Atheism Discussion Thread:Tipping the Fedora

[Lost Memories]

Incidentally it would be interesting to see "objectivity > subjectivity" defined and explained from an atheist. Given they're often the first supporters of a subjective morality, since it just means they have no moral limits = no morality, nor obligations toward others or themselves.

How is that atheists don't have any morality? The only difference is that we don't need a Sky Daddy telling us that murder is wrong, just basic socialisation. I would even argue that our morality is deeper since we follow the rules we deem important, not just blindly following some archaic laws from the Bronze Age.

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, straight up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"
Finally, he goes "i'm a moral person, i always follow my morals. I have a morality"

That hypothetical person is an example of an holder of subjective morality.
The kind of subjectivity which is frowned upon by religious people, with their stable and certain moral sets.
The same religious persons, which with little fault, claim "that person didn't have morals, he was just talking out of his ass, while doing whatever"

[Vivolkha]

How is that atheists don't have any morality? The only difference is that we don't need a Sky Daddy telling us that murder is wrong, just basic socialisation. I would even argue that our morality is deeper since we follow the rules we deem important, not just blindly following some archaic laws from the Bronze Age.

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, stright up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That hypothetical person is an example of an holder of subjective morality.
The kind of subjectivity which is frowned upon by religious people, with their stable and certain moral sets.

Yeah, and religion magically prevents that, because "Sky Daddy I sinned!". No. Just no.

[Estanglia]

How is that atheists don't have any morality? The only difference is that we don't need a Sky Daddy telling us that murder is wrong, just basic socialisation. I would even argue that our morality is deeper since we follow the rules we deem important, not just blindly following some archaic laws from the Bronze Age.

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, stright up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That's inconsistent moral principles, or hypocrisy. That can happen with a moral system regardless of its claims to objectivity. People twist the meanings of their religious texts (typically the bases for self-proclaimed objective moralities) all the time.

[Estanglia]

That hypothetical person is an example of an holder of subjective morality.

Not necessarily. Religious people twist their own moral rules too.

[Vivolkha]

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, stright up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That's inconsistent moral principles, or hypocrisy. That can happen with a moral system regardless of its claims to objectivity. People twist the meanings of their religious texts (typically the bases for self-proclaimed objective moralities) all the time.

As an example, Iran's attempt to legalize prostitution (the Chastity Houses).

[Andsed]

How is that atheists don't have any morality? The only difference is that we don't need a Sky Daddy telling us that murder is wrong, just basic socialisation. I would even argue that our morality is deeper since we follow the rules we deem important, not just blindly following some archaic laws from the Bronze Age.

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, straight up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That hypothetical person is an example of an holder of subjective morality.
The kind of subjectivity which is frowned upon by religious people, with their stable and certain moral sets.
The same religious persons, which with little fault, claim "that person didn't have morals, he was just talking out of his ass, while doing whatever"

Your point being? Because:
1. Religious morality is not objective
2. Pretty much no one is completely consistent with their morality.

[Lost Memories]

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, stright up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That's inconsistent moral principles, or hypocrisy. That can happen with a moral system regardless of its claims to objectivity. People twist the meanings of their religious texts (typically the bases for self-proclaimed objective moralities) all the time.

Yeah, but the point is:

Religious, or specifically christians, are against that kind of hypocrisy, or moral inconsistency.
Regardless if the one doing that is a unreligious or a religious. Unreligious are just seen as more vulnerable to that kind of behaviour.

[Andsed]

That's inconsistent moral principles, or hypocrisy. That can happen with a moral system regardless of its claims to objectivity. People twist the meanings of their religious texts (typically the bases for self-proclaimed objective moralities) all the time.

Yeah, but the point is:

Religious, or specifically christians, are against that kind of hypocrisy, or moral inconsistency.
Regardless if the one doing that is a unreligious or a religious. Unreligious are just seen as more vulnerable to that kind of behaviour.

Citation needed

[Estanglia]

That's inconsistent moral principles, or hypocrisy. That can happen with a moral system regardless of its claims to objectivity. People twist the meanings of their religious texts (typically the bases for self-proclaimed objective moralities) all the time.

Yeah, but the point is:

Religious, or specifically christians, are against that kind of hypocrisy, or moral inconsistency.
Regardless if the one doing that is a unreligious or a religious. Unreligious are just seen as more vulnerable to that kind of behaviour.

So, your point is that religions that prescribe a specific moral system are against people who go against that moral system?

[Risastorstein]

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, straight up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That hypothetical person is an example of an holder of subjective morality.
The kind of subjectivity which is frowned upon by religious people, with their stable and certain moral sets.
The same religious persons, which with little fault, claim "that person didn't have morals, he was just talking out of his ass, while doing whatever"

Well yes, I do change my mind and my habits from time to time because I have a thing called brain plasticity and that people generally grow up, evolve and adapt depending on their environment.

By the way, the only way to label these kind of religious people you describe is hypocritical, as they often choose the most practical rules to follow and "kind of" forget the other ones.

[Vivolkha]

That's inconsistent moral principles, or hypocrisy. That can happen with a moral system regardless of its claims to objectivity. People twist the meanings of their religious texts (typically the bases for self-proclaimed objective moralities) all the time.

Yeah, but the point is:

Religious, or specifically christians, are against that kind of hypocrisy, or moral inconsistency.
Regardless if the one doing that is a unreligious or a religious. Unreligious are just seen as more vulnerable to that kind of behaviour.

Not to mention, specifically Christians? What about the rest of religions, huh?

[Lost Memories]

Yeah, but the point is:

Religious, or specifically christians, are against that kind of hypocrisy, or moral inconsistency.
Regardless if the one doing that is a unreligious or a religious. Unreligious are just seen as more vulnerable to that kind of behaviour.

So, your point is that religions that prescribe a specific moral system are against people who go against that moral system?

No.
They are against inconsistency.

That was a dodge. I mean, what i meant was defined in that same post. Hard to misunderstand that.

Did you ever "overlook" one of your own moral rules?
If not, straight up changing them to fit the new current needs?

For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"

That hypothetical person is an example of an holder of subjective morality.
The kind of subjectivity which is frowned upon by religious people, with their stable and certain moral sets.
The same religious persons, which with little fault, claim "that person didn't have morals, he was just talking out of his ass, while doing whatever"

Well yes, I do change my mind and my habits from time to time because I have a thing called brain plasticity and that people generally grow up, evolve and adapt depending on their environment.

^Point.

Changing habits is nothing odd. Calling habits as morality is misnaming. Maybe if those "habits" weren't called "morality", they would have the value they actually have, as habits, and the meaning of morality, which is something deeper, wouldn't get muddled.


For example, one could say "spending time with your friends is a moral thing to do for me"
Then, when a new hyped game is released, and the friends call to go out, that same person goes "my friends would understand, enjoying my time is the moral thing to do"
Finally, he goes "i'm a moral person, i always follow my morals. I have a morality"

[Lost Memories]

Yeah, but the point is:

Religious, or specifically christians, are against that kind of hypocrisy, or moral inconsistency.
Regardless if the one doing that is a unreligious or a religious. Unreligious are just seen as more vulnerable to that kind of behaviour.

Not to mention, specifically Christians? What about the rest of religions, huh?

Ask them.

[Estanglia]

So, your point is that religions that prescribe a specific moral system are against people who go against that moral system?

No.
They are against inconsistency.

Odd that religions can be so damn inconsistent at times.

[Lost Memories]

No.
They are against inconsistency.

Odd that religions can be so damn inconsistent at times.

Religions or religious persons?

Which of the two?
Examples for your answer, plz.

[Estanglia]

Odd that religions can be so damn inconsistent at times.

Religions or religious persons?

Which of the two?
Examples for your answer, plz.

Religions: The different denominations of religions that all claim to be the correct interpretation of their religion (inconsistent because a rule to one denomination can mean something wildly different to another denomination).

Religious people: Personal hypocrisy, picking and choosing what religious rules to follow, inconsistencies between believers and denominations, hypocritical condemnation of those who don't follow their rules.

[Lost Memories]

Religions or religious persons?

Which of the two?
Examples for your answer, plz.

Religions: The different denominations of religions that all claim to be the correct interpretation of their religion (inconsistent because a rule to one denomination can mean something wildly different to another denomination).

1. the denominations which branched out, by denying their previous rules, are inconsistent in their origin. Denominations which never changed their rules are consistent.
2. Car driving rules being different from boat driving rules, doesn't make both inconsistent. They are just different things. The consistency is internal.
Nor "driving rules" as a general term is inconsistent, since general driving rules isn't a thing.

Religious people: Personal hypocrisy, picking and choosing what religious rules to follow, inconsistencies between believers and denominations, hypocritical condemnation of those who don't follow their rules.

Do all religious persons are automatically perfect human beings?
No. They aren't. Claiming they are is asinine. Or a strawman, when used as a fault for them failing to be all perfect.

What about those who are consistently inconsistent? They are bad religious persons. Simple as that.
What about those who fault? They are human. But differently than someone making excuses for their own inconsistency, they're going to correct themselves.

[Estanglia]

Religions: The different denominations of religions that all claim to be the correct interpretation of their religion (inconsistent because a rule to one denomination can mean something wildly different to another denomination).

1. the denominations which branched out, by denying their previous rules, are inconsistent in their origin. Denominations which never changed their rules are consistent.
2. Car driving rules being different from boat driving rules, doesn't make both inconsistent. They are just different things. The consistency is internal.
Nor "driving rules" as a general term is inconsistent, since general driving rules isn't a thing.

The denominations' rules are inconsistent in the same way as car driving rules are inconsistent.

The UK has certain driving rules, which are different to France's, which are different to Germany's, which are different to the US'. Car driving rules are inconsistent because they vary from country to country. Likewise, religious rules are inconsistent because they vary from denomination to denomination.

Religious people: Personal hypocrisy, picking and choosing what religious rules to follow, inconsistencies between believers and denominations, hypocritical condemnation of those who don't follow their rules.

Do all religious persons are automatically perfect human beings?
No. They aren't. Claiming they are is asinine. Or a strawman, when used as a fault for them failing to be all perfect.

What about those who are consistently inconsistent? They are bad religious persons. Simple as that.
What about those who fault? They are human. But differently than someone making excuses for their own inconsistency, they're going to correct themselves.

I'm more pointing out that, despite your claims of religious people being against inconsistency, they are just as capable of inconsistency as any other person. That is either them failing at following their own religious codes or an example of hypocrisy.

[Neutraligon]

1. the denominations which branched out, by denying their previous rules, are inconsistent in their origin. Denominations which never changed their rules are consistent.
2. Car driving rules being different from boat driving rules, doesn't make both inconsistent. They are just different things. The consistency is internal.
Nor "driving rules" as a general term is inconsistent, since general driving rules isn't a thing.

The denominations' rules are inconsistent in the same way as car driving rules are inconsistent.

The UK has certain driving rules, which are different to France's, which are different to Germany's, which are different to the US'. Car driving rules are inconsistent because they vary from country to country. Likewise, religious rules are inconsistent because they vary from denomination to denomination.

Do all religious persons are automatically perfect human beings?
No. They aren't. Claiming they are is asinine. Or a strawman, when used as a fault for them failing to be all perfect.

What about those who are consistently inconsistent? They are bad religious persons. Simple as that.
What about those who fault? They are human. But differently than someone making excuses for their own inconsistency, they're going to correct themselves.

I'm more pointing out that, despite your claims of religious people being against inconsistency, they are just as capable of inconsistency as any other person. That is either them failing at following their own religious codes or an example of hypocrisy.

Or the moral code they follow is internally inconsistent.

[Genivaria]

Odd that religions can be so damn inconsistent at times.

Religions or religious persons?

Which of the two?
Examples for your answer, plz.

You can't meaningfully separate the two.

[Attempted Socialism]

So, your point is that religions that prescribe a specific moral system are against people who go against that moral system?

No.
They are against inconsistency.

This is quite clearly a lie. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Bible and an Oxford English Dictionary can go through the Bible themselves and check (Though if you're in a hurry, people have done so for you).

[Vivolkha]

So, your point is that religions that prescribe a specific moral system are against people who go against that moral system?

No.
They are against inconsistency.

No, they are for an arbitrary code full of plot holes and lies, and against anything else.

[Estanglia]

The denominations' rules are inconsistent in the same way as car driving rules are inconsistent.

The UK has certain driving rules, which are different to France's, which are different to Germany's, which are different to the US'. Car driving rules are inconsistent because they vary from country to country. Likewise, religious rules are inconsistent because they vary from denomination to denomination.



I'm more pointing out that, despite your claims of religious people being against inconsistency, they are just as capable of inconsistency as any other person. That is either them failing at following their own religious codes or an example of hypocrisy.

Or the moral code they follow is internally inconsistent.

Or that.

[Kowani]

Religions: The different denominations of religions that all claim to be the correct interpretation of their religion (inconsistent because a rule to one denomination can mean something wildly different to another denomination).

1. the denominations which branched out, by denying their previous rules, are inconsistent in their origin. Denominations which never changed their rules are consistent.

Even if we just stuck to Christianity, this encompass literally nobody.

[Insaanistan]

Uh, hi?