is substituting a moral view for another for no other reason than that it's more convenient or easier to follow. I think that's a very poor reason to change one's moral code. That you have done so says more about you than about moral subjectivism.

I just gave you two examples of things I believed were immoral, to believing that they were morally acceptable in a rather quick fashion. It doesn't have to be about killing or stealing.

And I have given you examples or moral rules a subjectivist is unlikely to change, and also of rules an objectivist does change.

[seer]

And here's me thinking it was a central Christian tenet that all God's moral laws were absolute.

You never heard that from me. Though some would be.

But it does make me wonder if you really believe it was morally right thousands of years ago to for example stone witches to death.

Yes, if they really were witches who sold their soul to the devil and intended to do harm.

No, you were arguing from a (straw-mannish) atheist position, namely that -given moral subjectivism- it should be easy to change one's personal moral view.

Well I have never heard a really coherent argument for objective morality from an atheist. Most around here are relativists - as far as I can tell.

What you propose is substituting a moral view for another for no other reason than that it's more convenient or easier to follow. I think that's a very poor reason to change one's moral code. That you have done so says more about you than about moral subjectivism.

Why? Why is that a poor reason? Ease of living or giving into one's desire can be quite powerful reasons.

And I have given you examples or moral rules a subjectivist is unlikely to change, and also of rules an objectivist does change.

I never said that all moral beliefs are easy to change, but some certainly are, even personally important ones. And what are the rules of an objectivist? Where do I find these?

[One Bad Pig]

You think 'atheist' is a badge of shame? Fascinating.