Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Gary Childress]

In their continuous rejection of the existence of the supernatural.

Atheists reject theism. Is "supernatural" necessarily "theism"?

In context: the atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter. Even if he accepts, say, animism, he accepts no ultimate source of morality. He has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right.

As far as I'm aware, "atheists" reject "theism". According to the dictionary Skeptic wants us to refer to, "theism" means:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

The Athenian Greeks were famous for not believing in the Christian God, yet their philosophy is very rich in ethics and morality. Not sure where you're coming up with the conclusion that a person without an objective moral arbiter "accepts no ultimate source of morailty...has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right."

You might want to reevaluate your conclusion, at least I would if I were you. I guess you pretty much do you, though.

[Skepdick]

In their continuous rejection of the existence of the supernatural.

Atheists reject theism. Is "supernatural" necessarily "theism"?

In context: the atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter. Even if he accepts, say, animism, he accepts no ultimate source of morality. He has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right.

Which amounts to rejecting/contradicting P2

Rock and a hard place…

[henry quirk]

As far as I'm aware, "atheists" reject "theism".

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

The Athenian Greeks were famous for not believing in the Christian God, yet their philosophy is very rich in ethics and morality. Not sure where you're coming up with the conclusion that a person without an objective moral arbiter "accepts no ultimate source of morailty...has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right."

How many gods did the Athenians pay homage to? Overall they weren't atheists.

As for this...

The atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter. Even if he accepts, say, animism, he accepts no ultimate source of morality. He has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right.

Please, tell me what the atheist bases his morality on. Even if you were right and Athenians had a rich ethical and moral body without a god-belief, where did these ethics and morals cone from? Opinion and might makes right, that's where.

[Gary Childress]

As far as I'm aware, "atheists" reject "theism".

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

The Athenian Greeks were famous for not believing in the Christian God, yet their philosophy is very rich in ethics and morality. Not sure where you're coming up with the conclusion that a person without an objective moral arbiter "accepts no ultimate source of morailty...has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right."

How many gods did the Athenians pay homage to? Overall they weren't atheists.

As for this...

The atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter. Even if he accepts, say, animism, he accepts no ultimate source of morality. He has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right.

Please, tell me what the atheist bases his morality on. Even if you were right and Athenians had a rich ethical and moral body without a god-belief, where did these ethics and morals cone from? Opinion and might makes right, that's where.

If you've read any Greek moral philosophy, you would know that "might makes right" is not how every Greek philosopher looked at morality. Sophists said "man is the measure of all things" but even that doesn't suggest immorality by necessity. Like IC, you seem to take more relish in negating atheists than you do in adhering to Christianity.

[Lacewing]

In context: the atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter.

Because the idea of it seems made-up by humans.

Non-belief in such a thing does not make one inclined to 'choose to rape or slave or murder, or steal or defraud'.

Belief in such a thing does not make one moral.

Don't actions matter more than belief?

He has no measure for right and wrong

Measurements are made up by civilizations, cultures, families, etc., in many different forms... and such measurements are applied onto varying ideas of gods or spiritual teachers to give them more weight. Why would everyone need such belief in an idol, rather than tapping into their innate awareness (also a collective awareness) -- which is where it comes from in the first place?

[Skepdick]

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

Actually, having taken an unnecessary detour (and thanks to henry's interjection).

On a strict interpretation this conclusion contradicts P2.

Justify the claim that anything man-made is moral.

[henry quirk]

If you've read any Greek moral philosophy, you would know that "might makes right" is not how every Greek philosopher looked at morality.

I didn't say the Greeks were monolithic in view. As a rich culture there were several strains of thinkin' goin' on.

I said: overall they weren't atheists.

I asked: even if you were right and Athenians had a rich ethical and moral body without a god-belief, where did these ethics and morals cone from?

Like IC, you seem to take more relish in negating atheists than you do in adhering to Christianity.

All I'm doin' is pointing out for the subjectivist (which an atheist must be), morality is nuthin' but a personal matter. For him it can't be anything else. He has no measure for right or wrong outside of his opinion of the moment. In weight, choosing not to rape or slave or murder, or steal or defraud is of no more consequence than choosing not to have coffee before bedtime. How it conveniences or inconveniences him is his only measure.

[Gary Childress]

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

Actually, having taken an unnecessary detour (and thanks to henry's interjection).

On a strict interpretation this conclusion contradicts P2.

Justify the claim that any of the social norms curently practiced by humankind are "moral".

Try breaking some social norms that are "moral" and I'll demonstrate "justification" to you.

[Gary Childress]

How it conveniences or inconveniences him is his only measure.[/i]

Have you ever experienced having a conscience, Henry? Do you know what I refer to when I use that word?

[henry quirk]

Non-belief in such a thing does not make one inclined to 'choose to rape or slave or murder, or steal or defraud'.

I didn't say it did.

Don't actions matter more than belief?

You see no difference between killing in self-defense and killing to take a man's wallet?

Measurements are made up by civilizations, cultures, families, etc., in many different forms..

This is what a subjectivist believes, yes.

Why would everyone need such belief in an idol, rather than tapping into their innate awareness (also a collective awareness) -- which is where it comes from in the first place?

Where does this collective awareness come from.

[Gary Childress]

Where does this collective awareness come from.

No one knows. Are you suggesting it's not here? Maybe try doing something immoral to find out? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[henry quirk]

How it conveniences or inconveniences him is his only measure.[/i]

Have you ever experienced having a conscience, Henry? Do you know what I refer to when I use that word?

I have a conscience, a moral compass, yes. It stands true regardless of what civilizations, cultures, families, etc. have to say.

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons. This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded.

If this sense of being the owner of one's own life were not universal, if only some folks felt this way, I could chalk such a thing up to genes or culture, but it is universal. Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding. Where these individuals fail, where they act immorally, is in refusing to recognize and respect others' moral claim to their own lives, liberties and properties.

And becuz this sense of being one's own is universal, I surmise it isn't genetic or cultural. And that brings us to my deism (which currently falls outside this thread).

Anyway: as I say, morality is fact or morality is opinion. There's no other choices available.

[henry quirk]

Where does this collective awareness come from.

No one knows. Are you suggesting it's not here? Maybe try doing something immoral to find out? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I'm a deist. Where do you think I believe conscience, morality, free will come from?

[Lacewing]

Non-belief in such a thing does not make one inclined to 'choose to rape or slave or murder, or steal or defraud'.

I didn't say it did.

Then why is belief necessary?

Don't actions matter more than belief?

You see no difference between killing in self-defense and killing to take a man's wallet?

What has belief got to do with such choices of action?

Why would everyone need such belief in an idol, rather than tapping into their innate awareness (also a collective awareness) -- which is where it comes from in the first place?

Where does this collective awareness come from.

Why would we think it 'comes from' anything? Why do ants naturally work together and know what to do? How do birds and fish know how to move and react together as a collective? Why wouldn't humans have this capability, even if they see themselves as separate individuals? Collective awareness is reflected all throughout nature... and humans are nature... yes?

[henry quirk]

For the record (since some folks, surprisingly, don't know where I stand) I'm a deist and a natural rights libertarian: I'm a moral realist.