Irreligious Discussion Thread: Welcome to the Nonery!

[Genivaria]

If morals are decided by a deity, then they are, by definition, subject to potentially constant change. Your deity can change what is right or wrong based on a passing whim. If your morals come only from what a deity decides they are, why have then at all? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong about murder if God could make it morally right tomorrow.

On the other hand, morality derived from reason and logical thought does not change. Humanity's interpretations of logic can change, of course, but logic does not change from day to day. Treating gays like second class citizens was wrong in 2004, it was wrong in 1969, it was wrong in 4 BCE, and it is still wrong today. The view of the majority may have changed, but the logical backbone of equal marriage has not.

Morality devised from "rationality" is subject to change. It's ludicrous to say "rationality" was always for equal marriage when that stream of thought didn't become prevalent until the 20th century. You can't claim moral objectivity through the ages when you're a product of those previous ages.

Same-sex relationships have been around since the Roman Empire.
They just weren't married and one theory for that is that marriage was a union between the dominant man and the submissive woman, and that a same-sex marriage would bring that into question.
That is at least definitely the case for the Romans.

[Genivaria]

Indeed, the only thing "objective" about devine command is the fact of it's vapid and pointless underlying nihlism.

You're going to need to explain why belief in one God, and therefor one morality, is in anyway nihilistic.

Considering how diverse the moral views are among just one religion I'd dispute the claim of 'one morality'.

[Hakons]

Morality devised from "rationality" is subject to change. It's ludicrous to say "rationality" was always for equal marriage when that stream of thought didn't become prevalent until the 20th century. You can't claim moral objectivity through the ages when you're a product of those previous ages.

Same-sex relationships have been around since the Roman Empire.
They just weren't married and one theory for that is that marriage was a union between the dominant man and the submissive woman, and that a same-sex marriage would bring that into question.
That is at least definitely the case for the Romans.

Of course there have been same-sex relationships throughout history. However, that doesn't mean that the 21st century secular Westerner's personal reasoning was posthumously correct.

[Methodological Individualism]

Indeed, the only thing "objective" about devine command is the fact of it's vapid and pointless underlying nihlism.

You're going to need to explain why belief in one God, and therefor one morality, is in anyway nihilistic.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=430369&p=33062289#p33062289

It's pretty straightforward.

[Jormengand]

Morality devised from "rationality" is subject to change. It's ludicrous to say "rationality" was always for equal marriage when that stream of thought didn't become prevalent until the 20th century. You can't claim moral objectivity through the ages when you're a product of those previous ages.

Morality (the moral ideas we use) changes, while morality (the actual fact of the matter) doesn't. It's like with science - no-one until relatively recently believed that light was both a wave and a particle, but it was always actually objectively true (or, less likely, we're still wrong and it was always actually objectively false). Science (the results we get) changes, but science (the actual fact of the matter) doesn't. Science (the truth) is discovered from rationality, and science (the results) changes, but that doesn't mean science (the truth) is subjective. Similarly, morality (the truth) is discovered from rationality, and morality (the results) changes, but that doesn't make morality (the truth) subjective.

[Genivaria]

Same-sex relationships have been around since the Roman Empire.
They just weren't married and one theory for that is that marriage was a union between the dominant man and the submissive woman, and that a same-sex marriage would bring that into question.
That is at least definitely the case for the Romans.

Of course there have been same-sex relationships throughout history. However, that doesn't mean that the 21st century secular Westerner's personal reasoning was posthumously correct.

Sure I'd agree with that.

My point simply was that the spiritual arguments that we hear against it were not the same arguments used in times past.
Old practice, new justifications.

To the Romans same-sex marriage wasn't abhorrent because of the Gods or spirituality but because of sexism.

[Hakons]

You're going to need to explain why belief in one God, and therefor one morality, is in anyway nihilistic.

Considering how diverse the moral views are among just one religion I'd dispute the claim of 'one morality'.

Yes, that is because there are competing interpretations. That is why it is best for a religion to be unified, and schisms have been the worst thing to happen to Christiantity. Religion offers the opportunity of one morality. Individualistic morality offers the opportunity of infinite moralities.

[Genivaria]

Considering how diverse the moral views are among just one religion I'd dispute the claim of 'one morality'.

Yes, that is because there are competing interpretations. That is why it is best for a religion to be unified, and schisms have been the worst thing to happen to Christiantity. Religion offers the opportunity of one morality. Individualistic morality offers the opportunity of infinite moralities.

Looking at your sig I see you're a Methodist, without Christian schisms your denomination wouldn't exist.

[Neutraligon]

Considering how diverse the moral views are among just one religion I'd dispute the claim of 'one morality'.

Yes, that is because there are competing interpretations. That is why it is best for a religion to be unified, and schisms have been the worst thing to happen to Christiantity. Religion offers the opportunity of one morality. Individualistic morality offers the opportunity of infinite moralities.

I have not seen religion offer the opportunity for one morality. Even if a God existed, that does not mean there is only one morality, as my morality could disagree with that God's morality.

[Hakons]

Morality devised from "rationality" is subject to change. It's ludicrous to say "rationality" was always for equal marriage when that stream of thought didn't become prevalent until the 20th century. You can't claim moral objectivity through the ages when you're a product of those previous ages.

Morality (the moral ideas we use) changes, while morality (the actual fact of the matter) doesn't. It's like with science - no-one until relatively recently believed that light was both a wave and a particle, but it was always actually objectively true (or, less likely, we're still wrong and it was always actually objectively false). Science (the results we get) changes, but science (the actual fact of the matter) doesn't. Science (the truth) is discovered from rationality, and science (the results) changes, but that doesn't mean science (the truth) is subjective. Similarly, morality (the truth) is discovered from rationality, and morality (the results) changes, but that doesn't make morality (the truth) subjective.

That is based on new discovery. It is a new morality altogether. Religious people would call it revelation, the truth is divinely revealed to be different than previously thought. The new morality was not realized until after the event. This is why is it new. It's not the same as the old. It was not evident until x event.

[Hakons]

Yes, that is because there are competing interpretations. That is why it is best for a religion to be unified, and schisms have been the worst thing to happen to Christiantity. Religion offers the opportunity of one morality. Individualistic morality offers the opportunity of infinite moralities.

Looking at your sig I see you're a Methodist, without Christian schisms your denomination wouldn't exist.

I'm Methodist right now, but I'm drifting towards Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

[Neutraligon]

Looking at your sig I see you're a Methodist, without Christian schisms your denomination wouldn't exist.

I'm Methodist right now, but I'm drifting towards Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

...any form of Christianity is a schism.

[Hakons]

Yes, that is because there are competing interpretations. That is why it is best for a religion to be unified, and schisms have been the worst thing to happen to Christiantity. Religion offers the opportunity of one morality. Individualistic morality offers the opportunity of infinite moralities.

I have not seen religion offer the opportunity for one morality. Even if a God existed, that does not mean there is only one morality, as my morality could disagree with that God's morality.

Most religions try to form its morality off of the diety. The Church forms her morality off of God's. We strive for the one morality that is perfect, which is God's. A non-religious person can strive for a perfect morality, but their reference point is only their personal rationalizations.

[Neutraligon]

I have not seen religion offer the opportunity for one morality. Even if a God existed, that does not mean there is only one morality, as my morality could disagree with that God's morality.

Most religions try to form its morality off of the diety.

Which does not mean that the religion ensures any one morality. The existence of a church does not prevent people from having individual opinions on morality. Simply look at the idea of contraception.

The Church forms her morality off of God's.

No you form the morality off of your interpretation of what you think god's morality is. No matter what since you are not a god you are simply interpreting what you think a god wants.

We strive for the one morality that is perfect, which is God's. A non-religious person can strive for a perfect morality, but their reference point is only their personal rationalizations.

Basing it off a god does not change that you are doing so through your on interpretation. And it still does not prevent differences in opinion on whether what your god wants is actually moral. I will note the contraception thing again.

[Jormengand]

That is based on new discovery. It is a new morality altogether. Religious people would call it revelation, the truth is divinely revealed to be different than previously thought. The new morality was not realized until after the event. This is why is it new. It's not the same as the old. It was not evident until x event.

The truth certainly isn't divinely revealed any more than draconically revealed, but yes, the fact that there is an objective truth which we work to learn is indeed why morality is objective.

[Valrifell]

That is based on new discovery. It is a new morality altogether. Religious people would call it revelation, the truth is divinely revealed to be different than previously thought. The new morality was not realized until after the event. This is why is it new. It's not the same as the old. It was not evident until x event.

The truth certainly isn't divinely revealed any more than draconically revealed, but yes, the fact that there is an objective truth which we work to learn is indeed why morality is objective.

What if one rejects the idea of an objective Truth?

[Neutraligon]

That is based on new discovery. It is a new morality altogether. Religious people would call it revelation, the truth is divinely revealed to be different than previously thought. The new morality was not realized until after the event. This is why is it new. It's not the same as the old. It was not evident until x event.

The truth certainly isn't divinely revealed any more than draconically revealed, but yes, the fact that there is an objective truth which we work to learn is indeed why morality is objective.

Depends, please define morality. So far even if the Christian god or the bible existed my own morals would be in opposition to that god. Depending on how morality is defined, I think objective morality is a contradiction in terms.

[Jormengand]

The truth certainly isn't divinely revealed any more than draconically revealed, but yes, the fact that there is an objective truth which we work to learn is indeed why morality is objective.

What if one rejects the idea of an objective Truth?

To paraphrase Dawkins, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite: they only got up there because some westerners' ideas of objective truth happened to be true enough to build aeroplanes."

[The Parkus Empire]

Any devout atheists here, or are you all nonpracticing?

What do you think atheism's greatest contribution to our culture has been?

Hmm. The Greatest happiness principle ?
And possibly the resulting concept of animal rights.

The Greatest Happiness principle hardly comes from atheism.

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."

-John Adams

[Valrifell]

What if one rejects the idea of an objective Truth?

To paraphrase Dawkins, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite: they only got up there because some westerners' ideas of objective truth happened to be true enough to build aeroplanes."

I'm not quite sure what a Westerner's idea of objective Truth has to do with two American bike makers going "oh shit dude you what'd be cool?"

[The Parkus Empire]

What if one rejects the idea of an objective Truth?

To paraphrase Dawkins, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite: they only got up there because some westerners' ideas of objective truth happened to be true enough to build aeroplanes."

Doesn't actually engage Hume,'s guillotine.

[Genivaria]

What if one rejects the idea of an objective Truth?

To paraphrase Dawkins, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite: they only got up there because some westerners' ideas of objective truth happened to be true enough to build aeroplanes."

You know that supernatural 'objective morality' and cultural relativism aren't the only two options right?
I've repeatedly condemned cultural relativism as both asinine and cowardly.

In fact I used to have a sig to that effect...let me see if I can find the quote.
Ah here it is.

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]”

---Charles James Napier

[Jormengand]

To paraphrase Dawkins, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite: they only got up there because some westerners' ideas of objective truth happened to be true enough to build aeroplanes."

I'm not quite sure what a Westerner's idea of objective Truth has to do with two American bike makers going "oh shit dude you what'd be cool?"

The only reason that two American bike makers could, well, for a start make bikes and in the second instance make planes is because a bunch of scientists got their calculations and understanding of physics and engineering right - the aeroplane relies on quite a lot of objective truths such as "Newtonian mechanics is mostly accurate at the kinds of speeds at which an aeroplane travels" in order to function. If you go "Well sure, but the Wordijustmadeuppian Sect believes that actually, the forwards velocity of an object is based on the magnetic attraction provided by crystals (and they also believe that crystals do that)", and then insist that because there's no Objective Truth, neither of these beliefs is intrinsically better than the other, the only useful thing I'll have learned from you is not to get in any aeroplane made by the Wordijustmadeuppian Sect. That, and that you don't really understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

You know that supernatural 'objective morality' and cultural relativism aren't the only two options right?

I don't know what's so bloody well supernatural about objective fact.

[The Parkus Empire]

The truth certainly isn't divinely revealed any more than draconically revealed, but yes, the fact that there is an objective truth which we work to learn is indeed why morality is objective.

Depends, please define morality. So far even if the Christian god or the bible existed my own morals would be in opposition to that god. Depending on how morality is defined, I think objective morality is a contradiction in terms.

Morality is a system and practice of belief in moral truth.

[The Parkus Empire]

To paraphrase Dawkins, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite: they only got up there because some westerners' ideas of objective truth happened to be true enough to build aeroplanes."

You know that supernatural 'objective morality' and cultural relativism aren't the only two options right?
I've repeatedly condemned cultural relativism as both asinine and cowardly.

In fact I used to have a sig to that effect...let me see if I can find the quote.
Ah here it is.

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]”

---Charles James Napier

You are saying this practice is bad based on your personal sensibilities, or something else?