Irreligious Discussion Thread: Welcome to the Nonery!

[Hurdergaryp]

But we could create a scientific American thread. We don't need an irreligious thread to discuss that

I just want a pint, tbh.

A refreshing pint is something that is tangible and valid, so I can agree with that sentiment.

[Jormengand]

My bad, I was working with a different interpretation of "objective Truth" than yours.

Of course, since there is no objective linguistic truth, neither of our interpretations of objective truth is inherently better than the other...

[The Parkus Empire]

The Tao

Please explain what you mean by this.

Basically as outlined in The Abolition of Man.

[Jormengand]

Definitions are important, right now we do not have a clear definition. Morality tends to have very different meanings to different people. For instance there are those who say that morality is the dictates of a god. At which point i can say that if I use that definition, I can very easily say that objective morality may exist, but depending on the god I have no desire to follow it as my own sense of right and wrong may very well disagree with said dictates.

Okay, fair enough.

To me, morality is an advisory principle which tells us what the right thing to do is in a situation, assuming our intended consequence is that a general good be enacted rather than a specific type of good for us or our aims or intentions. A moral action, on that basis, is one which makes the world better in general (a moral person is also one who makes the world better in general, but I'm very wary of assigning people into boxes of "Moral person" or "Immoral person" because that feeds retributionism and morality should be guidance for what we should do, not a way of harrassing people who have done wrong in the past).

[Neutraligon]

Definitions are important, right now we do not have a clear definition. Morality tends to have very different meanings to different people. For instance there are those who say that morality is the dictates of a god. At which point i can say that if I use that definition, I can very easily say that objective morality may exist, but depending on the god I have no desire to follow it as my own sense of right and wrong may very well disagree with said dictates.

Okay, fair enough.

To me, morality is an advisory principle which tells us what the right thing to do is in a situation, assuming our intended consequence is that a general good be enacted rather than a specific type of good for us or our aims or intentions. A moral action, on that basis, is one which makes the world better in general (a moral person is also one who makes the world better in general, but I'm very wary of assigning people into boxes of "Moral person" or "Immoral person" because that feeds retributionism and morality should be guidance for what we should do, not a way of harrassing people who have done wrong in the past).

In which case we have the issue of determining what is mean by making the world better. A person may think allowing SSM to be recognized makes the world worse, while a different person may think it makes the world better. I will agree though that I think the basis of morality is not a god but rather the well being of humans in general. Due to that, I can very easily say that the morality of a god is irrelevant so long as it does things that I think harm humanity. The literal god of the bible is an example of this.

[Jormengand]

A person may think allowing SSM to be recognized makes the world worse

I mean a person may also think that throwing a rock at a sparrow will cause a nuclear explosion*, but that doesn't make it subjective whether or not that's the case. People who think that doing things that make the world worse will make the world better are simply incorrect.

*Ignore here the fact that doing so at high enough speed will indeed cause a nuclear explosion.

[Neutraligon]

A person may think allowing SSM to be recognized makes the world worse

I mean a person may also think that throwing a rock at a sparrow will cause a nuclear explosion*, but that doesn't make it subjective whether or not that's the case. People who think that doing things that make the world worse will make the world better are simply incorrect.

*Ignore here the fact that doing so at high enough speed will indeed cause a nuclear explosion.

Since different people feel different things are better for the world. for instance there are those who feel that absolutely following the word of god is better. It does not matter that some ma be harmed from this, following god is simply the best thing for the world.

[Jormengand]

I mean a person may also think that throwing a rock at a sparrow will cause a nuclear explosion*, but that doesn't make it subjective whether or not that's the case. People who think that doing things that make the world worse will make the world better are simply incorrect.

*Ignore here the fact that doing so at high enough speed will indeed cause a nuclear explosion.

Since different people feel different things are better for the world. for instance there are those who feel that absolutely following the word of god is better. It does not matter that some ma be harmed from this, following god is simply the best thing for the world.

Yes, and some people have a strong inner conviction of other facts that are simply false. It is simply false that the earth is flat, simply false that throwing rocks at sparrows tends to cause nuclear explosions, and simply false that following a deity's word is better than doing actual good to actual people. Certainly the preference for following a deity's word or for doing what is genuinely right is subjective, but which one is actually better is not. You may prefer to carry a heavier load than a lighter one or you may even find it easier but that doesn't change its actual weight in reality.

[Neutraligon]

Since different people feel different things are better for the world. for instance there are those who feel that absolutely following the word of god is better. It does not matter that some ma be harmed from this, following god is simply the best thing for the world.

Yes, and some people have a strong inner conviction of other facts that are simply false. It is simply false that the earth is flat, simply false that throwing rocks at sparrows tends to cause nuclear explosions, and simply false that following a deity's word is better than doing actual good to actual people. Certainly the preference for following a deity's word or for doing what is genuinely right is subjective, but which one is actually better is not. You may prefer to carry a heavier load than a lighter one or you may even find it easier but that doesn't change its actual weight in reality.

Oh I agree that there is an objective morality using the definition you gave, the question is what is that morality.

[Jormengand]

Oh I agree that there is an objective morality using the definition you gave, the question is what is that morality.

This seems like one of those quibbles where Linguistic Descriptivism saves the day: people can use the same word to mean different things and that's okay so long as we don't conflate the definitions (such as conflating the definition of theory which says Evolution is a theory with the definition of theory that says that theories aren't proven yet, for example - this also comes up far too often in racism discussions because everyone's using a different meaning, apparently). In this case, so long as we're clear about what we're trying to use morality to mean (I personally would rather we use an unambiguous word for what we mean - Dawkins recommends "Theorum" instead of theory, which is also not to be confused with a theorem [theorum rhymes with decorum] - maybe we could come up with an unambiguous differentiation between religious concepts of morality and actual good) it's pretty obviously not subjective. Even if morality were the word of a deity, of course, then it still wouldn't be subjective because either a deity said the thing or that deity did not say the thing.

Perhaps the answer then is that morality is just an ambiguous word and we should use less ambiguous ones.

[Neutraligon]

Oh I agree that there is an objective morality using the definition you gave, the question is what is that morality.

This seems like one of those quibbles where Linguistic Descriptivism saves the day: people can use the same word to mean different things and that's okay so long as we don't conflate the definitions (such as conflating the definition of theory which says Evolution is a theory with the definition of theory that says that theories aren't proven yet, for example - this also comes up far too often in racism discussions because everyone's using a different meaning, apparently). In this case, so long as we're clear about what we're trying to use morality to mean (I personally would rather we use an unambiguous word for what we mean - Dawkins recommends "Theorum" instead of theory, which is also not to be confused with a theorem [theorum rhymes with decorum] - maybe we could come up with an unambiguous differentiation between religious concepts of morality and actual good) it's pretty obviously not subjective. Even if morality were the word of a deity, of course, then it still wouldn't be subjective because either a deity said the thing or that deity did not say the thing.

Perhaps the answer then is that morality is just an ambiguous word and we should use less ambiguous ones.

Agreed. See one of the ways I have heard morality defined is the opinion of a sentience on how society should interact with each other and the planet. Using that definition, it is by definition subjective since opinion is subjective.

[Jormengand]

Agreed. See one of the ways I have heard morality defined is the opinion of a sentience on how society should interact with each other and the planet. Using that definition, it is by definition subjective since opinion is subjective.

Hmm, sort of.

While opinions are subjective, what opinions an individual possesses is a matter of objective fact. It may not be true or false in any objective sense that Star Wars is better than Star Trek*, but it's either true that I think that Star Wars is better or it isn't, and that in itself is objective. So if morality really were based on a particular individual's beliefs, it could still be arguably objective.

Not, of course, that this matters in the slightest.

*To the person about to butt in on this conversation to announce that your preferred one of the two is indeed objectively better, you are not funny.

[The Grene Knyght]

I'm an atheist: my disillusionment with religion occurred very very shortly after my disillusionment with the easter bunny (et al)

[Neutraligon]

Agreed. See one of the ways I have heard morality defined is the opinion of a sentience on how society should interact with each other and the planet. Using that definition, it is by definition subjective since opinion is subjective.

Hmm, sort of.

While opinions are subjective, what opinions an individual possesses is a matter of objective fact. It may not be true or false in any objective sense that Star Wars is better than Star Trek*, but it's either true that I think that Star Wars is better or it isn't, and that in itself is objective. So if morality really were based on a particular individual's beliefs, it could still be arguably objective.

Not, of course, that this matters in the slightest.

*To the person about to butt in on this conversation to announce that your preferred one of the two is indeed objectively better, you are not funny.

I was not saying that them possessing that opinion is subjective, I was saying using that definition the opinion itself is subjective by definition.

[Jormengand]

I was not saying that them possessing that opinion is subjective, I was saying using that definition the opinion itself is subjective by definition.

Oh, yeah, I kinda assumed that. But a moral system which is based on what they believe doesn't technically have to be subjective. Not, again, that this remotely matters in the slightest.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I've got the perfect counter-argument to religious people who claim "subjective morality cannot sustain itself". Most of the people in the Middle East embrace absolute Islamic morality, while most people in Scandinavia embrace secular, subjective morality. Which of these regions of the world is more politically and economically stable?

[Minzerland II]

I've got the perfect counter-argument to religious people who claim "subjective morality cannot sustain itself". Most of the people in the Middle East embrace absolute Islamic morality, while most people in Scandinavia embrace secular, subjective morality. Which of these regions of the world is more politically and economically stable?

That is not the perfect counter-argument against the assertion that 'subjective morality cannot sustain itself', though, as it ignores the nuances of the situations of the Middle East and Scandinavia. It is reducing the success of Scandinavia and the failure of the Middle East down to 'secular, subjective morality Vs. absolute Islamic morality', which is ridiculous. Just like reducing the success of Europe and the failure of the Middle East to 'Christianity Vs. Islam'.

[Shikihara]

Don't really see the point of this thread, to be honest.

Also, not an atheist. Would probably be classified as a polytheist.

[Darussalam]

I've got the perfect counter-argument to religious people who claim "subjective morality cannot sustain itself". Most of the people in the Middle East embrace absolute Islamic morality, while most people in Scandinavia embrace secular, subjective morality. Which of these regions of the world is more politically and economically stable?

Morality is never actually objective - not even religious morality. Objective morality is an oxymoron, a logical impossibility.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I've got the perfect counter-argument to religious people who claim "subjective morality cannot sustain itself". Most of the people in the Middle East embrace absolute Islamic morality, while most people in Scandinavia embrace secular, subjective morality. Which of these regions of the world is more politically and economically stable?

That is not the perfect counter-argument against the assertion that 'subjective morality cannot sustain itself', though, as it ignores the nuances of the situations of the Middle East and Scandinavia. It is reducing the success of Scandinavia and the failure of the Middle East down to 'secular, subjective morality Vs. absolute Islamic morality', which is ridiculous. Just like reducing the success of Europe and the failure of the Middle East to 'Christianity Vs. Islam'.

To be fair, there is a solid correlation between the general crappiness of a nation and religiosity. The world's wealthiest nations are generally irreligious (with the exception of the USA, which is always weird), and the most religious nations are the poorest. Obviously, correlation=/=causation, but at the very least, an objective morality doesn't seem to be a particularly great asset, because it doesn't seem to be helping those countries with their problems, while its absence hasn't stopped western nations being great places to live.

[The Blaatschapen]

I am a non-theist, and I distance myself from fundamentalists like Stalin.

[Ethel mermania]

Why do we need a thread for this? I'm mostly asking as a personal question rather than as a mod because I am atheist and I don't see the point of it.

Sort of agree, sort of like ‘discuss not being a hamster, how has not being a hamster affected your life and views’.. and then it just devolves into a hamster bashing thread.

Hampsters suck. The only thing good about them is the name. Hampster, it's sounds cool, and then you wide up with a fat rat.

[Alvecia]

Sort of agree, sort of like ‘discuss not being a hamster, how has not being a hamster affected your life and views’.. and then it just devolves into a hamster bashing thread.

Hampsters suck. The only thing good about them is the name. Hampster, it's sounds cool, and then you wide up with a fat rat.

I quite like putting them in a plastic ball and watching people trip over it.

[Minzerland II]

That is not the perfect counter-argument against the assertion that 'subjective morality cannot sustain itself', though, as it ignores the nuances of the situations of the Middle East and Scandinavia. It is reducing the success of Scandinavia and the failure of the Middle East down to 'secular, subjective morality Vs. absolute Islamic morality', which is ridiculous. Just like reducing the success of Europe and the failure of the Middle East to 'Christianity Vs. Islam'.

To be fair, there is a solid correlation between the general crappiness of a nation and religiosity. The world's wealthiest nations are generally irreligious (with the exception of the USA, which is always weird), and the most religious nations are the poorest. Obviously, correlation=/=causation, but at the very least, an objective morality doesn't seem to be a particularly great asset, because it doesn't seem to be helping those countries with their problems, while its absence hasn't stopped western nations being great places to live.

I tend to believe poorer nations are more religious than wealthier nations because of their poor conditions, not that their religiosity causes their poor conditions. It is no secret that religion can adequately help people cope with trauma. Religiosity can, I'll admit, prevent a nation from improving itself, sure, but I would argue that it can do the opposite as well. Other reasons, which I think are mainly causing the problems of the poor nations today, contribute far more than religion to the poor conditions of poor nations: coups, foreign interference, economic decline, lack of resources, cultural and ethnic tensions, politics, etc., even largely irreligious nations aren't strangers to this sort of crappiness. No one here will argue, I hope, that the Soviet Union was a wonderful place to live; I'm sure there are, America for instance, a few examples in history of highly religious nations that are great places to live.

[Shikihara]

I'm sure there are, America for instance, a few examples in history of highly religious nations that are great places to live.

America was pretty awful back in the day and still is for a lot of people. It's never been as bad as the USSR, but that's not a high bar to set.