- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Christians and the Hurricane Relief Effort
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:23 pm to Salmon
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:23 pm to Salmon
quote:Just to be clear... you don't think it's bad for one person to let another person suffer and/or die because they are indifferent to that plight? I believe that is a answer consistent with an atheistic worldview, but I want to be sure that's actually what you believe. You wouldn't call someone a piece of human dung because they refused to lift a finger to help someone, right?
But no, I don't think its terrible for others to not help other in need, I think those people lack empathy most likely and cannot relate to their suffering.
quote:I agree that you don't have to have an objective reason to help others but I'm always fascinated by atheists who judge others for applying their own moral compasses when their worldview doesn't allow for any other reality. Such judgments are not in-line with their own professed worldview.
You don't have to have an objective reason to help other people. We are emotional creatures. Our emotions dictate many of our actions. Most of those times, those emotions are either innate, or driven by past experiences.
quote:Is there anything that is incorrect about what I've said about an atheistic worldview so far? If so, what?
I don't pretend to speak on Christian worldviews because I can't understand it.
You should probably learn to not speak on our worldviews.
2
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Just to be clear... you don't think it's bad for one person to let another person suffer and/or die because they are indifferent to that plight?
This isn't a black or white answer. I would have to answer this on a case by case basis.
If we are talking about donating time and/or money to flood victims, no, I don't think you are a bad person if you don't help flood victims.
quote:
I agree that you don't have to have an objective reason to help others but I'm always fascinated by atheists who judge others for applying their own moral compasses when their worldview doesn't allow for any other reality. Such judgments are not in-line with their own professed worldview.
You believe all atheists have the same emotions? Same worldview?
quote:
Is there anything that is incorrect about what I've said about an atheistic worldview so far? If so, what?
That we all share the same worldview and/or beliefs. That we are somehow not vulnerable to emotional reactions.
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:28 pm to olddawg26
quote:It depends on the particular standard, but an objective moral standard is one that is universally applied to all people in all times; murder is wrong yesterday, today, and tomorrow. A subjective morality means that each individual in the history of mankind is justified in whatever moral view they hold to, no matter what it is; rape and slavery are fine for you if you believe it's OK.
Would you say objective morality is, as an entity, better or 'more moral' than subjective morality?
I don't think subjective morality is good because it gives credibility to individual moral standards that are naturally repulsive.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:29 pm to FooManChoo
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:30 pm to Salmon
If you don't all share the same worldview then can you have objective morality? Isn't it up to each individual?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:31 pm to olddawg26
quote:Like I said previously, they have the law of God (the one, true God [Yahweh]) written on their hearts which manifests in what we call the conscience. They then took such understanding (conscious or subconscious) and created their own moral systems which have corrupted the law of God and twisted it to fit their sinful inclinations. Those groups you listed aren't alone in that regard.
While we're at it, where do Hindu, Muslim, and Ra worshippers objective morality come from?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
rape and slavery are fine for you if you believe it's OK.
Okay but even Neanderthals couldn't live like this or we wouldn't be here. We know we can't go around murdering. You say murder is always wrong, I'd say death penalty would make it subjective. Our adrenaline glands are too big with undersized frontal lobes. We are poorly evolved, but to give objective morality to the mere belief in a high power is subjective in its own nature. It doesn't make it true simply because you think it's true for you.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:33 pm to FooManChoo
So overall, you would agree with this.
The mere belief in ANY god, gives someone objective morality, while not believing in something like that, negates someone's innate (objective) morality.
Is that right?
The mere belief in ANY god, gives someone objective morality, while not believing in something like that, negates someone's innate (objective) morality.
Is that right?
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:33 pm to FooManChoo
"Objective," with a big "O", as in, "hard universal truth?" Sure. There is no true OBJECTIVE moral right.
"Objective" with a little "o", as in, the innate desire of us as humans to help each other? Of course there is. There are rationalizations and explanations for why this is the case that don't require any semblance of a higher order or first mover to substantiate.
"Objective" with a little "o", as in, the innate desire of us as humans to help each other? Of course there is. There are rationalizations and explanations for why this is the case that don't require any semblance of a higher order or first mover to substantiate.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:44 pm to Salmon
quote:In an atheistic worldview where subjective morality is the only reality, this should be a black and white answer.
This isn't a black or white answer. I would have to answer this on a case by case basis.
If we are talking about donating time and/or money to flood victims, no, I don't think you are a bad person if you don't help flood victims.
If there is no objective moral standard applied equally to all people in all times, then morality is subjective by default. Subjective morality is a standard that originates within each individual and is neither "good" nor "bad" in an objective sense.
Therefore, if all moral standards are equal, you have to accept that it's fine for others to not help those in need, regardless of the context. Otherwise, you are applying your own subjective moral code to someone else who doesn't share it and neither of your moral standards would be better or worse than the other. While you might be indignant based on some feeling you have, you would not be justified in judging the other person for their actions based on your own acceptance of moral subjectivity.
quote:Emotions are of no concern. I'm talking about a framework by which people interpret reality. An atheist is an atheist is an atheist. Perhaps I could be more specific in saying someone who is naturalistic (only the natural exists; nothing supernatural exists), materialistic (only the material exists; nothing immaterial exists), and atheistic (there is no God; everything exists naturally by chance). I would say that anyone who can be defined by those three things fall into the same boat in regards to overall worldview, especially where morality is concerned.
You believe all atheists have the same emotions? Same worldview?
quote:I didn't say that all atheists share all the same beliefs. I've found that most atheists that I've encountered are inconsistent with their own worldviews, especially in terms of morality. That's why I made my initial statement about objective morality, because I knew there would be some inconsistent atheists respond.
That we all share the same worldview and/or beliefs. That we are somehow not vulnerable to emotional reactions
I never said anything about atheists not being vulnerable to emotional reactions. Atheists are humans, too, and all humans are created in the image of God and share many characteristics, including emotions (with few exceptions).
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:47 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
Christians outpace federal government
Reason #1098 why the big government supporters are wrong; reason #40897 why the ppl that think religious organizations shouldn't be tax free organizations are morons.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:48 pm to FooManChoo
Explain how subjective morality has to produce black and white answers.
That would seem quite backwards.
That would seem quite backwards.
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 9/14/17 at 1:58 pm to Salmon
I've always considered the Bible to be subjective regardless. Written by humans, interpreted many different ways. I don't see how objective morality can only come from the god in that book.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:02 pm to olddawg26
quote:I agree with you; a rational civilization cannot live fully consistent with an atheistic worldview and the moral subjectivity that comes with it and survive. Every civilization needs to act in accordance with the moral law of God (to varying degrees, at least) in order to have relative peace. Every civilization that survives and even prospers has to enforce rules and laws that are consistent with the moral law of God in terms of how humans interact with other humans. Such civilizations do not allow for each individual to create and enforce their own subjective moral standards.
Okay but even Neanderthals couldn't live like this or we wouldn't be here. We know we can't go around murdering.
You haven't refuted the justification for moral subjectivity within atheism but have only stated that consistency with that worldview would lead to chaos, death, and destruction, and I agree with that 100%.
quote:Murder is not the same thing as killing someone. Murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. The death penalty (depending on the society you live in) can very well be lawful. Within my own worldview, I view the death penalty to be morally justified because the law-giver (God) has said that it is justified.
You say murder is always wrong, I'd say death penalty would make it subjective.
If the only moral reality was moral subjectivity, murder could be both "right" and "wrong", depending on the individuals or larger groups who are deciding it as such. Granted, if murder was lawful, I think it would cease to be murder in a subjective worldview. I view abortion on-demand as murder because I'm comparing it to God's standard, not the standard of the U.S. penal code, but I digress.
quote:I admit that my beliefs don't make morality objective, but my beliefs allow for the possibility (and I believe, reality of) objective morality. Athesism does not allow for the possibility of moral objectivity, and that's the point I'm getting at. I'd love for all self-described atheists to stop judging others' moral standards based on their own moral standard when no one's standard is better or worse than anyone else's by default in that worldview.
Our adrenaline glands are too big with undersized frontal lobes. We are poorly evolved, but to give objective morality to the mere belief in a high power is subjective in its own nature. It doesn't make it true simply because you think it's true for you.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:05 pm to olddawg26
quote:I agree in principle but would say it depends on the god (their characteristics) that someone believes in.
So overall, you would agree with this.
The mere belief in ANY god, gives someone objective morality, while not believing in something like that, negates someone's innate (objective) morality.
Is that right?
Objective morality requires a moral agent of some kind that creates, imposes, and enforces a moral standard universally on all of mankind; morality has to be transcendent to humans. Our concept of a being capable of doing that is aligned with the concept of the divine, given the supernatural qualities necessary for objective morality to exist.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The mere belief in ANY god, gives someone objective morality, while not believing in something like that, negates someone's innate (objective) morality.
Is this a correct sentence or no
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:07 pm to Strophie
quote:If you're an atheist, that's right.
"Objective," with a big "O", as in, "hard universal truth?" Sure. There is no true OBJECTIVE moral right.
quote:No, there isn't. When you are talking about innate desire in humans, you are talking about subjectivity. Each human experiences this desire differently, therefore it cannot, by definition, be objective.
"Objective" with a little "o", as in, the innate desire of us as humans to help each other? Of course there is.
quote:Given that your definition of "little o" objectivity doesn't exist, please elaborate.
There are rationalizations and explanations for why this is the case that don't require any semblance of a higher order or first mover to substantiate.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:08 pm to olddawg26
quote:Given that it was too broad, I would have to say "no". I don't believe what you said is correct. I explained why.
Is this a correct sentence or no
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:09 pm to olddawg26
quote:The board leans libertarian.
I see this a lot on this board and I find that super weird and suspicious.
Libertarians are heavily objectivists/utilitarians. Both of those philosophies are heavily atheist
Posted on 9/14/17 at 2:13 pm to Salmon
quote:I'll explain.
Explain how subjective morality has to produce black and white answers.
That would seem quite backwards
Moral subjectivity can be summarized as "anything goes". I'm right. You're right. Hitler's right. Ghandi's right. Jesus is right. And so on. But even then, it's not a matter of "right", because if morality is subjective, there really is no right and wrong. There is only motive and action. Things happen and that's the way it is. We can't make objective moral claims one way or the other because objective moral claims they don't exist.
I think killing Jews for being Jews is wrong. Hitler thought that killing Jews for being Jews was right. Which one of us is actually "right" if morality is subjective? Neither of us. Both of us.
Maybe the only black and white answer is that subjective morality cannot produce objective judgment.
Page 4 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News