Anglican church against gay marriage

[United Marxist Nations]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

Shit, I guess me deciding whether things are good or bad on an almost daily basis is impossible. Somehow

That's not determining whether they are good or bad, that is arbitrarily assigning them based on your personal ideas.

[Constantinopolis]

Indeed. From an atheist point of view, all ethical systems have critical flaws and inconsistencies, making it impossible for us to rationally determine what is good and what is evil. Atheists may believe that certain things are good and other things are bad, but all such beliefs, combined with atheism, are irrational.

Which is one of the main reasons why I am not an atheist. To be a (rational) atheist, I would be forced to conclude that nothing is good and nothing is evil, and therefore we have no way to determine if a course of action is better than another (since X can only be "better" than Y as long as objective good exists), and therefore we might as well live our lives at random, choosing our actions by rolling dice.

Without religion, there is no basis for ethics. And without ethics, we cannot rationally choose between one course of action and another. Life has no direction or purpose.

You don't read much on ethics, do you?

As a matter of fact, I do. And do you know what is the most important fact I have discovered about ethics, by reading on it?

The fact that it seems impossible for philosophers to agree on what is good and what is evil. Or, in other words, there are lots of proposed ethical systems - all with their flaws - and nothing to help us decide between them.

For example, take utilitarianism vs Kantian ethics. Is there some way to decide which is "right" and which is "wrong"? No. You can pick one based on personal preference, but that's it.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

By your definition, are nonreligious people absolutely amoral or do nonreligious people not exist?

He is arguing that there is no way for a rational atheist to develop any form of ethics because there is no way, according to him, to get an objective good without God (Plato is rolling in his grave right so hard, his corpse can probably be used to generate electricity), notice the rational atheist, that is, atheism as he conceives of it.

[Constantinopolis]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

By your definition, are nonreligious people absolutely amoral or do nonreligious people not exist?

By my definition, a nonreligious person can be either moral or rational, but not both at the same time.

Nonreligious people who are rational, must be amoral, because that is the only rational thing to be if all religion is false.
Nonreligious people who are moral, must be irrational, because there is no rational reason to be moral if all religion is false.

This is premised on the idea that we cannot rationally get an independent system of objective morals without recourse to religion

Correct. We cannot rationally get an independent system of objective morals without recourse to religion.

falling back to the old tu quoque, 'So what if I am a bigot because I believe being X is wrong, everything is a belief in the end' bullshit.

What makes it "bullshit" in your view?

Everything really IS a belief in the end.

Shit, I guess me deciding whether things are good or bad on an almost daily basis is impossible. Somehow

It's not impossible, just irrational. You are ultimately deciding based on personal feelings.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

As a matter of fact, I do. And do you know what is the most important fact I have discovered about ethics, by reading on it?

The fact that it seems impossible for philosophers to agree on what is good and what is evil. Or, in other words, there are lots of proposed ethical systems - all with their flaws - and nothing to help us decide between them.

Which doesn't disprove anything, it only points to disagreement which we all have concerning what is morally right and wrong, and means that we may, you know, be wrong about moral questions. Like, say, some Russian claiming that supporting their despotic president support of another, small despot is the morally right thing to do, and someone in the enlightened west telling that Russian that he's wrong. That doesn't point to a lack of moral order in the universe, it points to disagreement amongst ourselves about what is moral.

For example, take utilitarianism vs Kantian ethics. Is there some way to decide which is "right" and which is "wrong"? No. You can pick one based on personal preference, but that's it.

Utilitarianism and Deontology doesn't actually really disagree on what is right and wrong, as far as I can tell, they agree on several general things that we all take to be morally wrong, killing for pleasure, stealing, being an asshole, they just disagree with the underlying principles behind it. Beside, you are making the error of using disagreement on normative ethics to make a metaethical statement. Beside which, the underlying principles of what most people believe to be good or bad is something in which there is broad agreement over many general principles, due to our evolution.

[Constantinopolis]

By your definition, are nonreligious people absolutely amoral or do nonreligious people not exist?

He is arguing that there is no way for a rational atheist to develop any form of ethics because there is no way, according to him, to get an objective good without God (Plato is rolling in his grave right so hard, his corpse can probably be used to generate electricity), notice the rational atheist, that is, atheism as he conceives of it.

Correct. This is what I am saying.

And yeah, Plato may be rolling in his grave... but Plato lived over 2300 years ago. If it were actually possible to get an objective good without God, then why haven't secular philosophers reached any sort of consensus on what is objectively good after 2300 years of discussing it?

Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

By my definition, a nonreligious person can be either moral or rational, but not both at the same time.

Nonreligious people who are rational, must be amoral, because that is the only rational thing to be if all religion is false.
Nonreligious people who are moral, must be irrational, because there is no rational reason to be moral if all religion is false.

You are again making a statement on what you think is rational for an atheist to believe and that moral cannot exist ourside of religion.

Correct. We cannot rationally get an independent system of objective morals without recourse to religion.

Which is nonsense, but nonsense which does not belong here, since this is a metaethical question that goes beyond the scope of discussing Anglican Church's stance of SSM.

But I'll bite, and this is not an argument of my own, but a very much simplified version of one that originated in the Atheist Philosopher of Ethics, Thomas Nagel, who is a Deontologist of the Kantian stripe, and is paraphrased by Peter Singer, a Utilitarian:

You have reason to avoid pain, which is why you don't go about beating yourself.

That reason does not change because the person changes.

Therefore, you have reason not to give other pain.

What makes it "bullshit" in your view?

Everything really IS a belief in the end.

No, it isn't, it is a tu quoque bullshit cop out to get out of the fact that you have no real argument. It is responding to someone saying 'You are a no talent hack' with 'Aren't we all no talent hacks?'. It is puerile.

It's not impossible, just irrational. You are ultimately deciding based on personal feelings.

You claim it is irrational, you are just basing that on your a priori assumption that atheism and morality can't coexist.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Shit, I guess me deciding whether things are good or bad on an almost daily basis is impossible. Somehow

It's not impossible, just irrational. You are ultimately deciding based on personal feelings.

It's not irrational at all, all morals and ethics are subjective at the end of the day. Even for you, things you might believe are okay another Christian might find abhorrent.

Shit, I guess me deciding whether things are good or bad on an almost daily basis is impossible. Somehow

That's not determining whether they are good or bad, that is arbitrarily assigning them based on your personal ideas.

Which is exactly what a number of religious people (not saying anyone here, just in general) do as well and then claim it's objective because their god says so. It's still all arbitrary, just with a different coat of paint on it. If there really is an objective good then why the hell can nobody agree on simple things like good and evil?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

He is arguing that there is no way for a rational atheist to develop any form of ethics because there is no way, according to him, to get an objective good without God (Plato is rolling in his grave right so hard, his corpse can probably be used to generate electricity), notice the rational atheist, that is, atheism as he conceives of it.

Correct. This is what I am saying.

And yeah, Plato may be rolling in his grave... but Plato lived over 2300 years ago. If it were actually possible to get an objective good without God, then why haven't secular philosophers reached any sort of consensus on what is objectively good after 2300 years of discussing it?

Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find.

Remind me of your religionists attempt at the same after several proclamation by your God(s).

It is wrong to eat pork

Wrong, it is wrong to eat beef

Wrong, it is wrong to eat fish on Friday.

Wrong, it is wrong to allow women to be priest.

Wrong, interracial marriage is wrong and black people are marked with the curse of Ham.

Wrong, that's the Injuns... ad nauseum.

Do these disagreements point to the fact that God has no rules for anyone, or that people disagree on those rules, and may rationally do so through argument and disputation.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's not impossible, just irrational. You are ultimately deciding based on personal feelings.

It's not irrational at all, all morals and ethics are subjective at the end of the day. Even for you, things you might believe are okay another Christian might find abhorrent.

That's not determining whether they are good or bad, that is arbitrarily assigning them based on your personal ideas.

Which is exactly what a number of religious people (not saying anyone here, just in general) do as well and then claim it's objective because their god says so. It's still all arbitrary, just with a different coat of paint on it. If there really is an objective good then why the hell can nobody agree on simple things like good and evil?

If God does exist and does lay out a set of morals, then it would indeed be objective by virtue of being ordained by an all-powerful and all-knowing being, as no other such being would be capable of knowing what is and is not wrong.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It's not irrational at all, all morals and ethics are subjective at the end of the day. Even for you, things you might believe are okay another Christian might find abhorrent.



Which is exactly what a number of religious people (not saying anyone here, just in general) do as well and then claim it's objective because their god says so. It's still all arbitrary, just with a different coat of paint on it. If there really is an objective good then why the hell can nobody agree on simple things like good and evil?

If God does exist and does lay out a set of morals, then it would indeed be objective by virtue of being ordained by an all-powerful and all-knowing being, as no other such being would be capable of knowing what is and is not wrong.

It would also be completely arbitrary.

[Constantinopolis]

As a matter of fact, I do. And do you know what is the most important fact I have discovered about ethics, by reading on it?

The fact that it seems impossible for philosophers to agree on what is good and what is evil. Or, in other words, there are lots of proposed ethical systems - all with their flaws - and nothing to help us decide between them.

Which doesn't disprove anything, it only points to disagreement which we all have concerning what is morally right and wrong, and means that we may, you know, be wrong about moral questions.

And how do we determine who is right and who is wrong?

In the hard sciences, when two honest scientists disagree, it is possible for one to demonstrate to the other that he is wrong, and then (if they are honest) they will both accept this conclusion and move on.

But in ethics, when two honest philosophers disagree about what is good, it is NOT possible for one to demonstrate to the other that he is wrong. Honest people may disagree on matters of good and evil, with no way to determine which of them is right.

Utilitarianism and Deontology doesn't actually really disagree on what is right and wrong, as far as I can tell, they agree on several general things that we all take to be morally wrong, killing for pleasure, stealing, being an asshole, they just disagree with the underlying principles behind it.

They also disagree on a vast number of important questions of right and wrong, such as whether it is moral to kill one person to save a million.

Also, utilitarianism doesn't necessarily agree that stealing is wrong. It depends on the circumstances. Utilitarianism can argue that stealing may be moral if it achieves a greater good.

You're trying to sweep major differences under the rug by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Sure, we all agree that torturing kittens is wrong. So what?

Beside which, the underlying principles of what most people believe to be good or bad is something in which there is broad agreement over many general principles, due to our evolution.

Are you honestly trying to pull that ridiculous "all people broadly agree on what is good and what is bad" card in a thread that exists precisely because people DON'T agree on whether same-sex marriage is good or bad?

No. People do NOT broadly agree on what is good and what is bad. There is no universal morality, or anything even remotely close to it.

[United Marxist Nations]

If God does exist and does lay out a set of morals, then it would indeed be objective by virtue of being ordained by an all-powerful and all-knowing being, as no other such being would be capable of knowing what is and is not wrong.

It would also be completely arbitrary.

See the point on infinite knowledge. As He knows everything, He would therefore know what good and evil are.

[Geilinor]

That's not determining whether they are good or bad, that is arbitrarily assigning them based on your personal ideas.

That's what you've been doing as well. Everyone does that.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not irrational at all, all morals and ethics are subjective at the end of the day. Even for you, things you might believe are okay another Christian might find abhorrent.



Which is exactly what a number of religious people (not saying anyone here, just in general) do as well and then claim it's objective because their god says so. It's still all arbitrary, just with a different coat of paint on it. If there really is an objective good then why the hell can nobody agree on simple things like good and evil?

If God does exist and does lay out a set of morals, then it would indeed be objective by virtue of being ordained by an all-powerful and all-knowing being, as no other such being would be capable of knowing what is and is not wrong.

It would still be arbitrary, and based on what I know of the Abrahamic god I wouldn't be very willing to accept it's ideas on what's objectively good and bad.

[Constantinopolis]

But I'll bite, and this is not an argument of my own, but a very much simplified version of one that originated in the Atheist Philosopher of Ethics, Thomas Nagel, who is a Deontologist of the Kantian stripe, and is paraphrased by Peter Singer, a Utilitarian:

You have reason to avoid pain, which is why you don't go about beating yourself.

That reason does not change because the person changes.

Therefore, you have reason not to give other pain.

The desire to avoid pain is an animal instinct. So is the desire to avoid death.

Basing a system of ethics on your animal instincts is exactly the same as basing a system of ethics on your emotions.

[United Marxist Nations]

If God does exist and does lay out a set of morals, then it would indeed be objective by virtue of being ordained by an all-powerful and all-knowing being, as no other such being would be capable of knowing what is and is not wrong.

It would still be arbitrary, and based on what I know of the Abrahamic god I wouldn't be very willing to accept it's ideas on what's objectively good and bad.

You may as well say that geometry is arbitrary, as He would have created mathematics as well.

[Constantinopolis]

based on what I know of the Abrahamic god I wouldn't be very willing to accept it's ideas on what's objectively good and bad.

So your ideas on what is objectively good and bad are superior? What makes you think that?

[The Rich Port]

You don't read much on ethics, do you?

As a matter of fact, I do. And do you know what is the most important fact I have discovered about ethics, by reading on it?

The fact that it seems impossible for philosophers to agree on what is good and what is evil. Or, in other words, there are lots of proposed ethical systems - all with their flaws - and nothing to help us decide between them.

For example, take utilitarianism vs Kantian ethics. Is there some way to decide which is "right" and which is "wrong"? No. You can pick one based on personal preference, but that's it.

... Ahem... As a secular humanist and an atheist, I can say that morals aren't just "beliefs" as shallow as religious ones.

While life may have no inherent meaning, that doesn't mean that it can never have meaning, nor that laws preserving the sanctity and dignity of life for as many people as possible are impossible or, especially, widely disagreed upon... If they weren't, I doubt most of the world would e as stable as it is these days.

We've reached an all-time low in terms of global mortality rates, and that's with widely differing belief systems, ranging from fundamentalist and radical to irreligious and liberal.

While different things work for different people, most people on the planet seem to agree on certain things... It isn't all based on personal feelings. And even if they are, some feelings and thoughts are more based on logic and facts than others.

A good example is murder or killings in general. Whether government-sanctioned or not, killings affect people in countless ways. Whether it's executions, muggings, shoot-outs, etc., more often than not a society takes note of it as something that is usually in poor judgment and cruel. Now, to what degree it is cruel and in poor judgment is where people disagree. Some people believe it is a form of justice to kill someone who has committed a crime, and it affects a community in that way. Others believe that killings are cruel and poor judgment no matter the circumstances, except self-defense, which most people seem to agree is a justifiable time to resort to murder so long as the person killed was a direct and imminent threat on their killer's survival.

This is why a woman can get away with shooting a burglar with a shotgun before he even enters her home (he showed clear intent to break into the home and the woman didn't know how he'd react), but not, I dunno... An otherwise normal adult man killing a child of 11, especially if the child is in no way more powerful than the man and was not armed except with maybe a rock. While the child may have intended the man harm, the man could have easily subdued or disarmed the child.

It always depends on the circumstances.. Hence why there's courts and cops and societies that decide based upon the facts.

Of course, it always makes you wonder, and morals are not perfect because humans aren't perfect... And neither are you, so, we could always reject your thinking as based on a personal bias towards morals, by your own logic.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's not determining whether they are good or bad, that is arbitrarily assigning them based on your personal ideas.

That's what you've been doing as well. Everyone does that.

Yes, let me tell you how I went from being a literal "Stalin did nothing wrong" anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist who was anti-theist, pro-gay marriage, and everything else, to being a traditionalist Christian entirely because I felt like it.

[Geilinor]

That's what you've been doing as well. Everyone does that.

Yes, let me tell you how I went from being a literal "Stalin did nothing wrong" anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist who was anti-theist, pro-gay marriage, and everything else, to being a traditionalist Christian entirely because I felt like it.

I don't see what makes your new beliefs less arbitrary than your old ones.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, let me tell you how I went from being a literal "Stalin did nothing wrong" anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist who was anti-theist, pro-gay marriage, and everything else, to being a traditionalist Christian entirely because I felt like it.

I don't see what makes your new beliefs less arbitrary than your old ones.

But I am not assigning them according to my personal ideas, which I what I described. I didn't really make a conscious choice to become a traditionalist Christian or to change my moral viewpoint.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And how do we determine who is right and who is wrong?

The same way we prove whether you are completely wrong about whether God exists or not, through logical arguments about matters of fact.

In the hard sciences, when two honest scientists disagree, it is possible for one to demonstrate to the other that he is wrong, and then (if they are honest) they will both accept this conclusion and move on.

But in ethics, when two honest philosophers disagree about what is good, it is NOT possible for one to demonstrate to the other that he is wrong. Honest people may disagree on matters of good and evil, with no way to determine which of them is right.

Take mathematics, for example, many philosophers debate over whether mathematical objects (being abstract) exists at all, yet, back in the Maths department, they can have healthy discussion the nature of infinity and the mathematical consequence.

They also disagree on a vast number of important questions of right and wrong, such as whether it is moral to kill one person to save a million.

Which is debates on finer points rather a general whole, most of which all people tend to agree with, given our evolutionary history. This minor points spring rationally out of their principles, and which people may rationally argue over the validity of the principle without denying moral realism, as you seem to.

Also, utilitarianism doesn't necessarily agree that stealing is wrong. It depends on the circumstances. Utilitarianism can argue that stealing may be moral if it achieves a greater good.

A layman's understanding of consequentialism.

You're trying to sweep major differences under the rug by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Sure, we all agree that torturing kittens is wrong. So what?

It means that your attempt at arguing for the inability of philosophers to agree based on differences in opinion is undermined. It was a tactic that was used by the famous Moral Error Theorist, J. L. Mackie (who, I am assuming, you think is the only rational atheist), but is problematic since, even he, admits that if what he perceives to be major moral differences are just difference in application of some general moral principle would undermine his argument completely.

Are you honestly trying to pull that ridiculous "all people broadly agree on what is good and what is bad" card in a thread that exists precisely because people DON'T agree on whether same-sex marriage is good or bad?

No. People do NOT broadly agree on what is good and what is bad. There is no universal morality, or anything even remotely close to it.

Yes they do, that is simply how we evolved as a species.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/

[Constantinopolis]

Yes, let me tell you how I went from being a literal "Stalin did nothing wrong" anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist who was anti-theist, pro-gay marriage, and everything else, to being a traditionalist Christian entirely because I felt like it.

I don't see what makes your new beliefs less arbitrary than your old ones.

All beliefs are arbitrary except your own, amirite?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It would also be completely arbitrary.

See the point on infinite knowledge. As He knows everything, He would therefore know what good and evil are.

See Euthyphro, either he loves something that is inherently good, at which point why do we need him in the first place, or it is good because he loves it, which makes it arbitrary. Either way, morals would either not exist, or exist regardless of him.