Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

No you argue for moral truths/progress as fervently as any theist. Like there really is a moral standard out there that we should live up to or can discover.

Moral precepts needn't be objective realities in and of themselves in order that there effects be objectively real. You believe in a perfect world where people behave according to certain standards, rules, which you attribute to god. That's all that morality is, and it doesn't matter whether the moral laws are objective realities in and of themselves or not. In your best possible, or perfect world, people no longer have the will to sin, to misbehave, I assume because god removes that will to sin from you. In this world, if we knew and established what those best rules of behavior were, there would be no difference other than the need for an enforcer, which means that the rules of behavior, aka the moral laws, needn't be objective realities in and of themselves but only that as rules of behavior they serve as the basis for the best of possible worlds.

[seer]

Moral precepts needn't be objective realities in and of themselves in order that there effects be objectively real. You believe in a perfect world where people behave according to certain standards, rules, which you attribute to god. That's all that morality is, and it doesn't matter whether the moral laws are objective realities in and of themselves or not. In your best possible, or perfect world, people no longer have the will to sin, to misbehave, I assume because god removes that will to sin from you. In this world, if we knew and established what those best rules of behavior were, there would be no difference other than the need for an enforcer, which means that the rules of behavior, aka the moral laws, needn't be objective realities in and of themselves but only that as rules of behavior they serve as the basis for the best of possible worlds.

Again, if there is no universal moral standard then you still just spinning your wheels. My perfect world is not going to be like yours, nor like the Muslim's, or the Communist's or like the Socialist's, nor the Shinto's, or Hindu's etc....

[JimL]

Again, if there is no universal moral standard then you still just spinning your wheels. My perfect world is not going to be like yours, nor like the Muslim's, or the Communist's or like the Socialist's, nor the Shinto's, or Hindu's etc....

What your perfect world may be is besides the point, seer. That doesn't refute the fact that morals need not be objective realities in order to serve the same purpose as if they were objective realities.

[seer]

What your perfect world may be is besides the point, seer. That doesn't refute the fact that morals need not be objective realities in order to serve the same purpose as if they were objective realities.

It just means that there is no universal moral goal. No one is right and no one is wrong.

[Electric Skeptic]

What your perfect world may be is besides the point, seer. That doesn't refute the fact that morals need not be objective realities in order to serve the same purpose as if they were objective realities.

But as long as they aren't objective, they cannot serve that purpose.

[Tassman]

Again, if there is no universal moral standard then you still just spinning your wheels. My perfect world is not going to be like yours,

At what point over the past 2,000 years of Christianity have we seen your much-touted Christian universal moral standards applied in society? EVER? No. Christianity has merely reinforced what the society of the day believed at any one time in human history.

[seer]

At what point over the past 2,000 years of Christianity have we seen your much-touted Christian universal moral standards applied in society? EVER? No. Christianity has merely reinforced what the society of the day believed at any one time in human history.

Nonsense Tass, some Christians may have, but not all. I don't follow society, and most of the Bible Believing Christians I know don't.

[JimL]

It just means that there is no universal moral goal. No one is right and no one is wrong.

The universal goal is to make the world a better and safer place for human existence, sorta like your idea of heaven.

[seer]

The universal goal is to make the world a better and safer place for human existence, sorta like your idea of heaven.

Whose universal goal is that? The Khmer Rouge?

[JimL]

Whose universal goal is that? The Khmer Rouge?

I think it's pretty safe to say that all people desire a better safer society within which to live. Why do you think all people so like the idea of heaven.

[seer]

I think it's pretty safe to say that all people desire a better safer society within which to live. Why do you think all people so like the idea of heaven.

Because we want to be with God...And did the he Khmer Rouge want a better safer society? Perhaps, after they killed all the dissidents.

[Electric Skeptic]

It just means that there is no universal moral goal. No one is right and no one is wrong.

And nothing is beautiful and nothing is ugly.

[Electric Skeptic]

The universal goal is to make the world a better and safer place for human existence, sorta like your idea of heaven.

But that doesn't make that goal - or anything done to achieve it - morally good (or bad). It just makes it something everybody wants.

Not to mention that "a better and safer place" doesn't look the same to everybody. To some people, "a better" world would be one in which nobody existed who didn't agree with their religion (I'm thinking primarily of fundamentalist Muslims here).

[seer]

And nothing is beautiful and nothing is ugly.

I think Jackson Pollock's No. 5 is horrible, others think it is a great work of art.

number-5.jpg

[rogue06]

I think Jackson Pollock's No. 5 is horrible, others think it is a great work of art.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47989[/ATTACH]

I'm not a fan of much modern art past the impressionist phase.