Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[Kenny]

Ken,

You are welcome to argue for objective morality sans creator. Please elaborate.
joel

I don't understand what you are talking about, I did not make a case for objective morality; as a matter of fact, I don't even believe morality is objective; I believe it is subjective. From my experience it is usually the Christian who claims the morality is objective; something I disagree with

Ken

You disagree with it but you live by its tenets. If you want to be intellectually honest enough to carry that position to its logical, deterministic conclusion then you must renounce all language of morality (objective or otherwise), of right and wrong, of love, dignity, personhood, etc etc. Basically you are a collection of atoms and molecules, a product of a blind evolutionary process obeying the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics until such laws spit you out in favor of another species. You are nothing more that a material object that has no more self-worth (whatever that means) than a cockroach or a rock. If, and that's a big IF, you want to be intellectually honest that is. But you won't, will you? You will live your life content in the knowledge that you can stand in moral judgement when it suits you while denying the very source that granted you its benefits.

Please, enough of this farce.

Wow! That's an awful big "leap" you made there fella! Please explain how all that crazyness you just spit out applies to me; simply because I believe morality is subjective rather than objective.

Ken

[Byblos]

Ken,

You are welcome to argue for objective morality sans creator. Please elaborate.
joel

I don't understand what you are talking about, I did not make a case for objective morality; as a matter of fact, I don't even believe morality is objective; I believe it is subjective. From my experience it is usually the Christian who claims the morality is objective; something I disagree with

Ken

You disagree with it but you live by its tenets. If you want to be intellectually honest enough to carry that position to its logical, deterministic conclusion then you must renounce all language of morality (objective or otherwise), of right and wrong, of love, dignity, personhood, etc etc. Basically you are a collection of atoms and molecules, a product of a blind evolutionary process obeying the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics until such laws spit you out in favor of another species. You are nothing more that a material object that has no more self-worth (whatever that means) than a cockroach or a rock. If, and that's a big IF, you want to be intellectually honest that is. But you won't, will you? You will live your life content in the knowledge that you can stand in moral judgement when it suits you while denying the very source that granted you its benefits.

Please, enough of this farce.

Wow! That's an awful big "leap" you made there fella! Please explain how all that crazyness you just spit out applies to me; simply because I believe morality is subjective rather than objective.

Ken

Because there is no such thing as subjective morality Kenny. It only exists in the minds of those who want to deny morality (the only kind, i.e. objective) and yet still employ it to suit their purposes. If you do not believe in God then you're a materialist, whether you want to admit it or not. Matter is all there is, period. You would do well to research and begin following the Churchlands (both husband and wife) because they and their brand of philosophy is the inescapable conclusion of denying God and His morality. Quit living on the fringes of what God afforded you while denying His existence. Be intellectually honest with yourself and no one else and take your position to its ultimate conclusion. I dare you.

[Kenny]

Because there is no such thing as subjective morality Kenny. It only exists in the minds of those who want to deny morality (the only kind, i.e. objective) and yet still employ it to suit their purposes.

Do you know the difference between objective and subjective and how it can be applied to morality?

If you do not believe in God then you're a materialist, whether you want to admit it or not. Matter is all there is, period.

Do you even know what an atheist is? How do you know I don’t believe in ghosts? Or spirits? Or life on other planets that is neither material nor spirit? How do you know I don’t believe in some stuff you never heard of that does not consist of material nor spirit??? Admit it! YOU DON’T! The only thing you know about me is that I don’t believe in your idea of God, and that is not enough for you to assume anything else about me. If you want to know anything about me, ASK!! Don’t accuse, don’t assume, don’t pretend that you know; just ask.

Ken

[Byblos]

Because there is no such thing as subjective morality Kenny. It only exists in the minds of those who want to deny morality (the only kind, i.e. objective) and yet still employ it to suit their purposes.

Do you know the difference between objective and subjective and how it can be applied to morality?

Lol, kenny, my friend, you haven't the faintest idea what objective and subjective mean.

If you do not believe in God then you're a materialist, whether you want to admit it or not. Matter is all there is, period.

Do you even know what an atheist is? How do you know I don’t believe in ghosts? Or spirits? Or life on other planets that is neither material nor spirit? How do you know I don’t believe in some stuff you never heard of that does not consist of material nor spirit??? Admit it! YOU DON’T! The only thing you know about me is that I don’t believe in your idea of God, and that is not enough for you to assume anything else about me. If you want to know anything about me, ASK!! Don’t accuse, don’t assume, don’t pretend that you know; just ask.

I don't need to know you personally to know exactly who you are and what you believe. It is clear as day from what you write. Do you really think this is our first rodeo with a skeptic? You believe in ghosts and spirits but you don't believe in God? Believing in subjective morality is like believing that chocolate is better than vanilla. It's a matter of opinion, there ain't nothin' moral about it. Like I said, you want to be honest with yourself then do some research on materialism, that's the only position available to you outside of God. Anything else and you're deluding yourself into believing you're a moral being, or a being worth anything at all more than the dust you tread on.

[Kenny]

Lol, kenny, my friend, you haven't the faintest idea what objective and subjective mean.

I noticed you didn't answer my question; why am I not surprised?

I don't need to know you personally to know exactly who you are and what you believe.

Maybe not, but you do need to ask!

It is clear as day from what you write.

If that were true, you would be writting something different.

Do you really think this is our first rodeo with a skeptic?

Maybe not, but it is obviously your first rodeo with me!

You believe in ghosts and spirits but you don't believe in God?

If that surprises you or doesn't make any sense to you, then you have a lot to learn about what it is to be an atheist.

Believing in subjective morality is like believing that chocolate is better than vanilla. It's a matter of opinion, there ain't nothin' moral about it.

Is that an attempt at trying to get out of answering my question? I asked a specific question. If you don't have an answer, just say so! There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know everything, I am sure we both have a lot to learn!

Like I said, you want to be honest with yourself then do some research on materialism, that's the only position available to you outside of God. Anything else and you're deluding yourself into believing you're a moral being, or a being worth anything at all more than the dust you tread on.

Either you are purposely spittin' out lies about me or you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am going to give you the benifit of doubt and assume the latter. As I said before, if you want to know what I believe, JUST ASK!!!

Ken

[FlawedIntellect]

Lol, kenny, my friend, you haven't the faintest idea what objective and subjective mean.

I noticed you didn't answer my question; why am I not surprised?

Objective = Absolute. Actual. It is something that stands on its own regardless of whether or not anyone believes in it.
Subjective = Personal views, opinions, preferences.

I don't need to know you personally to know exactly who you are and what you believe.

Maybe not, but you do need to ask!

Perhaps, though your posts have been dropping hints about what you believe.

It is clear as day from what you write.

If that were true, you would be writting something different.

See above. Otherwise, how would you know that he would be writing something different? What is it that you'd think he'd write instead?

Do you really think this is our first rodeo with a skeptic?

Maybe not, but it is obviously your first rodeo with me!

No comment.

You believe in ghosts and spirits but you don't believe in God?

If that surprises you or doesn't make any sense to you, then you have a lot to learn about what it is to be an atheist.

I'm not Byblos, but what I think what he's trying to say is that because you're an atheist, there is rationally a limit to what you can believe and still have a coherent worldview (I.E. as Kurieuo illustrated, a worldview where the puzzle pieces actually fit naturally.) Considering that it seems metaphysics tends to make very little sense when denying God's existence from the get-go, the point is more that it seems the belief in ghosts and spirits makes little sense in the context of atheism. The question would be where do ghosts and spirits come from? Atheism doesn't really account for this. Buddhism, for instance, kinda just takes the existence of spirits as a brute-given, and doesn't really explain where they come from. (At least, this is the case for the Therevada school of thought.) Granted, Therevada Buddhism is more agnostic on the matter of whether or not there is a god, but still, some individuals who hold to Therevada Buddhism may deny the existence of a god, as the worldview itself has nothing to offer on the matter.

Believing in subjective morality is like believing that chocolate is better than vanilla. It's a matter of opinion, there ain't nothin' moral about it.

Is that an attempt at trying to get out of answering my question? I asked a specific question. If you don't have an answer, just say so! There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know everything, I am sure we both have a lot to learn!

I think Byblos's point here is that morality being subjective contradicts the entire nature, definition, and purpose of morality. (Much like how "subjective truth" is a contradiction, as the nature of truth, in and of itself, is objective.)

Like I said, you want to be honest with yourself then do some research on materialism, that's the only position available to you outside of God. Anything else and you're deluding yourself into believing you're a moral being, or a being worth anything at all more than the dust you tread on.

Either you are purposely spittin' out lies about me or you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am going to give you the benifit of doubt and assume the latter. As I said before, if you want to know what I believe, JUST ASK!!!
Ken

Here he's talking less about your actual individual beliefs, and more about the rational implications of your foundational worldview. Atheism, by virtue of denying the existence of God, seems to rob itself of any explanatory power regarding metaphysics and metaphysical things. Do you have any particular beliefs regarding metaphysics that you think are compatible with Atheism? Perhaps if you're willing to provide some ideas?

Which is kinda the point of this thread. Look at the title: "Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists." Perhaps you can start explaining your brand of Atheism?
Regarding ghosts and spirits, if you believe that these things exist, what do you think they are, and where do you think they come from?
Regarding the material world, where do you think it came from? How do you think it works?

[By the way, if there's anything that needs correcting in this post, feel free to do so.]

~FI.

[jlay]

Again,
Ken's struggle gets back to the age old problem of the ontological vs epistemological issue.
He sees the various 'interpretations' of morality in society (past and present) and then says, "see morality is subjective."
But, that is an epistemological matter. Those questions SHOULD lead us to ask, "How do we know one interpretation is "better" than another?"

In fact, his opinion that morality is subjective is in itself a subjective opinion. Of course, he thinks his opinion (that morality is subjective) is true. And not just true for him, but true for all people at all times. What he is saying (without realizing it) is that his opinion is........drum roll.......objectively true. For whatever reason, Ken cannot understand that he is lighting the fuse that blows up his own argument. He doesn't seem to be able to understand that stating that OM doesn't exist is in fact an objective truth claim. And one that ultimately has objective moral implications. When you say something doesn't EXIST, you are making a claim about reality. Whether something exists or not is not a subjective matter.

If you take the materialist notion of SM, and then extract all theistic influence from society, you would have a horrific seen. Kantianism and Consequentialism would reign with nothing to restrict the most horrid manifestations. The only reason those postmodern philosophies remotely work is because they have the privilege of existing in a population where theistic ethics still prevail. You see, OM is constraining those philosophies from reaching those potential nightmares. Those who support those philosophies can conveniently ignore this.
Ken then gets offended when someone simply request that he follow his worldview through to its logical conclusions. Why? Because he has the privilege of living in a world that is still greatly influenced by the reality of OM. He ignorantly smuggles in OM, and when we try to point it out he gets bent out of shape. He thinks people SHOULD do the right thing, but in the same breath says the right thing doesn't really have any foundation in the first place. It's just preference.

The atheist is often wrong in assuming that the argument for OM is that there is some exhaustive list of rules stashed in some corner of the cosmos. But that is not what a classical theist arguing at all. OM is NOT the rules. It is the very essence and nature of God Himself.
For example, the 10 commandments are NOT OM. The golden rule is NOT OM. Murder is not wrong because there is a rule against murder. There is a rule against murder because it (murder) is objectively wrong. And the reason it is objectively wrong is because it is against the very nature of God Himself. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is correct because it is grounded in OM, and ultimately on the truth that humans have intrinsic value. Apart from OM, it becomes, "I'll scratch your back, if you'll scratch mine." It becomes a self-serving give and take.

Take someone who is color blind. They cannot distinguish between red and green. Does their inability to do so change whether or not green and red exist and have distinct qualities? No. They interpret them as being the same, but their subjective interpretation does not change what is objectively true.

[Kenny]

Lol, kenny, my friend, you haven't the faintest idea what objective and subjective mean.

I noticed you didn't answer my question; why am I not surprised?

Objective = Absolute. Actual. It is something that stands on its own regardless of whether or not anyone believes in it.
Subjective = Personal views, opinions, preferences.

I don't need to know you personally to know exactly who you are and what you believe.

Maybe not, but you do need to ask!

Perhaps, though your posts have been dropping hints about what you believe.

It is clear as day from what you write.

If that were true, you would be writting something different.

See above. Otherwise, how would you know that he would be writing something different? What is it that you'd think he'd write instead?

Do you really think this is our first rodeo with a skeptic?

Maybe not, but it is obviously your first rodeo with me!

No comment.

You believe in ghosts and spirits but you don't believe in God?

If that surprises you or doesn't make any sense to you, then you have a lot to learn about what it is to be an atheist.

I'm not Byblos, but what I think what he's trying to say is that because you're an atheist, there is rationally a limit to what you can believe and still have a coherent worldview (I.E. as Kurieuo illustrated, a worldview where the puzzle pieces actually fit naturally.) Considering that it seems metaphysics tends to make very little sense when denying God's existence from the get-go, the point is more that it seems the belief in ghosts and spirits makes little sense in the context of atheism. The question would be where do ghosts and spirits come from? Atheism doesn't really account for this. Buddhism, for instance, kinda just takes the existence of spirits as a brute-given, and doesn't really explain where they come from. (At least, this is the case for the Therevada school of thought.) Granted, Therevada Buddhism is more agnostic on the matter of whether or not there is a god, but still, some individuals who hold to Therevada Buddhism may deny the existence of a god, as the worldview itself has nothing to offer on the matter.

Believing in subjective morality is like believing that chocolate is better than vanilla. It's a matter of opinion, there ain't nothin' moral about it.

Is that an attempt at trying to get out of answering my question? I asked a specific question. If you don't have an answer, just say so! There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know everything, I am sure we both have a lot to learn!

I think Byblos's point here is that morality being subjective contradicts the entire nature, definition, and purpose of morality. (Much like how "subjective truth" is a contradiction, as the nature of truth, in and of itself, is objective.)

Like I said, you want to be honest with yourself then do some research on materialism, that's the only position available to you outside of God. Anything else and you're deluding yourself into believing you're a moral being, or a being worth anything at all more than the dust you tread on.

Either you are purposely spittin' out lies about me or you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am going to give you the benifit of doubt and assume the latter. As I said before, if you want to know what I believe, JUST ASK!!!
Ken

Here he's talking less about your actual individual beliefs, and more about the rational implications of your foundational worldview. Atheism, by virtue of denying the existence of God, seems to rob itself of any explanatory power regarding metaphysics and metaphysical things. Do you have any particular beliefs regarding metaphysics that you think are compatible with Atheism? Perhaps if you're willing to provide some ideas?

Which is kinda the point of this thread. Look at the title: "Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists." Perhaps you can start explaining your brand of Atheism?
Regarding ghosts and spirits, if you believe that these things exist, what do you think they are, and where do you think they come from?
Regarding the material world, where do you think it came from? How do you think it works?

[By the way, if there's anything that needs correcting in this post, feel free to do so.]

~FI.

Flawed Intellect
Objective = Absolute. Actual. It is something that stands on its own regardless of whether or not anyone believes in it.
Subjective = Personal views, opinions, preferences.

Ken
Thanks for answering my question. Do you believe all morals are objective? Or that some are objective, and some are subjective. And for those that are objective; do you believe everybody knows the right/wrong issue even if they claim to object to it? Example; If homosexuality is an objective moral issue does everybody deep down know the truth of if it is wrong or right and those who claim otherwise are just being dishonest because they have an agenda to push? Or is half the population unaware of the truth of weather it is right or wrong even though it is objective and not subjective.


Flawed Intellect
Perhaps, though your posts have been dropping hints about what you believe.


Ken
Probably; even though some of his accusations of me are true, some of them are not; that’s why it is better if he just ask.


Flawed intellect
See above. Otherwise, how would you know that he would be writing something different? What is it that you'd think he'd write instead?


Ken
He would have left out those accusations of me that were false, and just stuck with the true ones.


Flawed Intellect
I'm not Byblos, but what I think what he's trying to say is that because you're an atheist, there is rationally a limit to what you can believe and still have a coherent worldview (I.E. as Kurieuo illustrated, a worldview where the puzzle pieces actually fit naturally.)

Ken
I disagree! The puzzle pieces might not fit from your perspective, but they fit perfectly from mine. Just as I am sure you are aware the bible and Christian world view do not fit when looking at the puzzle from my perspective, but when looking at it from yours I am sure everything fit’s perfectly.

Flawed Intellect
Considering that it seems metaphysics tends to make very little sense when denying God's existence from the get-go, the point is more that it seems the belief in ghosts and spirits makes little sense in the context of atheism.

Ken
Just for the record, I do not believe in Ghosts or spirits; but if I did it would make sense to me in a way that you just aren’t able to see.



Flawed Intellect
I think Byblos's point here is that morality being subjective contradicts the entire nature, definition, and purpose of morality. (Much like how "subjective truth" is a contradiction, as the nature of truth, in and of itself, is objective.)

Ken
How? Please explain how believing morality is subjective contradicts the definition of morality. I mean, if you say (for example) Gay marriage is objectively wrong, and I say Gay marriage is objectively right, that sounds subjective to me; so what makes your opinion right and mine wrong in order to call it objective?


Flawed Intellect
Here he's talking less about your actual individual beliefs, and more about the rational implications of your foundational worldview. Atheism, by virtue of denying the existence of God, seems to rob itself of any explanatory power regarding metaphysics and metaphysical things.

Ken
You seem to be under the impression that atheism for me is the same as Christianity is for you; it is not. Atheism is not a world view for me, it answers no questions and it provides no claims. It is just a default position.


Flawed Intellect
Do you have any particular beliefs regarding metaphysics that you think are compatible with Atheism? Perhaps if you're willing to provide some ideas?

Ken
My opinion on metaphysics has nothing to do with atheism, it has more to do with my skepticism.


Flawed Intellect
Regarding the material world, where do you think it came from? How do you think it works?

Ken
Personally I believe the material world has always existed. The idea that something came from nothing makes no sense to me.
BTW Thanks for answering my questions, sorry it took so long to respond, for some reason I was unable to get to this site during the last couple of days.

Ken

[Kenny]

Take someone who is color blind. They cannot distinguish between red and green. Does their inability to do so change whether or not green and red exist and have distinct qualities? No. They interpret them as being the same, but their subjective interpretation does not change what is objectively true.

A person who is color blind has defective vision. 100% of the people with good vision will agree on colors. Do you believe 100% of the people with non defective morals will agree on issues that are objectively moral?

Ken

[B. W.]

Take someone who is color blind. They cannot distinguish between red and green. Does their inability to do so change whether or not green and red exist and have distinct qualities? No. They interpret them as being the same, but their subjective interpretation does not change what is objectively true.

A person who is color blind has defective vision. 100% of the people with good vision will agree on colors. Do you believe 100% of the people with non defective morals will agree on issues that are objectively moral?

Ken

Kenny are you aware that you are committing one form of 'The Fallacy of Materialistic Determinism' by a loaded a question?

Do you think you have non defective morals?
-
-
-

[Kenny]

Kenny are you aware that you are committing one form of 'The Fallacy of Materialistic Determinism' by a loaded a question?

I am unfamiliar with the "fallacy of materialistic deterministm"; IOW no. Again, are people with morals going to agree on what is Objective morals?

Do you think you have non defective morals?
-
-
-

Yes.

[jlay]

Kenny are you aware that you are committing one form of 'The Fallacy of Materialistic Determinism' by a loaded a question?

I am unfamiliar with the "fallacy of materialistic deterministm"; IOW no. Again, are people with morals going to agree on what is Objective morals?

Do you think you have non defective morals?
-
-
-

Yes.

Well Ken, you once again have lit the fuse to blow up your argument. You just argued for objective morals. BW set the bait and you took it.
By what measure do you claim to have non defective morals?

[Kenny]

Kenny are you aware that you are committing one form of 'The Fallacy of Materialistic Determinism' by a loaded a question?

I am unfamiliar with the "fallacy of materialistic deterministm"; IOW no. Again, are people with morals going to agree on what is Objective morals?

Do you think you have non defective morals?
-
-
-

Yes.

Well Ken, you once again have lit the fuse to blow up your argument. You just argued for objective morals.

I Disagree. I don't believe having morals is making a case for objective morals. Please explain why you believe this is the case.

BW set the bait and you took it.
By what measure do you claim to have non defective morals?

On pg 9, the 11th post on that page, I listed 4 points that I believe define morality. Because I am capable of that it is my opinion that I am a moral person.

Ken

PS I wouldn't mind a response to that post also if you wouldn't mind.

[ryanbouma]

Oh boy. Kenny. I really hope you're trying to understand the truth. I think you're really close to seeing that morality is objective. Do you see that it is only your opinion of morality that you're offering. And your opinion (and mine) is utterly dismissed by objectivity. You and I may have empathy and the three other points you made, but it's absolutely irrelevant. If we are merely material, then I could kill you and it doesn't matter, morally. We both know you don't believe this. Of course it matters if I kill you. --- But if it's just our opinion that I shouldn't kill you. Then it really doesn't matter if I kill you.

So is it our opinion that I shouldn't kill you, or is it objectively wrong for me to kill you?

[Kenny]

Oh boy. Kenny. I really hope you're trying to understand the truth. I think you're really close to seeing that morality is objective. Do you see that it is only your opinion of morality that you're offering. And your opinion (and mine) is utterly dismissed by objectivity. You and I may have empathy and the three other points you made, but it's absolutely irrelevant. If we are merely material, then I could kill you and it doesn't matter, morally. We both know you don't believe this. Of course it matters if I kill you. --- But if it's just our opinion that I shouldn't kill you. Then it really doesn't matter if I kill you.

So is it our opinion that I shouldn't kill you, or is it objectively wrong for me to kill you?

What exists that makes it objectively wrong to kill me? I mean; do you believe laws have a physical existence?

Ken