Atheists and the Dictatorship of Relativism

[Mornac]

I meant that if you want to term my morality as relativist, then that's okay with me.

--Well that’s the topic of the video at the top. I was under the impression that you were taking exception to it.

Looking at the wide expanse of the universe, and even different cultures on this planet, morality is fundamentally relative. It's only a relative constant across the Western world, just to name the dominant culture that we're most familiar with.

--If you accept that there is such a thing as truth, then there can be only one morality that is relative to truth. Note that you don’t have to accept that said morality is expressed anywhere, but logically you must accept that – whereas all moral code contradict one another at certain junctures – only one can be in tune with the truth.

But atheist morality, as most morality, basically precludes harming other people.

--Do you hold atheist morality to be the one morality that reflects truth?

Dogmatic

--Precisely.

As you're no doubt aware, there is a lot of debate about that.

--And is that debate valid? Or is one side of it rife with clinical imbeciles who ought to be institutionalized before they do any more harm to society.

It would still be causing them harm.

--I don’t see how. Please explain.

You may have a point.

--So it can be said that such a person would be exercising atheist morality founded on virtue. Interesting.
   

Of course, this sort of thing will eventually happen naturally anyway.

--That debate has nothing to do with morality. I’m just interested in the will and actions of people.

That earlier comment was regarding economics and taxation,

--Perhaps you could give me a list of the areas where atheist morality allows for relativism and the areas where it is forbidden (dogmatically I presume).

 

a subject not quite so clearcut as mass murder.  Hopefully you can see the difference.

--Mass murder? Suppose this atheist feels that a homo sapiens “is not a person”? You allow yourself this scope of judgment within the species. Certainly you accord it to your fellow atheists.

From a universal perspective?  Absolutely.  Human concepts of morality only matter to humans.

--So you disallow even the possibility of a higher (or even other) being to whom concepts of human morality may matter.

And that may be the big distinction that needs to be made.  Morality is not some universal constant.

--I agree. That’s where the problem comes in and that is what is being addressed in the topic video.

It is defined by humans, practiced by humans only on other humans, and matters only to humans.  So an atheist, or anyone else, who wiped out all of humanity would be committing the ultimate act of immoral behavior, I suppose.

--Not in his own mind if he did it for the reasons I stated. Even the Catholic Church does not teach condemnation of an act as sinful if the perpetrator does not realize it’s a sin.

Yes.  I did then, and I do now.

--I sense a bit of inconsistency in your morality.
 

Good.  Then we have an understanding.

--I never thought that we didn’t.

[SpaceCadet]

--If you accept that there is such a thing as truth, then there can be only one morality that is relative to truth. Note that you don’t have to accept that said morality is expressed anywhere, but logically you must accept that – whereas all moral code contradict one another at certain junctures – only one can be in tune with the truth.
--Do you hold atheist morality to be the one morality that reflects truth?

There is no such thing as truth.  Truth is a human concept.  As such, it is important as far as how we treat one another, but it is only important within the realm of humanity.

--And is that debate valid? Or is one side of it rife with clinical imbeciles who ought to be institutionalized before they do any more harm to society.

It is valid.

--I don’t see how. Please explain.

I think I did earlier at some point.  Anyway, I've lost track of exactly what I'm supposed to be explaining.

--So you disallow even the possibility of a higher (or even other) being to whom concepts of human morality may matter.

Yes.

[Mornac]

There is no such thing as truth. Truth is a human concept.  As such, it is important as far as how we treat one another, but it is only important within the realm of humanity.

--How do you know that it’s not important outside the realm of of humanity?

It is valid.

--Yet, you’re not willing to err on the side of caution when it comes to what may well be human lives?

I think I did earlier at some point.  Anyway, I've lost track of exactly what I'm supposed to be explaining.

--You were going to explain how a virtuous atheist who, out of empathy, decides to extinguish all of humanity painlessly, thereby putting a definitive end to any future human suffering.

Yes.

--Almost sounds as though you’re asserting a fact. You just got through telling me that, “There is no such thing as truth.” The highest level your “Yes” can attain under such circumstances is “a strong hunch”.


*Edited to correct an error in continuity.

[SpaceCadet]

--How do you know that it’s not important outside the realm of of humanity?

Pretty much any "truth" you can envision can be shown to be false, through scientific or other means.  Those truths that don't fit into the category of things that can be proven false are usually those that are subjective human "truths".

--Yet, you’re not willing to err on the side of caution when it comes to what may well be human lives?

Actually, I am.  Just not to the point of excluding certain procedures entirely.  I'm in favor of putting much more restriction on abortion than what currently exists.

--You were going to explain how a virtuous atheist who, out of empathy, decides to extinguish all of humanity painlessly, thereby putting a definitive end to any future human suffering.

There wouldn't be any damage done to future generations that don't yet exist.  However, extinguishing living humans, painlessly or not, without their consent, is an immoral action.  One person cannot simply decide for everyone else that they would be better off not existing.  Didn't I explain this once before?  Or did I just think it?  Anyway, since he would also be making the same decision for future generations, an argument could probably be made that it's immoral on that basis also.  Additionally, willfully wiping out any species to extinction is also immoral, to me.

--Almost sounds as though you’re asserting a fact. You just got through telling me that, “There is no such thing as truth.” The highest level your “Yes” can attain under such circumstances is “a strong hunch”.  

Ok.  Technically, you're correct, in that most atheists are actually agnostics since you can't prove a God doesn't exist.  It's possible, but with a probability very close to zero in my estimation, that our entire universe is a computer simulation, and the reason that time, space, matter, and energy are all quantized is because the quantum nature of the universe corresponds to the individual digital bits of information in a computer.  I don't think that's very likely.  I think it's even less likely that there exists a God who created everything by some sort of magic and who has any interest in human affairs.  There's simply no evidence for it.

[Mornac]

Ok.  Technically, you're correct, in that most atheists are actually agnostics since you can't prove a God doesn't exist.

--Actually, that’s really rather encouraging. In fact I’m gonna call it half a loaf and take it. No need to beat this to a pulp right now. I’ll see ya back here the next time a topic piques your interest. (Even this one.)

[SpaceCadet]

I was reminded this morning, at "church" of all places, of an important insight related to this.  The "church" we attend is not a church in the normal religious sense.  It is a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.  People bring their own theology, or belief system, to it and the fellowship is mainly centered around social justice, not so much on questions of religion, except for things that you might term to be "humanism".

Anyway, what I was reminded of this morning is that we don't wait for someone to come save us.  We actively work to make this planet a better place, now and in the future.   And further, especially as it relates to atheists, it is that which gives our lives "meaning".  Although it may be the case for some that the lack of an afterlife, and the lack of service to some deity in exchange for that afterlife, tends to render life without meaning, the active attempt to be of service now to make meaningful changes that will last long after us is what provides that meaning.  It also helps to provide a type of "morality", doing good for those around us and our children.

[IM2]

SC,

I think it's even less likely that there exists a God who created everything by some sort of magic and who has any interest in human affairs.  There's simply no evidence for it.

I beg to differ. There is plenty of evidence, but you don't want to  accept it.

[SpaceCadet]

SC,

I beg to differ. There is plenty of evidence, but you don't want to  accept it.

You don't need to beg.  You can simply differ.   

[Mornac]

I was reminded this morning, at "church" of all places, of an important insight related to this.  The "church" we attend is not a church in the normal religious sense.  It is a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.

--I know of it.

People bring their own theology, or belief system, to it and the fellowship is mainly centered around social justice, not so much on questions of religion, except for things that you might term to be "humanism".

--So basically Masonic in philosophy?

Anyway, what I was reminded of this morning is that we don't wait for someone to come save us.  We actively work to make this planet a better place, now and in the future.

--Then you’re taking a page out of Catholic action. This has been an intrinsic part of Church teaching since our Founder first preached it throughout His public life.

And further, especially as it relates to atheists, it is that which gives our lives "meaning".

--As you will no doubt attest, atheists are not a monolithic group. To qualify as an atheist one need only share a single idea with his fellow atheists. If another atheist (or group of atheists) holds that the amassing of wealth and luxury – even at the expense of others and their “man made” moral code (which may be ignored with atheistic impunity) – gives his life ‘meaning”, you have absolutely no argument to present him. 

Although it may be the case for some that the lack of an afterlife and the lack of service to some deity in exchange for that afterlife, tends to render life without meaning,

--Can’t respond to that. As a Catholic I believe that everyone has an afterlife. It is not something that is given in exchange for anything from anyone. Everyone’s life has only a tarting point. There is no ending point.

the active attempt to be of service now to make meaningful changes that will last long after us is what provides that meaning.

--So what is a mission for us is a source of meaning for you. Okay, there’s no harm there.

It also helps to provide a type of "morality", doing good for those around us and our children.

--Just to clarify: When you speak in the first person plural, you are talking about a finite group of atheists who have come to the same conclusion as you have. Is that right?

[SpaceCadet]

--So basically Masonic in philosophy?

I don't know anything about that.

--Then you’re taking a page out of Catholic action. This has been an intrinsic part of Church teaching since our Founder first preached it throughout His public life.

That's great.  I've never asserted that there is nothing good in religion.  
 

--As you will no doubt attest, atheists are not a monolithic group. To qualify as an atheist one need only share a single idea with his fellow atheists. If another atheist (or group of atheists) holds that the amassing of wealth and luxury – even at the expense of others and their “man made” moral code (which may be ignored with atheistic impunity) – gives his life ‘meaning”, you have absolutely no argument to present him.  

Of course they're not monolithic, any more than is any other group.  But the rest of this is not true.

Here is one article that attempts to explain it, concluding with this:

"So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all. Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change this, and while religious theists may find that their beliefs impact their moral decisions, they cannot claim that their beliefs are prerequisites for making any moral decisions at all."

Of course, it's probably easier to simply threaten people with eternal damnation than to try to explain how moral behavior is necessary for a cohesive social structure.

--Can’t respond to that. As a Catholic I believe that everyone has an afterlife. It is not something that is given in exchange for anything from anyone. Everyone’s life has only a tarting point. There is no ending point.

Why is there a starting point?  If there is no ending point, and every soul is eternal, how and why does something that is eternal "begin"?  Isn't it funny that humans anguish so much over the eventual end to their lives, but they don't worry about where they were before they were born?

--So what is a mission for us is a source of meaning for you. Okay, there’s no harm there.

Nope.

--Just to clarify: When you speak in the first person plural, you are talking about a finite group of atheists who have come to the same conclusion as you have. Is that right?

Well, pretty much everything I have seen indicates that these conclusions are pretty much universal among atheists, but I should probably just talk about myself.  These ideas are probably as common among atheists as your beliefs are common to all who call themselves "Christian", or even "Catholic".

[Mornac]

I don't know anything about that.

--It was just a query. It’s not important to the conversation.

That's great.

--I agree.

I've never asserted that there is nothing good in religion.

--No, you haven’t.

Of course they're not monolithic, any more than is any other group.  But the rest of this is not true.

--Really? Then by all means tell me more about the argument that you’d present to the atheist described.

Here is one article that attempts to explain it,

--“attempts” is accurate.

concluding with this:

--Let’s have a look.

"So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist:

--“should’? Looks like we’re going on a trip down relativism lane.

because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering.

--So who’s “us’ and “we” here? Let me guess: The subgroup of atheists that the author agrees with to the exclusion of atheists of a more hedonistic bent.

It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all.

--And what about atheists that don’t give a hang about the survival of human communities. I’d venture to guess that the majority of the most heinous criminals in our society are atheists who are emboldened in their criminal activity by the belief that there are no eternal consequences to pay for their actions in life.

Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change this,

--Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change anyone’s behavior. We are all endowed with a free will. The only being who can change ones own behavior is oneself .

and while religious theists may find that their beliefs impact their moral decisions, they cannot claim that their beliefs are prerequisites for making any moral decisions at all."

--No, but then again, what is “moral” to an atheist? One atheist’s morality is another atheist’s code for stupid living.

Of course, it's probably easier to simply threaten people with eternal damnation than to try to explain how moral behavior is necessary for a cohesive social structure.

--Actually it is easier to offer people eternal salvation. As far as atheists are concerned, why should I or anyone else believe  that they are concerned about “a cohesive social structure”? I’m sure many of them who were raised in a culture that was forged by Christianity have grown to appreciate the stability therein and have every desire to benefit from it during what they perceive to be their brief existence. However, that certainly doesn’t apply to the more adventurous atheist who wishes to get all of the benefits he can offer his flesh during that period.

Why is there a starting point?

--I don’t know. It wasn’t my decision.

If there is no ending point, and every soul is eternal, how and why does something that is eternal "begin"?

--It is created for reasons known only to the Creator.

Isn't it funny that humans anguish so much over the eventual end to their lives, but they don't worry about where they were before they were born?

--The only human beings who have an “end to their lives” are atheists (or so they believe). You’d have to ask them this question.

Well, pretty much everything I have seen indicates that these conclusions are pretty much universal among atheists, but I should probably just talk about myself.

--No, I already know what you believe. I’m more interested in your ideas about atheists who approach atheism in what they perceive to be a more beneficial way. Those who take all they can get at any cost. There “moral code” may not be to your liking, but you certainly can’t argue that they will come to the exact same end as you do.

These ideas are probably as common among atheists as your beliefs are common to all who call themselves "Christian", or even "Catholic".

--“probably as common…as”? I’m more interested in the absolutes here. After all, the subject deals with the absolute.

[SpaceCadet]

--It was just a query. It’s not important to the conversation.
--I agree.
--No, you haven’t.
--Really? Then by all means tell me more about the argument that you’d present to the atheist described.
--“attempts” is accurate.
--Let’s have a look.
--“should’? Looks like we’re going on a trip down relativism lane.
--So who’s “us’ and “we” here? Let me guess: The subgroup of atheists that the author agrees with to the exclusion of atheists of a more hedonistic bent.
--And what about atheists that don’t give a hang about the survival of human communities. I’d venture to guess that the majority of the most heinous criminals in our society are atheists who are emboldened in their criminal activity by the belief that there are no eternal consequences to pay for their actions in life.
--Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change anyone’s behavior. We are all endowed with a free will. The only being who can change ones own behavior is oneself .
--No, but then again, what is “moral” to an atheist? One atheist’s morality is another atheist’s code for stupid living.
--Actually it is easier to offer people eternal salvation. As far as atheists are concerned, why should I or anyone else believe  that they are concerned about “a cohesive social structure”? I’m sure many of them who were raised in a culture that was forged by Christianity have grown to appreciate the stability therein and have every desire to benefit from it during what they perceive to be their brief existence. However, that certainly doesn’t apply to the more adventurous atheist who wishes to get all of the benefits he can offer his flesh during that period.
--I don’t know. It wasn’t my decision.
--It is created for reasons known only to the Creator.
--The only human beings who have an “end to their lives” are atheists (or so they believe). You’d have to ask them this question.
--No, I already know what you believe. I’m more interested in your ideas about atheists who approach atheism in what they perceive to be a more beneficial way. Those who take all they can get at any cost. There “moral code” may not be to your liking, but you certainly can’t argue that they will come to the exact same end as you do.
--“probably as common…as”? I’m more interested in the absolutes here. After all, the subject deals with the absolute.

And what of Christians who don't give a hang about the survival of human communities, or living a moral life?  I understand that you must have some absolute so that you can know in black and white terms how to live your life, but all evidence suggests that there is no absolute truth.  Religionists wrap themselves around the axle trying to generate and justify absolutes, just as you are doing here.  You must feel insecure about it at some level, to feel the need to defend it so vigorously.

Appealing to "reasons known only to the Creator" is always the final fallback position to explain things when your dogma falls short, or is contradicted, by logic.

[IM2]

Appealing to "reasons known only to the Creator" is always the final fallback position to explain things when your dogma falls short, or is contradicted, by logic.

By nature we are spiritual. We seek out truth through various means. For example you seek to answer the question of existence through science, and science is one way God allows us to understand things. Religion is a man made construct. What is needed is for us to leave religion alone, get rid of the dogma and get in tune with a psirtual nature.

What you described in this paragraph:

So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering.

Is the natural spiritual nature that should exist within all of us. Jesus has said that many will be denied heaven who lived like mornac. They shouted loud and long about how they love God, and or posted up videos that were supposed to instruct others on godly living, yet what they really stood for was the opposite of what Jesus stood for. Look at mornac for example. He's a fascist. No matter how many times he tries arguing about the existence of God, he has no real true relationship because his political viewpoint goes against the true nature of God.

And that is a truth that you can see each and every time you read mornac's stuff.

[johnhp]

So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist?

This proves the point i have been making all along.  Mornac believes, by citing this question as an authority, that because he cannot be trusted not to murder his neighbor in the absence of a God -- in reality the absence of his particularly warped image of religion -- that no one else can be trusted to do the same.  What a ridiculous position.

Of course, by articulating this position, Mornac rejects the natural law tradition of the church as it is fully expressed by Thomas.  This, of course, proves another point: so-called traditionalism is ignorant of the Catholic tradition.

[Mornac]

And what of Christians who don't give a hang about the survival of human communities, or living a moral life?

--They will be judged just like everyone else.

I understand that you must have some absolute so that you can know in black and white terms how to live your life

--Well then you misunderstand. The absolute was there all along. I simply recognized it and chose to believe it.

but all evidence suggests that there is no absolute truth.

--Is that statement absolutely true?

Religionists wrap themselves around the axle trying to generate and justify absolutes, just as you are doing here.

--I am not wrapping myself around the axle and I am not generating anything. I justify my beliefs only when I am called upon to do so (as is the case here).

You must feel insecure about it at some level, to feel the need to defend it so vigorously.

--I was thinking that you must feel insecure at some level to feel the need to call me to defend as you do.

Appealing to "reasons known only to the Creator" is always the final fallback position to explain things when your dogma falls short,

--It is an integral part of the dogma not a “fallback position”. We don’t change our dogma just because it doesn’t suit others. On the other hand, you’ll have noticed that I asked you a few questions about atheists who choose a morality that is contrary to your own. Not only have I not seen a “fallback position”, I haven’t seen any position at all. Do you have one?

or is contradicted, by logic.

--I’ve yet to see that.