Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

It's as if you think that all atheists go through life with the constant thought of God's none existence in their heads.

Not at all, actually.

I really think most Atheists never even interrogate the roots of their own (dis-)belief. They just assume it, never examine it, and move on, I would guess. That's how many of them seem to talk...and just as you are talking right now, as if the most important consideration were merely level of interest, not things like truthfulness, or coherence, or realism.

But that's not necessarily a good thing. One has to be reminded of Socrates' axiom: "The unexamined life is not worth living." That's true in many, many senses. For the Atheist, it may be very specifically true.

[Harbal]

It's as if you think that all atheists go through life with the constant thought of God's none existence in their heads.

Not at all, actually.

I really think most Atheists never even interrogate the roots of their own (dis-)belief.

I can only speak for myself, but it seems a fair assumption that my attitude is not unique. I have thought about the matter -interrogated the issue- and am satisfied with my conclusion that the God thing needs no further consideration. I know you consider that as a sign that I haven't thought about it enough, because if I had thought about it enough, I would eventually be bound to believe in God. You think that believing in God is important, but you have to realise that I don't think it matters whether I believe in God or not.

They just assume it, never examine it, and move on, I would guess.

That seems like a sensible course of action to me.

That's how many of them seem to talk...and just as you are talking right now, as if the most important consideration were merely level of interest, not things like truthfulness, or coherence, or realism.

We are talking about belief in a supernatural being, so I would say that rejection of such beliefs is very much taking truthfulness, coherence and realism into account.

But that's not necessarily a good thing.

I disagree, but I am not making any claims about belief in God being a good or bad thing.

One has to be reminded of Socrates' axiom: "The unexamined life is not worth living." That's true in many, many senses. For the Atheist, it may be very specifically true.

Like I already said, I don't think it matters whether we believe in God or not. If believing in God makes your experience of life more satisfying, or rewarding, then believe in him. We all have emotional and psychological needs, but we don't all have an emotional or psychological need to believe in God, and that is all I think there is to it.

[Immanuel Can]

It's as if you think that all atheists go through life with the constant thought of God's none existence in their heads.

Not at all, actually.

I really think most Atheists never even interrogate the roots of their own (dis-)belief.

I can only speak for myself, but it seems a fair assumption that my attitude is not unique. I have thought about the matter -interrogated the issue- and am satisfied with my conclusion that the God thing needs no further consideration.

Right. Just like every Atheist. Hasn't really thought that through, and doesn't want to risk doing so.

That's how many of them seem to talk...and just as you are talking right now, as if the most important consideration were merely level of interest, not things like truthfulness, or coherence, or realism.

We are talking about belief in a supernatural being, so I would say that rejection of such beliefs is very much taking truthfulness, coherence and realism into account.

If it were, it would be based in some kind of evidence or logic. Atheism's not.

Like I already said, I don't think it matters whether we believe in God or not. If believing in God makes your experience of life more satisfying, or rewarding, then believe in him.

Ah, the old "religion as therapy" mistake.

The majority of people don't believe in religions because it makes them feel good; they only do it if they think their religion is true...with the possible exception of Atheism, as you point out.

[Harbal]

Not at all, actually.

I really think most Atheists never even interrogate the roots of their own (dis-)belief.

I can only speak for myself, but it seems a fair assumption that my attitude is not unique. I have thought about the matter -interrogated the issue- and am satisfied with my conclusion that the God thing needs no further consideration.

Right. Just like every Atheist. Hasn't really thought that through, and doesn't want to risk doing so.

No, that's not what I said.

And I don't see any risk. If it turned out that God did exist, I have no fear that it would be your God, the biblical one.

We are talking about belief in a supernatural being, so I would say that rejection of such beliefs is very much taking truthfulness, coherence and realism into account.
If it were, it would be based in some kind of evidence or logic. Atheism's not.

Rejection of theism is based on pure logic. If you look at nature and find something you can't account for, the logical response is to accept your ignorance, not automatically see it as evidence of God.

Like I already said, I don't think it matters whether we believe in God or not. If believing in God makes your experience of life more satisfying, or rewarding, then believe in him.

Ah, the old "religion as therapy" mistake.

Ah, the old laughing emoji tactic.

The majority of people don't believe in religions because it makes them feel good; they only do it if they think their religion is true...

I think they believe their religion is true because they have become psychologically dependant on believing it.

with the possible exception of Atheism, as you point out.

While I have no reason to believe in any kind of god like entity, I don't actually dismiss the idea as unthinkable. I do, however, dismiss your biblical God as an utterly absurd idea.

[iambiguous]

...the first thing is that Atheism has but one explicit precept: "No gods."

On the other hand, suppose you believe in God but not in the Christian God?

As with most things pertaining to value judgments, it can get tricky:

https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2020 ... is-church/

Only with value judgments and God, the stakes are nothing short of staggering.

Which is why I often come back around to how all of this might play out on Judgment Day.

Does the Christian God take into account the fact that some do believe in God but not in Him? Do they still score points for not rejecting God altogether?

And suppose some are atheists only because [in all sincerity] they spent years struggling with a belief in God and, alas, were not able to make that leap of faith? They want to believe in Him, live righteous lives, but it just seems more reasonable not to.

In other words, how imperative is it that you must accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior in order to be saved? Are there loopholes that even those like me might be able to take advantage of?

[Immanuel Can]

I can only speak for myself, but it seems a fair assumption that my attitude is not unique. I have thought about the matter -interrogated the issue- and am satisfied with my conclusion that the God thing needs no further consideration.

Right. Just like every Atheist. Hasn't really thought that through, and doesn't want to risk doing so.

No, that's not what I said.

And I don't see any risk. If it turned out that God did exist, I have no fear that it would be your God, the biblical one.

So this isn't unthinking, on your part? Great. What gives you that confidence. Let's see the data.

We are talking about belief in a supernatural being, so I would say that rejection of such beliefs is very much taking truthfulness, coherence and realism into account.
If it were, it would be based in some kind of evidence or logic. Atheism's not.

Rejection of theism is based on pure logic.

Great. Spell that logic out, would you? I've been longing to find an Atheist who would tell me exactly how "pure logic" can help them out.

If you look at nature and find something you can't account for, the logical response is to accept your ignorance, not automatically see it as evidence of God.

Well, that would depend on what it is you see.

I do, however, dismiss your biblical God as an utterly absurd idea.

I realize that. And I'm all atingle with excitement over the news I'm finally going to see some Atheist data and logic to back their case. What makes it "utterly absurd"?

[Harbal]

Right. Just like every Atheist. Hasn't really thought that through, and doesn't want to risk doing so.

No, that's not what I said.

And I don't see any risk. If it turned out that God did exist, I have no fear that it would be your God, the biblical one.

So this isn't unthinking, on your part? Great. What gives you that confidence. Let's see the data.

I'm afraid I can only offer you my word as a gentleman that I have no such fear.

Rejection of theism is based on pure logic.

Great. Spell that logic out, would you? I've been longing to find an Atheist who would tell me exactly how "pure logic" can help them out.

Well I have never witnessed anything supernatural, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one is able to to reliably demonstrate any kind of supernatural phenomenon. Furthermore, science, or indeed Scientism, never looks for supernatural explanations to its unanswered questions, so it would seem very presumptuous of me behave as if I know better.

If you look at nature and find something you can't account for, the logical response is to accept your ignorance, not automatically see it as evidence of God.

Well, that would depend on what it is you see.

Would it? Well you must be envisaging something that I have hitherto been unable to.

I do, however, dismiss your biblical God as an utterly absurd idea.

I realize that. And I'm all atingle with excitement over the news I'm finally going to see some Atheist data and logic to back their case. What makes it "utterly absurd"?

Why would I bother to construct a case? I am already convinced.

[Immanuel Can]

No, that's not what I said.

And I don't see any risk. If it turned out that God did exist, I have no fear that it would be your God, the biblical one.

So this isn't unthinking, on your part? Great. What gives you that confidence. Let's see the data.

I'm afraid I can only offer you my word as a gentleman that I have no such fear.

And I believe you.

And yet, the question remains as to whether or not you should.

Rejection of theism is based on pure logic.

Great. Spell that logic out, would you? I've been longing to find an Atheist who would tell me exactly how "pure logic" can help them out.

Well I have never witnessed anything supernatural, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one is able to to reliably demonstrate any kind of supernatural phenomenon.

Did you not say, though, that going beyond what you can say is not appropriate? Accepting, as I do, that you don't believe in God, the fact that you don't personally know God, or know any evidence for God, is unsurprising. But it's also nothing more than a personal confession of ignorance of those things or facts, not some sort of a case that anybody should agree with you.

Furthermore, science, or indeed Scientism, never looks for supernatural explanations to its unanswered questions, so it would seem very presumptuous of me behave as if I know better.

Science never looks to the supernatural for explanations not because there aren't any, but because science is not something that can deal with such things. It's the limitedness of science, not the absence of reality of metaphysical things, that is the real problem there.

If you look at nature and find something you can't account for, the logical response is to accept your ignorance, not automatically see it as evidence of God.

Well, that would depend on what it is you see.

Would it? Well you must be envisaging something that I have hitherto been unable to.

As you have said, you have no personal knowledge of these things. But I think there's an element of the disingenuous in your claim not to be able to see the relevant evidence. Anybody can recognize the basic fact of design in nature. So that, at the very least, cannot possibly be beyond your experience. But it may be beyond your willingness to recognize...that's possible.

I do, however, dismiss your biblical God as an utterly absurd idea.

I realize that. And I'm all atingle with excitement over the news I'm finally going to see some Atheist data and logic to back their case. What makes it "utterly absurd"?

Why would I bother to construct a case? I am already convinced.

Presumably, because you actually had one, or knew of one.

[iambiguous]

...Accepting, as I do, that you don't believe in God, the fact that you don't personally know God, or know any evidence for God, is unsurprising. But it's also nothing more than a personal confession of ignorance of those things or facts, not some sort of a case that anybody should agree with you.

Again, however, many, many of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- will tell you exactly the same thing. And more to the point [mine] they will insist that IC himself is ignorant of "things and facts" pertaining to their own One True Path to moral commandments, immortality and salvation.

Now, admittedly, not many of them can link me to 17 YouTube videos that prove historically and scientifically that their own God does exist. But for those who do have their very own "social media" rendition of that, by all means, let's explore them further. Invite IC to join us.

[Will Bouwman]

Atheists want people to believe their view is non-ideological.

I am an atheist. What is this ideology I am unaware of?

Well, the first thing is that Atheism has but one explicit precept: "No gods."

That is the "Atheism" theists have invented. Some theists struggle to accept that their belief is just that: a belief. Someone who does not share that belief is not a theist; they are instead an atheist. As someone who brings up etymology, you ought to appreciate that is what it literally means.

... Atheism's claim, "No gods," must mean we have no reason at all to expect the universe to be a rational place...

Why? It seems to me the contrary is true. If there were no gods interfering, we would expect the same causes to produce the same effects.

P.S. -- On the other matter, the trustworthiness of common dictionaries...

Let me remind you of the other matter:

Well, being dictionary naive, I am happy for you to guide me to any specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition.

There isn't one, because atheism doesn't mean what you call Atheism means.

I can only speak for myself, but it seems a fair assumption that my attitude is not unique. I have thought about the matter -interrogated the issue- and am satisfied with my conclusion that the God thing needs no further consideration.

Right. Just like every Atheist. Hasn't really thought that through, and doesn't want to risk doing so.

Well, I can't speak for Atheists because I'm not one, but as an atheist, it seems to me that the risk of thinking through religion is that you will lose it. What you have clearly thought through is rationalisations of demonstrably untrue Biblical stories. The whole purpose of apologetics is to defend a faith for which the only direct evidence is a book.

[bahman]

If it were, it would be based in some kind of evidence or logic. Atheism's not.

Theism is also not based on logic. Not only it cannot prove that God is real but also it cannot demonstrate why we should follow God!

[Immanuel Can]

I am an atheist. What is this ideology I am unaware of?

Well, the first thing is that Atheism has but one explicit precept: "No gods."

That is the "Atheism" theists have invented.

Let me ask you, then: can an Atheist believe in a God or gods, and still be an Atheist, as you see it?

As someone who brings up etymology, you ought to appreciate that is what it literally means.

I do, actually. Here's what the Wiki says. You can maybe tell me why it's wrong, and particularly, why the underlined isn't true:

"In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods", predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566, and again in 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577."

... Atheism's claim, "No gods," must mean we have no reason at all to expect the universe to be a rational place...

Why? It seems to me the contrary is true. If there were no gods interfering, we would expect the same causes to produce the same effects.

Because, absent God, Atheism requires us to believe that the whole universe is an accident. Moreover, it requires us to imagine that the origin and governing principle of the "evolution" of our brains has to be survival, not truth. And since our brains are accidental byproducts of a random universe, and are keyed to make us able to survive rather than to find truth or decode the universe, why should we trust the pronouncements of those accidental brains?

In fact, what we think is "science" could be no more than our deceptive brains throwing up apparent patterns where none actually exist. Maybe such delusions even help us survive; but they aren't inherently true...and a false belief might help us survive just as easily as a true one. (For example, if I have a belief there's a shark in my swimming pool, I won't drown...even though there's no shark. So I'll survive, but on a false belief.) So now we can no longer expect anything we rationally believe necessarily to also be true. There's nothing that promises any "fit" between rationality and the universe anymore.

P.S. -- On the other matter, the trustworthiness of common dictionaries...

Let me remind you of the other matter:

Well, being dictionary naive, I am happy for you to guide me to any specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition.

There isn't one, because atheism doesn't mean what you call Atheism means.

Ummm...if you look above, you'll find an example: Wikipedia. Here's another, Stanford:

"Defining “atheism” as the state of lacking belief in God faces similar problems. First, while this definition seems short and simple, which is virtuous, it needs to be expanded to avoid the issue of babies, cats, and rocks counting as atheists by virtue of lacking belief in God. While this problem is relatively easy to solve, another is more challenging. This additional problem arises because one can lack belief in God while at the same time having other pro-attitudes towards theism. For example, some people who lack the belief that God exists may nevertheless feel some inclination to believe that God exists. They may even believe that the truth of theism is more probable than its falsity. While such people should not be labeled theists, it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists. The psychological definition also makes atheists out of some people who are devoted members (at least in terms of practice) of theistic religious communities. This is because, as is well-known, some devoted members of such communities have only a vague middling level of confidence that God exists and no belief that God exists or even that God probably exists. It would seem misguided for philosophers to classify such people as atheists."

...it seems to me that the risk of thinking through religion is that you will lose it.

That's sometimes true, but only for irrational religions. In regards to Christianity, I, and countless other scholars as well, down throughout more than two centuries, have found that thinking carefully about theif faith has been very confirming. And if you know the history of science, you'll also know that it's not accidental that science appeared in the Christian West, but not in, say, Confuscian China, Hindu India, animinist Africa, or among the many aboriginal nations of North America. It began because of the metaphysical principles of Christianity, and its very most basic method was first proposed by a theologian, Francis Bacon. Most of the early scientists, in fact, were even clergymen; and even today, many scientists remain Theists.

So much for the old religion-against-science trope. It may be a convenient belief for Atheists, but is not related to truth. Perhaps it's just like one of those false beliefs that help Atheists survive-As-Atheists; but in any case, it doesn't reflect the history or the real world even today.

[Immanuel Can]

If it were, it would be based in some kind of evidence or logic. Atheism's not.

Theism is also not based on logic. Not only it cannot prove that God is real but also it cannot demonstrate why we should follow God!

I think it can. It at least has evidence for its claims, and it at least can make sense on its own terms -- if God turns out to exist, as we say. Atheism cannot do that much, even.

[bahman]

If it were, it would be based in some kind of evidence or logic. Atheism's not.

Theism is also not based on logic. Not only it cannot prove that God is real but also it cannot demonstrate why we should follow God!

I think it can. It at least has evidence for its claims, and it at least can make sense on its own terms -- if God turns out to exist, as we say. Atheism cannot do that much, even.

Let's assume that God exists! How could you prove that morality is objective by reason?

[Immanuel Can]

Theism is also not based on logic. Not only it cannot prove that God is real but also it cannot demonstrate why we should follow God!

I think it can. It at least has evidence for its claims, and it at least can make sense on its own terms -- if God turns out to exist, as we say. Atheism cannot do that much, even.

Let's assume that God exists! How could you prove that morality is objective by reason?

Oh, you've made it too easy. You gave me all I needed in the first premise.

If God exists, and He created this world, then He alone know for certain what all its right uses are. It's objectively designed for objective moral outcomes...and objective morality is built right into the system.

Give me a harder challenge, if you've got one.