La pregunta para ateos., (question for atheists) Options

[radhikaeatsraman]

'Kay, so this is how people (usually) come to find atheism. (In a nutshell.) They question their belief in their god and their religion, they do a little research, badabing badaboom, they're nonbelievers. (Yes, I know I'm being horribly inaccurate here, but just go with me.)

As an atheist being raised in a fairly religious family, I find myself questioning my atheism sometimes, the same way a believer may question their faith. I know that atheism is not a faith, but sometimes I wonder if faith could be right and atheism could be wrong.

Discuss? Feel free to move this to Debate if you like.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

How flexible is religion? Can one's definition of what Catholicism be different from another? If so, wouldn't the belief that one religion means dot dot dot be a religion in itself. Thought about it for awhile, could not really get a good answer to it.

[*kryogenix*]

That's why I said, you gotta have faith.

What if two people have faith in contradicting ideas? Both ideas cannot be the truth.

Moral relativism doesn't make sense at all. Saying that there is no moral truth implies that it would be a lie to say that there is a moral truth. See the contradiction?

Choosing morality is not like choosing your favorite color.

How flexible is religion? Can one's definition of what Catholicism be different from another? If so, wouldn't the belief that one religion means dot dot dot be a religion in itself. Thought about it for awhile, could not really get a good answer to it.

No. If your beliefs don't line up with the Catholic Catechism, your beliefs are not Catholic beliefs.

[NoSex]

Moral relativism doesn't make sense at all. Saying that there is no moral truth implies that it would be a lie to say that there is a moral truth. See the contradiction?

Choosing morality is not like choosing your favorite color.

Actually, it does make sense. Perfect sense.
I strongly believe that Morality is subjective just for the simple fact that it exists dependent of the intellectual observer. X is not bad, we only think it to be bad. And, since I don't believe in a God, I do not believe in a divine and objective moral code.

Your example of a contradiction is awful.
The problem is that you are imposing your own moral conceptions of what a lie is.
You are pretty much trying to pove that there is moral truth, by using a premise that relies on moral truth. It's circular reasoning.

A lie is neither "right" nor "wrong." A lie is simply the act of making an untrue statement. You believe, as a moral truth, that making untrue statements is immoral, not everyone believes this. And clearly, a moral relativist would say that there is no absolute moral truth. If there truly were no moral truth, I suppose it would be a lie to say that there is. But, that doesn't demonstrate, in anyway, a contradiction in the theory, especially given that you provide the fact of no moral truth as a premise.

[*kryogenix*]

Actually, it does make sense. Perfect sense.
I strongly believe that Morality is subjective just for the simple fact that it exists dependent of the intellectual observer. X is not bad, we only think it to be bad. And, since I don't believe in a God, I do not believe in a divine and objective moral code.

Your example of a contradiction is awful.
The problem is that you are imposing your own moral conceptions of what a lie is.
You are pretty much trying to pove that there is moral truth, by using a premise that relies on moral truth. It's circular reasoning.

A lie is neither "right" nor "wrong." A lie is simply the act of making an untrue statement. You believe, as a moral truth, that making untrue statements is immoral, not everyone believes this. And clearly, a moral relativist would say that there is no absolute moral truth. If there truly were no moral truth, I suppose it would be a lie to say that there is. But, that doesn't demonstrate, in anyway, a contradiction in the theory, especially given that you provide the fact of no moral truth as a premise.

I, as an adherent, know your statement is false. You use a false premise to prove your point.

Relativism is wrong simply because making the statement that there is no such thing as absolute morality is an absolute statement in itself. It's self defeating. No circular logic there.

The only way to prove moral relativism is correct would be to prove that there is no absolute standard. The person I was replying to (xnofearx) believes in both Buddhism and Catholicism. It is contradictory to believe in God (provider of moral standard) and moral relativism at the same time.

[NoSex]

I, as an adherent, know your statement is false. You use a false premise to prove your point.

Relativism is wrong simply because making the statement that there is no such thing as absolute morality is an absolute statement in itself. It's self defeating. No circular logic there.

The only way to prove moral relativism is correct would be to prove that there is no absolute standard. The person I was replying to (xnofearx) believes in both Buddhism and Catholicism. It is contradictory to believe in God (provider of moral standard) and moral relativism at the same time.

You are confusing Moral Relativism with an "absolute" Relativism. I'm saying, morality, and aesthetics, among other things, are entirely subjective matters and have no real truth value. However, there are many things which are objective matters. Including the empiracle and the existential.

A moral relativist is not saying that there is no objective truth, he is simply saying that moral propositions have no truth value or that they are subjective.

Moral relativism doesn't make sense at all. Saying that there is no moral truth implies that it would be a lie to say that there is a moral truth. See the contradiction?

Choosing morality is not like choosing your favorite color.

Again, I still don't see the contradiction. Explain yourself.
Remember, we are talking about morality as relative or subjective, not the entire universe.

[*kryogenix*]

and oh yes is it quite annoying lol
wanna know what else I noticed
we who are rational atheists are most of the time the smartest ppl
not to be boasting or anything but you know it true

I guess the "smartest" people forget to put punctuation in their sentences then.

You are confusing Moral Relativism with an "absolute" Relativism. I'm saying, morality, and aesthetics, among other things, are entirely subjective matters and have no real truth value. However, there are many things which are objective matters. Including the empiracle and the existential.

This is absolutely ridiculous. In subscribing to moral relativism, you give up the ability to debate the morality of an issue or impose your moral standards on other people. Thus, moral relativists would be hypocrites if they voted based on legislation, because they would be attempting to impose their beliefs on others.

A moral relativist is not saying that there is no objective truth, he is simply saying that moral propositions have no truth value or that they are subjective.
Again, I still don't see the contradiction. Explain yourself.
Remember, we are talking about morality as relative or subjective, not the entire universe.

Ok, let's dissect it. MR for Moral Relativist, MA for Moral Absolutist.

MR: There is no moral truth.
MA: There is moral truth. Saying otherwise would be a lie.
MR: But I don't belive that it is wrong to lie. Therefore your arguement fails.
MA: If you don't believe that is wrong to lie, how do I know you are not lying about lack of moral truth to justify other behavior?

One who argues that there is no immorality in lying defeats the original arguement. However, he who argues that lying is not wrong loses credibility.

[NoSex]

This is absolutely ridiculous. In subscribing to moral relativism, you give up the ability to debate the morality of an issue or impose your moral standards on other people.

Not true at all. You could still very well impose your moral standards on another. You could also argue as to why one should value one moral choice over another. However, what you could not do is argue that one moral choice is right, while another is wrong. You could not say that there is an objective moral system.

It's no different then explaining why one character is more appealing than any other. Or, why one book is better than the next. They are subjective matters and only relative to our desires and tastes.

Ok, let's dissect it. MR for Moral Relativist, MA for Moral Absolutist.

MR: There is no moral truth.
MA: There is moral truth. Saying otherwise would be a lie.
MR: But I don't belive that it is wrong to lie. Therefore your arguement fails.
MA: If you don't believe that is wrong to lie, how do I know you are not lying about lack of moral truth to justify other behavior?

One who argues that there is no immorality in lying defeats the original arguement. However, he who argues that lying is not wrong loses credibility.

Wow. That is an awful argument. It's utterly non sequitur.
Nothing in that conversation proves either side or even presents a single ounce of evidence.
Logical arguments are not based on "credibility" of speaker. Not to mention, imagine if the MR said, "There is no moral truth. Saying otherwise would be a lie."
Then, are we to assume that the MA is lieing?
Your argument makes no sense.
It has presented no contradiction.
If anything, you are simply saying that no one can have a judgement call on a subjective matter, which is entirely absurd. Unless, of course, you believe aesthetics are objective. In which case, I think I might laugh.

[*kryogenix*]

Not true at all. You could still very well impose your moral standards on another. You could also argue as to why one should value one moral choice over another. However, what you could not do is argue that one moral choice is right, while another is wrong. You could not say that there is an objective moral system.

This makes no sense. Believing in subjective moral truths means that "opinion" on moral belief must be accepted, even if it differs from your own. Moral relativists have no right to tell others that any of their behavior is wrong, because by their standards, the moral beliefs of the other people are right simply because that's what they believe in.

It's no different then explaining why one character is more appealing than any other. Or, why one book is better than the next. They are subjective matters and only relative to our desires and tastes.

Absolutely not. If someone says that one book is better than another, you can disagree with them, you can try to prove them wrong, but you can't do much else. What if one was to say that genocide is ok? Are you limited to disagreement and debate only, since it is a subjective matter?

Wow. That is an awful argument. It's utterly non sequitur.
Nothing in that conversation proves either side or even presents a single ounce of evidence.
Logical arguments are not based on "credibility" of speaker. Not to mention, imagine if the MR said, "There is no moral truth. Saying otherwise would be a lie."
Then, are we to assume that the MA is lieing?
Your argument makes no sense.
It has presented no contradiction.
If anything, you are simply saying that no one can have a judgement call on a subjective matter, which is entirely absurd. Unless, of course, you believe aesthetics are objective. In which case, I think I might laugh.

Ok...

Do you accept the Bible as historical truth?

[NoSex]

This makes no sense. Believing in subjective moral truths means that "opinion" on moral belief must be accepted, even if it differs from your own. Moral relativists have no right to tell others that any of their behavior is wrong, because by their standards, the moral beliefs of the other people are right simply because that's what they believe in.

I must say your view of ethics is rather unsophisticated. The moral relativist is simply making a metaethical statement. There is no moral truth, moral propositions are not objective, the origins of morality are our tastes, desires, evolution, and society (among other things). There is no "right" or "wrong." All there truly is is "good for me, bad for me, good for you, bad for you." These are ideas based on our values and tastes. We value our lives so we perceive it as "wrong" (or against that value) to harm life. It's very basic. Coupled upon are Enlightened-Selfishness and Self-Hypocrisy theories.

No one is required to accept a certain moral standard. They can recognize it, evaluate it, and determine its usefulness, rational backing, consequence, and practicality. The moral relativist has the "right" consider a moral choice "wrong" or "right" and voice his opinion just as much as anyone has the "right" to consider an aesthetic point poor or agreeable.

The moral relativist makes rational judgements on what kind of moral choices he wants to make as well as what he believes other should make in relation to the human condition.

Absolutely not. If someone says that one book is better than another, you can disagree with them, you can try to prove them wrong, but you can't do much else. What if one was to say that genocide is ok? Are you limited to disagreement and debate only, since it is a subjective matter?

I was simply talking about the metaphysical aspect of appealing literature, art, or music. I was comparing the existence of these subjective matters to the matter of deciding moral guidelines and making ethical decisions. You went so far as to discuss how we treat the two matters differently, which we clearly do, and understandably so.

A debate among many people on which film is the best movie of all time will not likely result in serious authority being invoked or disorder breaking out. This is because, although everyone is drawing from different values in making their opinion, none of their values are at risk. When debating a moral issue, if someone is going to do something that you consider immoral, chances are they are breaking some kind of value you hold. This is far more threatening than an aesthetic debate. For example, if someone wants to kill people, the value you hold for your life may be threatened, most people hold this same value and would not like their lives threatened either so the act of murder becomes "bad." Unless of course, we live in a society which feels safe only killing certain people, like serial murders, witches, and other sorts of heathens. These acts of murder, which are indeed the same act as any murder (taking ones life) are considered moral because they are perceived not to threaten our values, rather enforce them.

In either case (genocide, or literature) we are not limited to debate. We could lock someone up for liking certain literature (and we have before) or we could politely disagree with someone who is down with genocide (which we have) however, the values at risk, in each case, are both very different. So, in general, books are politely debated, and people are thrown in jail for genocide.

Ok...

Do you accept the Bible as historical truth?

This seems almost as non sequitur as your argument. Why are you asking me this? I can only speculate. However, I will answer your question.

No, I do not accept the Bible as historical truth. I could go into detail, because the answer is far more complex than that, but let's keep it short and sweet as I would imagine you have a point.