Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Algebe
You said: “So your "objective" principles are ultimately based on subjective judgments, while your absolute principles prevent you from benefiting from new knowledge. How does that make any sense?”
Kindly, have a reread of my previous post. I have edited it a bit to make it more clear. I didn’t say that my absolute principles prevent me from benefiting from new knowledge. Here is how it is. Take for example the issue of drinking alcohol. The principle based on which it is prohibited is “NO INTOXICANTS.’ If we come across any new facts based on that principle, then we can change the right course of action. If tomorrow, we come to know that beer is not an intoxicant, then we will be allowed to drink it. So we do benefit from new knowledge.
You said: “Explain to me who you mean by "we". Is it you and your family, or you and your community? The pronoun sounds very subjective to me.”
Once the first principles is established, then how we decide the best course of action is not any different from how you would do it. I know cigarette has more harms than benefits the same way how you figured it out. So, I think it’s unnecessary to fuss over a pronoun.
You said: “(And by the way, polio has always been unambiguously harmful. A few years ago I helped to fund an international polio eradication campaign. It got very close to success until some Muslim fanatics in Nigeria started killing the vaccination teams. Now polio is spreading again. Causing children to suffer like that is the most immoral thing I can imagine.)”
So what are you trying to say?
You said: “Is there a single explicit principle in the Quran about something that an Arabian of that era couldn't have known?”
It is quite baseless to ask that question. Because first principles have to be expressed in ways that everyone understands – not for specific people of specific times only – whether that audience is in the past or future. However, the bottom line is that these first principles should be able provide guidance in all areas of human activity.
But if you are asking if Quran knows any facts that was unknown to people of his times, there are many examples I can cite. One is the narration about a man called Haman who was a builder in the court of Pharaoh – and modern Egyptolgy has revealed that.
@Royism: So, I think it’s unnecessary to fuss over a pronoun.
No. It's a central point. You've said that "we" decide this and "we" interpret that. There are people involved in this process of "interpretation. Who are they?
So what are you trying to say?
That religion, including Islam and Christianity, is a huge source of evil in the world. It slows our progress, prevents us from learning, and hinders our efforts to improve the human condition. Religious teachings may seem beneficial, but they are always open to interpretation by evil or stupid men.
Is there any one ‘moral principle’ in our modern world that a person from an ancient world would not have known?
Of course the answer is yes. Freedom of speech. Due process. Equality of the sexes. Human rights. The evil of slavery....
One is the narration about a man called Haman who was a builder in the court of Pharaoh
Well I was expecting something a little more significant. Who knows what stories were handed down in Arabian civilization? Is there anything else? Perhaps a mention of Inca pyramids or the Mayan calendar, or perhaps Polynesian voyages? Even Olympus Mons on Mars.
@Algebe
Sorry I failed to answer this post as I overlooked it. When I saw it, I thought there are some important points to be addressed. Here is my quick response.
You said: “Of course the answer is yes. Freedom of speech. Due process. Equality of the sexes. Human rights. The evil of slavery....”
All these are values that have been addressed by Islam… but yes, there may be difference in the details just as not everyone agrees with all the details under these principles even today.
You said: “Well I was expecting something a little more significant. Who knows what stories were handed down in Arabian civilization? Is there anything else? Perhaps a mention of Inca pyramids or the Mayan calendar, or perhaps Polynesian voyages? Even Olympus Mons on Mars.”
Sorry. I can’t produce the proofs in exactly the same details as you deem fit. Instead what you should do is blow holes in the evidence that I bring. Prove to me that the prophet was privy to the info about Haman… we have tomes of pre-Islamic literature available today… you can show from there… or at least bring forward a theory by some expert to show that the prophet had access to Egyptology back then…
You said: “Of course the answer is yes. Freedom of speech. Due process. Equality of the sexes. Human rights. The evil of slavery....”
All these are values that have been addressed by Islam…
Irony? Or did you mean to say denied by Islam?
"Sorry. I can’t produce the proofs in exactly the same details as you deem fit. Instead what you should do is blow holes in the evidence that I bring."
Nonsense, you may enjoy endlessly placing your coughing wheezing horse in front of your cart but don't even try to insist the burden of proof is ours. Show me a flying horse that can be objectively evidenced please, or all your books claims get a liberal pinch of salt?
Have you ever even heard of Occam's razor?
@ROYISM: Kindly, have a reread of my previous post. I have edited it a bit to make it more clear.
If you've edited your post, you should mark the changes, or possibly put up another post with the amended content.
ROYISM:
Harms: passive smoking, cancer, cardiovascular disease, skin aging, impotence, various lung diseases, fires (affecting both the individual and other people)
Benefits: Temporary stress relief, weight loss, looking cool (affecting just the individual)
So who weighs up all these benefits and harms and makes the final judgment? Do you rely on doctors, imams, etc., or can you decide for yourself? What if you decide smoking is great and blow smoke all over the person at the next desk who thinks smoking is harmful. Whose view prevails? Explain to me how this can be seen as "objective".
@Algebe
You said: “So who weighs up all these benefits and harms and makes the final judgment?”
That’s a good question. Let me clear up some basics first. People can have differences of opinion on objective matters. In fact, differences of opinion has any meaning only in cases of objective matters – X can think Picasso’s paintings are beautiful and Y can think they are not – and it just doesn’t matter who is right because that’s subjective.
Secondly, when you differ on objective matters, how to do you resolve it. You go by evidence. For example, the theory of evolution has two contradictory schools of thought – gradualism and PET. If you want to take a decision on which school is correct, you have to listen to the evidences that each school brings. And you go by whose evidence carries more weight. But just because two people differ, it doesn’t mean evolution is subjective.
However, for a discussion to take place between the two schools, we have to agree on the basic premise first – in this case scientific/empiricism is the premise.
This is the process we use for taking a decision in objective matters where there is a difference of opinion.
Similarly, in Islam scholars with different opinions have to present their case. Muslims will have to follow that school which they think carries the most weight. Of course, the scholars will rely on the experts in the field (for example if it about smoking, the experts in medical field) to glean the facts and present their case. If I as an individual feel that the scholars are making a mistake, then I have to take the onus of presenting my facts. If you think of it, it’s not very different from how you operate to take a call on an objective issue.
You said: “What if you decide smoking is great and blow smoke all over the person at the next desk who thinks smoking is harmful.”
I can turn the question around to you. What if you listen to the experts in the field and think it doesn’t make sense, and decide to blow smoke on others’ faces?
You said: “Whose view prevails? Explain to me how this can be seen as "objective".
It’s just like asking whose view should prevail in the ‘evolution example’. The view of those who bring the weightiest evidence should prevail, obviously.
@ROYISM: The view of those who bring the weightiest evidence should prevail, obviously.
And who decides that? Yet again, your so-called objective morality depends on value judgments based on subjective opinions.
@Algebe
You said: “And who decides that?”
Nobody has to decide it for you. You have to be convinced for your own sake. If all the scientists in the world supported the PET theory of evolution, and you are not convinced, you don’t have to follow it. Similarly, I can listen to all scholars in the world and if I am not convinced by the evidence they bring, then I can go with the stronger evidence.
It’s not at all different from how you deal with every day objective things in life.
@ROYISM: You have to be convinced for your own sake.
That sounds exactly like the process that you call "subjective" when atheists do it. When I weigh up the evidence and make a decision for myself, it's subjective. When you weigh up the evidence and make a decision for yourself, it's objective.
OK. I understand now.
@Algebe
You said: “That sounds exactly like the process that you call "subjective" when atheists do it.”
No. We don’t decide if something is ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ based on how many people follow it or who decides it? Rather we go by the weight of the arguments/evidence. So long as you have factual evidence to support your claim then it’s objective, whether anybody accepts it or not. Let’s say all the things you said about smoking are not accepted by anyone in the world… it would still be an objective analysis. Whereas, when you don’t have any factual/evidential basis for your argument, even if the whole world accepts it, it would still be ‘subjective.’ There are more people who believe in god than atheists. Would you therefore agree that god-belief is objective?
Do you have any factual/evidential arguments to say that human life is more valuable than bacteria life? The answer is NO. It is just a notion that we get from our human-centric view. That’s why it’s subjective even though you would find the whole world (humans) readily accepting it. Hope you get the drift.
@ROYISM: You have to be convinced for your own sake.
Right. You decide for yourself. You choose which evidence to accept, and which to reject. So there's no objective standard. It's a subjective judgment. There's no objective standard of morality.
@Algebe
You said: “Right. You decide for yourself. You choose which evidence to accept, and which to reject. So there's no objective standard. It's a subjective judgment. There's no objective standard of morality.”
What do you do when you are faced with two contradictory arguments on an objective matter? For example, between the PET theory and gradualism in evolution, how do you decide which to go with? You listen to the arguments and go with whatever convinces you, right? Would that be subjective? No, because you have evidence to back your position… even though at the end of the day it’s a personal decision you take. Whereas in the case of subjective issues, you don’t have an evidentiary argument behind it… it’s so, because it’s so.
Yes its a lonely world when you have to rely on your own moral and ethical compass isnt it? When you are responsible for your own actions? When you cant blame 'Allah' for burning a town and taking sex slaves? When you cant blame 'gods will' for a cholera epidemic in a poor country when you could have afforded to donate a deep well? When you cant say "Jesus hates fags"? When you have to shoulder the blame and say "I did this, me, my choice"
Much more liberating and preferable to perform a selfless action without fear of divine reward or punishment. A human action of compassion such as feeding the hungry, rescuing a dog from a frozen lake, even putting down your favourite animal that is incurably sick and in pain, doing the same for a loved relative.
That is the mark of being fully human, taking responsibility for ones own actions, helping the sick and needy, not waging needless war against a peaceful neighbour at the whims of kings and priests.
You should read the biographies of conscientious objectors, doctors and nurses,you may come to an understanding that humans do not need gods, gods need humans.
No. Morality is purely subjective. Any attempt to make it a "higher purpose' is supposing there is a 'higher standard' that belongs to 'higher beings'.
There is no evidence at all for higher beings so the morality ethics and compassion we aspire to practise are entirely human. Play all the word games you wish, whenever morality is subject to the whims of religion you get horrendous outcomes. I will gladly quote you several dozen involving the old Testament, new testament, the qu'ran, book of mormon and others. I will leave the hundreds of others for you to find.
Zen buddhism probably has the most difficult concept to follow because it is necessary to search and meditate on the internal workings of ones own mind and disregard the concept of 'self' and do what has internal accordance with the present moment. They are difficult concepts to convey in a sentence or two and require years of dedicated study to fully understand. I can assure you it does not rely on an external moral ruler.
"I have had several discussions on morality myself in this forum. I am yet to find someone explain to me an objective way of making moral judgments. Do you have any method?"
Not true, several people have done this, you just didn't understand them, and like most religious apologists I suspect you don't want to. You have also dishonestly ignored every request made for you to explain how you can make an objective moral assessment of your religions claims? You keep claiming humans are incapable of objective morality, so how do you know your religions claims are moral?
You really aren't making much sense. 1. The exams don't really matter and you can have several chances to pass them. 2. No one is in the room monitoring the examination process. (There is no such thing as semi-monitored.) 3. SIN - does not enter into the picture. Do you know the definition? According to the Christians you were born in a state of ORIGINAL SIN. "SIN" literally means "SEPARATION FROM GOD." You don't believe in God. Actions are not sinful unless they cause separation from a fantasy being called God. 4. Your employer only wants you to pass the test, whatever it is, to cover their own butt legally. Once you fill it out and pass it, you will be held accountable for the information if it leads to an on the job injury or some sort of law suit. The employer does not care if you know the information or not as long as they are legally covered. 5. There is no cheating on a non-monitored test where you are given multiple opportunities to pass. It's like an open book quiz that you get to take home with you. Just find the information and tick the boxes. (No one cares about this but you. You are attaching all sorts of meaning to the situation that just isn't there.)
@ ROYISM.....
"I am yet to find someone explain to me an objective way of making moral judgments. Do you have any method?"
Method..? not really...... for me it comes down to just this.....
"If you are hungry , I will offer food.
If you are thirsty , I will offer drink.
If you are cold , I will offer warmth.
If you are in need , Ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble , Ask and I will help.
I do these things not in the hope of being rewarded,
Nor from fear of being punished.
These things I do because I know them to be right.
I set my own standards and I alone enforce them…
I am an Atheist."
ABSOLUTELY Watchman!
Why don't you disagree? Morality being subjective and all. Come to think of it, why did you call me dishonorable? I would never criticize you for liking the color purple just because I liked the color green, so why criticize my moral standards?
I didn't call you anything Breezy. You called yourself dishonorable by conduct. I just pointed out how and why that is dishonorable. Then you thought you'd be clever and set up a trap. I wouldn't play your silly game. That is the gist of it.
I don't fault you for doing what you see fit. I just don't agree with that attitude toward personal conduct. I will always support YOU personally because in my opinion with one minor hiccup you have always presented your cases honestly. You and JoC have been an asset to this forum. Can't say that about any other believer that I have witnessed on here. I realize that it must be frustrating for you, but I call 'em as I see 'em. Condoning "cheating" is just not what I call honorable.
Example. I play basketball a lot. I don't cheat. Many of the people I play with do cheat. I shame them I say things like "can't win with an honest game huh?" and "I'm 60 and you have to cheat and STILL can't beat me, I'd be proud"! Cheating is a mindset. Honesty is a mindset. You have to make a choice.
I think you misunderstood my point. None of this is personal, so let's try to distance our personal selves from that.
Basically I'm saying it doesn't make sense to argue for a subjective morality, then treat it as if it were objective. It doesn't make sense to say cheating is wrong or dishonorable conduct, while at the same time thinking there's no real concept of wrong or honor. I feel like someone that truly believed morality is subjective, would be fine with everyone around them cheating, they themselves just wouldn't cheat.
A favorite color is subjective. And if you liked red, you wouldn't care if I liked green. And if morality was subjective, I don't see why you would say "can't win an honest game?" As if other's should share your perspective on honesty.
How do you convince someone not to cheat, without appealing to moral "common sense" or anything objective.
@ Breezy
Okay, I get what you are saying.
Yes, morality is subjective. How it is subjective is also subjective. You define it as a personal morality but in this instance, I make a personal choice to conduct myself according to a wider accepted morality. I said it is a personal choice, not a personal morality. Think of it like this.
Crime. Society dictates what is a crime. It is a personal choice to commit that crime or not.
Just came across this book: Why Honor Matters
It sounds interesting. Written by a professor of philosophy whose podcast I follow.
Hey Watchman.... how are you buddy.
This is Valiya S Sajjad (just changed my handle)
You said: “These things I do because I know them to be right.”
Someone else can argue that he robs the rich and gives them to the poor because he knows it to be right. I mean, why should he be wrong? If your standard is “I set my own standards and I alone enforce them…” anyone can say so.
Hi Valiya .....
I'm well enough ..... still upright ...and there's still a pulse.....its all one can ask for.
How are things going ...? How are the kids...? Are you still out in Kuwait ..?
Any way....
You say.... "any one can say so"...
Well yes they can ...... and indeed I think they should in the main..... after all, in the end we are all responsible for our own "morality".
Any thing I do/choose is my responsibility ...... I cannot avoid criticism by claiming to follow a "higher powers" rules.
...... and don't I remember you yourself once telling me that in Islam you must be able to account for your own decisions ...
but my point is that the decision as to what is right or what is wrong in any given circumstance is down to me and only me (within the constraints of a legal system).... there is no "blueprint" laid down by a higher power, no hard and fast list of rules ....
And circumstances can always alter morality.
@ Watchman
All are fine… yes still in Kuwait. Great to catch up after a long gap.
You said: “Any thing I do/choose is my responsibility ...... I cannot avoid criticism by claiming to follow a "higher powers" rules.
I think you are missing the point here. I am not denying free will or responsibility for our actions. I am only asking you about the method by which you make a value judgement, before you act on it. For example, how do you know that human life valuable? Only after that initial premise will you be in a situation to make a choice between “killing or not killing” another individual. Hope you get my point.
You said: ...... and don't I remember you yourself once telling me that in Islam you must be able to account for your own decisions ...
Yes, that’s right. You are accountable for your decisions. But that’s not about deciding what is moral and immoral. It is about doing or not doing what has been taught to be moral. For example, God told us dealing in interest is immoral. Now, I can choose to do it or avoid it, and I will be responsible for what I do.
If you think of it, that’s exactly how you are also functioning. You assume that your moral decisions are actually yours… but it’s not. Your values are a result of the many conditionings that you have been through in life. Once they are set, then at every turn your life, your weigh your decisions against that conditioning that is ingrained in you.
You said: “but my point is that the decision as to what is right or what is wrong in any given circumstance is down to me and only me (within the constraints of a legal system)....”
And let’s say someone else in a similar circumstance does NOT agree with you. For example, you might think a woman has the right to abort her fetus, and someone else thinks otherwise. Why should your opinion be correct and the other be wrong? How would you make this judgement?
My opinion would only be absolutely "correct" if it was objectively moral....in which case, it would not be an opinion.
"God told us dealing in interest is immoral. "
No he didn't, that's your subjective claim.
"how do you know that human life valuable? "
How do you?
" you might think a woman has the right to abort her fetus, and someone else thinks otherwise. Why should your opinion be correct and the other be wrong?"
One opinion defends equality, the other seeks to impose a SUBJECTIVE belief on another against their will. The first position does not insist that everyone else have or even agree to abortion, that's the difference. Accepting a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body does not mean I have to agree with her decision, only that I accept her right to do as she sees fit.
@Sheldon
You said: “No he didn't, that's your subjective claim.”
For that you will have to listen out how I arrive at god belief. There is a logical train that leads to that belief.
You said: "how do you know that human life valuable? "
Because god said so.
You said: “One opinion defends equality, the other seeks to impose a SUBJECTIVE belief on another against their will.”
Just that to value equality as some higher moral is as subjective as anything else.
You said: “Accepting a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body does not mean I have to agree with her decision, only that I accept her right to do as she sees fit.”
Would you say the same thing to a mother who decides to kill her newborn child? Would you say she has the right to decide to what she wants with her baby?
Pages