Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not "inferring" it. I'm saying it plainly: Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Anything less than that is merely some form of agnosticism, and not Atheism at all.

Don't you see how childish your insistence on your knowing who or what this pathetic anthropomorphic god is?

Don't you understand that insults are not any kind of refutation?

Survival is the first principle of life;

It is the first things all creatures want. It isn't what all creatures get.

And nothing in the Naturalistic or Materialistic view of the universe gives them any reason at all to suppose they are guaranteed it, at all. As I say, whole species go extinct all the time. Nature cares nothing for what lives and what dies; stuff just happens.

If you want to make humans an exception to that rule, there are two things you are going to have to beat: death and entropy -- that you are a being headed toward death, and that the entire universe we inhabit is headed toward heat death.

The future, according to Atheism, is extinction for all of us. Inevitably.

What morals are left, when that is the deep future?

[popeye1945]

I'm not "inferring" it. I'm saying it plainly: Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Anything less than that is merely some form of agnosticism, and not Atheism at all.

Don't you see how childish your insistence on your knowing who or what this pathetic anthropomorphic god is?

Don't you understand that insults are not any kind of refutation?

Just calling a spade a spade, if you identify that is your problem.

Survival is the first principle of life;

It is the first things all creatures want. It isn't what all creatures get. [/quote]

Your point?

And nothing in the Naturalistic or Materialistic view of the universe gives them any reason at all to suppose they are guaranteed it, at all. As I say, whole species go extinct all the time. Nature cares nothing for what lives and what dies; stuff just happens.

If you want to make humans an exception to that rule, there are two things you are going to have to beat: death and entropy -- that you are a being headed toward death, and that the entire universe we inhabit is headed toward heat death.

The future, according to Atheism, is extinction for all of us. Inevitably.

What morals are left, when that is the deep future?
[/quote]

You just need to grow up!

[Harbal]

And nothing in the Naturalistic or Materialistic view of the universe gives them any reason at all to suppose they are guaranteed it, at all. As I say, whole species go extinct all the time. Nature cares nothing for what lives and what dies; stuff just happens.

If you want to make humans an exception to that rule, there are two things you are going to have to beat: death and entropy -- that you are a being headed toward death, and that the entire universe we inhabit is headed toward heat death.

The future, according to Atheism, is extinction for all of us. Inevitably.

It's the future according to science, not atheism. Atheists can believe all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff; Christians and other theistic religions don't have a monopoly on that.

What morals are left, when that is the deep future?

Why should what does or does not come after our earthly life make any difference to how we live while we are here? If this is all we have, why wouldn't we want to make the best of it?

[Immanuel Can]

But recourse to any team's god doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality.

That's a totally separate question.

Let us imagine it were true: it would not help Atheism with its own problem.

It would be an et tu quoque fallacy to suppose that if Theism "doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality" (though it actually does; but let that be, because it's not necessary to show in order for the point to remain true) that Atheism automatically therefore must be able to do so. Atheism fails on it's own basis, in this regard. It needs no input from Theism in order to fail to rationalize morality; it does it all by itself.

You can misrepresent what I, as an atheist, believe as much as you like,

Show me where I have allegedly "misrepresented" what you believe. If I have done so, I will retract.

Atheism is no more a belief system than is a-fairyism.

You're mashing unlike cases together. "Fairies" are a manifestly imaginary being, with a fully-known origin in a very local human mythology. "God" is a concept universal in all societies, a plausible hypothesis for 96% of the world's population, including many extraordinary scientists, and a live possibility at this very minute. Your comparison, therefore, partakes of a deliberate reductio fallacy.

So your claim that atheism entails any conclusions, let alone moral ones

Watch my wording carefully, if you want to understand my position: Atheism makes no claims other than "God does not exist" (analytically). But Atheism entails by way of logical consequence a whole series of other beliefs, to which you will also have to accede. These include: that death ends all. That we do not exists for any teleological purpose. That we are here by way of cosmic accident. That the universe does not owe us any future. That the human struggles, sufferings, aspirations and such are not part of some grand narrative, but are rather the happenings of a fated race of dying beings. That what we call "morality" is not reflective of any objective duty at all, but is rather a sociological phenomenon of no particular provenance...and that nobody has any objective obligation to pay any attention to it at all.

Which one of those entailments do you see Atheism as NOT requiring us to accept? Say why. And then I'll have your view straight, as you now have mine.

[Immanuel Can]

Just calling a spade a spade, if you identify that is your problem.

Just noting the difference between the relevant and the irrelevant.

Survival is the first principle of life;

It is the first things all creatures want. It isn't what all creatures get.

Your point?

As follows.

And nothing in the Naturalistic or Materialistic view of the universe gives them any reason at all to suppose they are guaranteed it, at all. As I say, whole species go extinct all the time. Nature cares nothing for what lives and what dies; stuff just happens.

If you want to make humans an exception to that rule, there are two things you are going to have to beat: death and entropy -- that you are a being headed toward death, and that the entire universe we inhabit is headed toward heat death.

The future, according to Atheism, is extinction for all of us. Inevitably.

What morals are left, when that is the deep future?

You just need to grow up!

And you need to wake up.

I've described to you accurately the universe in which you are living, according to Naturalism, Physicalism, Materialism and Atheism. And it seems that you're not ready to face the truth of it. If I'm wrong, say what part of the above isn't absolutely true, according to what you believe about the world.

[Immanuel Can]

And nothing in the Naturalistic or Materialistic view of the universe gives them any reason at all to suppose they are guaranteed it, at all. As I say, whole species go extinct all the time. Nature cares nothing for what lives and what dies; stuff just happens.

If you want to make humans an exception to that rule, there are two things you are going to have to beat: death and entropy -- that you are a being headed toward death, and that the entire universe we inhabit is headed toward heat death.

The future, according to Atheism, is extinction for all of us. Inevitably.

It's the future according to science, not atheism.

Well, then, which are you believing: the scientists or the Atheists, who, as you say "can believe all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff"? If Atheists are, as you say, irrational and unscientific (I agree, of course), will you face squarely the harsh realities that "science," as you say, imposes upon us? Or will you plunge yourself into one of the many soul-salving delusions to which Atheists are prone, the "weird and wonderful" tales they tell themselves to fend of the terror of coming death and extinction?

Are you, by your own account, a realist about things?

What morals are left, when that is the deep future?

Why should what does or does not come after our earthly life make any difference to how we live while we are here?

It should make every difference. If there's an eternity to come, this world is a stage upon which the preliminaries are being prepared. By anybody's account, life is short: eternity is a very long time. It should be infinitely evident which stage of existence really matters.

If this is all we have, why wouldn't we want to make the best of it?

Yes, of course. And as the Biblical saying goes, if that's all there is, then "eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow, we die." But then, it's no longer clear that we need to be moral -- or at least moral in any way that others don't know about -- at all. In fact, the logic of that is that we should grab all the gusto we can get while we can get it, because when death comes, it's all over for all of us...forever.

And eternity is a very long time.

[popeye1945]

Just calling a spade a spade, if you identify that is your problem.

Just noting the difference between the relevant and the irrelevant.

It is the first things all creatures want. It isn't what all creatures get.

Your point?

As follows.

And nothing in the Naturalistic or Materialistic view of the universe gives them any reason at all to suppose they are guaranteed it, at all. As I say, whole species go extinct all the time. Nature cares nothing for what lives and what dies; stuff just happens.

If you want to make humans an exception to that rule, there are two things you are going to have to beat: death and entropy -- that you are a being headed toward death, and that the entire universe we inhabit is headed toward heat death.

The future, according to Atheism, is extinction for all of us. Inevitably.

What morals are left, when that is the deep future?

You just need to grow up!

And you need to wake up.

I've described to you accurately the universe in which you are living, according to Naturalism, Physicalism, Materialism and Atheism. And it seems that you're not ready to face the truth of it. If I'm wrong, say what part of the above isn't absolutely true, according to what you believe about the world.

You are interjecting too much relevant shit into the argument, you said anybody or any organism had any guarantees? What do you imagine civilization, societies, animals or humans are based upon? The common good of the members are served through membership in the communities, survival and well-being of common beings, common biologizes. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, including morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Just noting the difference between the relevant and the irrelevant.



Your point?

As follows.

You just need to grow up!

And you need to wake up.

I've described to you accurately the universe in which you are living, according to Naturalism, Physicalism, Materialism and Atheism. And it seems that you're not ready to face the truth of it. If I'm wrong, say what part of the above isn't absolutely true, according to what you believe about the world.

You are interjecting too much relevant shit into the argument, you said anybody or any organism had any guarantees? What do you imagine civilization, societies, animals or humans are based upon? The common good of the members are served through membership in the communities, survival and well-being of common beings, common biologizes. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, including morality.

You're melting down.

It's okay: facing the truth of the Atheistic worldview is very upsetting...especially to Atheists. I find that almost all of them have to make up soul-salving stories like "the common good" and "well-being," which are essentially meaningless platitudes, to keep themselves from facing the pit over which Atheism dangles them, if they actually were to believe their own Atheism.

Give yourself a few moments, and you'll realize I'm just telling you the simple truth: Atheism gives you no reason to care about "the common good," or "civilization," or "communities," except for how they serve you, personally, temporarily, until you die and go to oblivion. And morality, it turns merely into an impediment to your opportunities to seize the gusto while you can get it, and before the endless night closes in on you.

Atheists need to wake up. And they need to stop worrying so much about what other people believe, and start taking much more seriously what they, themselves say they believe.

[Harbal]

It's the future according to science, not atheism.

Well, then, which are you believing: the scientists or the Atheists,

I suppose I generally accept whatever main stream science says. Science does sometimes get things wrong, and has to later revise some previous position, but that isn't an issue of any kind for me. For example, scientists talk about the Big Bang, which I don't really understand, but I am prepared to take their word for it, as science has a track record of being right. So I believe them, but I don't actually invest -so to speak- anything in that belief, so it is of no consequence to me if they turn out to be wrong. I think most scientists are atheists, so for the most part I'm believing both, which seems unavoidable, really.

If Atheists are, as you say, irrational and unscientific (I agree, of course),

I didn't say atheists are irrational. Atheists are just people, the same as Christians are; some atheists are smart, just like some Christians are, but there are a lot of stupid atheists and Christians. Atheists don't belong to a different species, as one would think according to your comments.

will you face squarely the harsh realities that "science," as you say, imposes upon us?

I don't see any alternative to facing it, it's the way it is.

Or will you plunge yourself into one of the many soul-salving delusions to which Atheists are prone,

I know that Christians are certainly prone to doing that; in fact, it is the centerpiece of their elaborate fantassy, but I don't think atheists do it nearly so much. My point is; not believing in God does not prevent you from believing something equally implausible.

Are you, by your own account, a realist about things?

It depends what you mean by "realist".

Why should what does or does not come after our earthly life make any difference to how we live while we are here?

It should make every difference. If there's an eternity to come, this world is a stage upon which the preliminaries are being prepared. By anybody's account, life is short: eternity is a very long time. It should be infinitely evident which stage of existence really matters.

Regardless of what you or I believe, or say we believe, all we know for sure is that we are here now, so it makes most sense to treat this as the main event, just in case there is nothing else.

If this is all we have, why wouldn't we want to make the best of it?

Yes, of course. And as the Biblical saying goes, if that's all there is, then "eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow, we die." But then, it's no longer clear that we need to be moral

I honestly don't see why knowing we are going to die would make us think morality is any less important; what have the two things got to do with each other?

In fact, the logic of that is that we should grab all the gusto we can get while we can get it, because when death comes, it's all over for all of us...forever.

In my concept of what morality is, logic doesn't really have much of a role. I don't find that assuming eternal oblivion follows death makes morality feel any less important to me. Perhaps I am to be the atheist equivalent of a saint.

[Peter Holmes]

That's a totally separate question.

Let us imagine it were true: it would not help Atheism with its own problem.

It would be an et tu quoque fallacy to suppose that if Theism "doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality" (though it actually does; but let that be, because it's not necessary to show in order for the point to remain true) that Atheism automatically therefore must be able to do so. Atheism fails on it's own basis, in this regard. It needs no input from Theism in order to fail to rationalize morality; it does it all by itself.

You can misrepresent what I, as an atheist, believe as much as you like,

Show me where I have allegedly "misrepresented" what you believe. If I have done so, I will retract.

I find your dishonesty perplexing. You know damn well how you misrepresent atheism. Here's what you write below. 'Atheism makes no claims other than "God does not exist" (analytically).' This is false. You are a liar.
My atheism is nothing more than the rejection of any team's god-claim. (And this has nothing to do with analyticity.) I do not claim that no gods or fairies or spirits or devils or angels exist - because I can't meet the burden of proof for that claim. Just as you can't rationally claim that no fairies exist. You just believe they don't.

Atheism is no more a belief system than is a-fairyism.

You're mashing unlike cases together. "Fairies" are a manifestly imaginary being, with a fully-known origin in a very local human mythology. "God" is a concept universal in all societies, a plausible hypothesis for 96% of the world's population, including many extraordinary scientists, and a live possibility at this very minute. Your comparison, therefore, partakes of a deliberate reductio fallacy.

Rubbish. Gods 'are manifestly imaginary beings, with a fully-known origin in a very local human mythology', which is why rational people don't believe in them - with the exception that you irrationally believe in one of these manifestly imaginary beings. Gods are also concepts (abstract things) 'universal in all societies'. So what? So are devils and other malignant spirits. You god-fantasists are in sound company.

So your claim that atheism entails any conclusions, let alone moral ones

Watch my wording carefully, if you want to understand my position: Atheism makes no claims other than "God does not exist" (analytically). But Atheism entails by way of logical consequence a whole series of other beliefs, to which you will also have to accede. These include: that death ends all. That we do not exists for any teleological purpose. That we are here by way of cosmic accident. That the universe does not owe us any future. That the human struggles, sufferings, aspirations and such are not part of some grand narrative, but are rather the happenings of a fated race of dying beings. That what we call "morality" is not reflective of any objective duty at all, but is rather a sociological phenomenon of no particular provenance...and that nobody has any objective obligation to pay any attention to it at all.

Which one of those entailments do you see Atheism as NOT requiring us to accept? Say why. And then I'll have your view straight, as you now have mine.

Not one of those beliefs is entailed by rejection of any team's god-claim. You don't seem to understand how logical entailment works. Try roughing your premise out. You could use this:

If someone rejects any team's god-claim, then that person must...

Stick in a consequent that you think is entailed, and I'll show you why it isn't. By all means expand the hypothetical into a syllogism, if you prefer. But then the question-begging will be even more evident.

There's also the fallacy of arguing from undesirable consequences, perceived or otherwise. I don't claim you're doing that, but I think it's part of your motivation. 'If there's no god, then the universe has no purpose.'

[Harbal]

It's okay: facing the truth of the Atheistic worldview is very upsetting...especially to Atheists. I find that almost all of them have to make up soul-salving stories like "the common good" and "well-being," which are essentially meaningless platitudes, to keep themselves from facing the pit over which Atheism dangles them, if they actually were to believe their own Atheism.

Wow; disbelief in God really, really irks you, doesn't it?

[Harbal]

I find your dishonesty perplexing. You know damn well how you misrepresent atheism.

He doesn't have a choice. Dirty tricks are all that's left to you when you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Peter Holmes]

I find your dishonesty perplexing. You know damn well how you misrepresent atheism.

He doesn't have a choice. Dirty tricks are all that's left to you when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Yep. Apologists have had many centuries to craft their sophistries and lies about 'evidence'. All to no avail.

[Immanuel Can]

It's the future according to science, not atheism.

Well, then, which are you believing: the scientists or the Atheists,

I suppose I generally accept whatever main stream science says.

From whom do you hear what "mainstream science" says?

Science does sometimes get things wrong, and has to later revise some previous position, but that isn't an issue of any kind for me. For example, scientists talk about the Big Bang, which I don't really understand, but I am prepared to take their word for it, as science has a track record of being right. So I believe them, but I don't actually invest -so to speak- anything in that belief, so it is of no consequence to me if they turn out to be wrong.

Thanks for being frank. I think this is how most people operate in regards to what they conceive as "science." They don't generally know any, nor have a particular knowledge, even, of how "scientific method" differs from other ways of deciding things; but they have been told, either by a person in a lab coat, in school, perhaps, or by the news media that "science says X." And so they trust that.

This is what's called, "Scientism," in philosophical literature: not science itself, but rather the faith-belief that what is presented to one by one's teachers or the media as "science" is guaranteed to be the truth of things, and everything that might call any of these passed-on "scientific" declarations simply some kind of superstition or foolishness.

But if we think for a minute, we see the problem with Scientism. Firstly, it's quite the opposite of science, in terms of methodology: in science, one investigates for oneself, through disciplined methods. But with Scientism, one accepts on faith whatever somebody else tells one that "the science" has "said." Secondly, the entire process can easily be hijacked: all I have to do is hold a position of information-providing, like newsman or teacher, and I can tell you that "science says" anything I want. And if the hearers are Scientistic, not scientific, they will simply believe me, and think they are getting science, when what they are getting is my propaganda about COVID vaccines, or election integrity, or the climate, or whatever other thing I prefer for them to believe. They will instantly confuse my preferred opinions with "science."

There's nothing wrong with science; there's everything problematic about Scientism.

I think most scientists are atheists, so for the most part I'm believing both, which seems unavoidable, really.

This is a stellar example of Scientistic propaganda, actually: the truth is that while perhaps the majority of people who call themselves "scientists" tend to be Atheists, a great many, and a great many of the true geniuses of science, were and are Theists. So what is the true "scientific" opinion, then: is it the majority of less-astute self-declared "scientists," or is it those stellar geniuses who were not? Is it the Dawkinses and the Harrises who are the true voice of "science," or is it the Bacons, Newtons, Penroses and Collinses of the world who represent what "science" believes?

If Atheists are, as you say, irrational and unscientific (I agree, of course),

I didn't say atheists are irrational.

Actually, you said they believe all kinds of crazy nonsense: I think "weird and wonderful" were your words. That's fairly irrational, is it not?

But we can go one step further: Atheism itself is irrational, so anybody who believes it is, inherently, already believing at least one irrational thing.

will you face squarely the harsh realities that "science," as you say, imposes upon us?

I don't see any alternative to facing it, it's the way it is.

Or will you plunge yourself into one of the many soul-salving delusions to which Atheists are prone,

I don't think atheists do it nearly so much.

But you say that they do it. And I agree.

Why should what does or does not come after our earthly life make any difference to how we live while we are here?

It should make every difference. If there's an eternity to come, this world is a stage upon which the preliminaries are being prepared. By anybody's account, life is short: eternity is a very long time. It should be infinitely evident which stage of existence really matters.

Regardless of what you or I believe, or say we believe, all we know for sure is that we are here now, so it makes most sense to treat this as the main event, just in case there is nothing else.

Except that if there is something else, then that puts you in a very bad position relative to it, potentially. You're weighing temporary gains against infinite potential losses.

If you went to a casino, and the croupier told you the following, would you gamble: he says, "This game gives you a chance to win a prize, if you play it very well; no guarantees, but you might get something. But if you don't win, we chop off your head." Would you play?

If this is all we have, why wouldn't we want to make the best of it?

Yes, of course. And as the Biblical saying goes, if that's all there is, then "eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow, we die." But then, it's no longer clear that we need to be moral.

I honestly don't see why knowing we are going to die would make us think morality is any less important; what have the two things got to do with each other?

. Morality inhibits our options. It tells us we should not do things we want to do, or should start doing things we don't want to do. If our own personal happiness is the goal, and if happiness means me getting whatever I want, then morality is a nuisance at best, a tragic impediment to my fulfillment at worst. And the sooner I get over it, and forget morality altogether (except, perhaps when using it strategically to fool people suits me) the better off I am.

In fact, the logic of that is that we should grab all the gusto we can get while we can get it, because when death comes, it's all over for all of us...forever.

I don't find that assuming eternal oblivion follows death makes morality feel any less important to me. [/quote]
But in reality, it makes your death utterly unimportant to the universe. You may still fear it as much, or endow it with significance that it cannot possibly actually have; but the fact remains that you will die, and the world will forget you...not that it would change anything for you if they DID remember you.

Walk in a graveyard. Look at the stones. Ask yourself what you know about those people, and what good it does them for you to be looking at those stones now.

That's the future of your worldview. As one famed poet has written, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave."

[Immanuel Can]

My atheism is nothing more than the rejection of any team's god-claim.

That is exactly the same thing. You've made a distinction-without-a-difference there, Pete.

As for "dishonesty," it's not dishonesty to see the world differently from another person. It might be dishonesty, though, to pretend one agreed with somebody when one really sees the world differently.

I just happen not to agree that your worldview is true. And that makes major differences between what is obvious to me, and what seems obvious to you. I can live with that.

Gods 'are manifestly imaginary beings,

Most are. One is not. I feel I have very manifest reasons for being convinced of that. That you don't see the same does not startle me: you've begun from a skeptical Materialist-type set of worldview suppositions, it seems; so I don't expect you to see reality the same way.

I only ask that you consider the logic that flows from your own worldview. It's too much to ask that you should simply accept mine.

So your claim that atheism entails any conclusions, let alone moral ones

Watch my wording carefully, if you want to understand my position: Atheism makes no claims other than "God does not exist" (analytically). But Atheism entails by way of logical consequence a whole series of other beliefs, to which you will also have to accede. These include: that death ends all. That we do not exists for any teleological purpose. That we are here by way of cosmic accident. That the universe does not owe us any future. That the human struggles, sufferings, aspirations and such are not part of some grand narrative, but are rather the happenings of a fated race of dying beings. That what we call "morality" is not reflective of any objective duty at all, but is rather a sociological phenomenon of no particular provenance...and that nobody has any objective obligation to pay any attention to it at all.

Which one of those entailments do you see Atheism as NOT requiring us to accept? Say why. And then I'll have your view straight, as you now have mine.

Not one of those beliefs is entailed by rejection of any team's god-claim.

They all are, actually, as I can show.

If someone rejects any team's god-claim, then that person must...

Stick in a consequent that you think is entailed, and I'll show you why it isn't. By all means expand the hypothetical into a syllogism, if you prefer. But then the question-begging will be even more evident.

Let's start with the first, which is a very straightforward one:

P1: Only God can give mortals life after death.
P2: There is no God. (Atheism: or, if you like, "I reject all God claims." Same thing.)
C: There is no life after death.

Now, you say that "none of those" beliefs is entailed by Atheism. But here, it seems clear to me that this (dis-)belief HAS to be entailed by Atheism.

Explain how you concluded I was wrong about that, and an Atheist can still believe in (literal) life after death.