"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You missed my point entirely.  The fact that you cut that part of my comment completely out of your response makes me wonder if you really want to engage.  My point was, (if you go back and read my post), is that what is claimed as the edict from God is completely subjective as well.  A man saying that he received his point of view from God does not make it a fact since God has not chosen to appear to all of mankind and imparted his view of morality.  Hence, it is no different than an atheist giving his opinion of morality.  They are both completely subjective.

I did not miss your point. But you are not engaging the argument that I was making. You are going off on a tangent in the opposite direction. I was not and have not been trying to establish whether there is or is not a God. I am only trying to establish the point that on the assumption that there is no God, all laws, rules, morality are completely man made and subjective.

Now I will engage you point here though. Let us now make a point based upon the assumption that there is a God, and further that this is the Christian God. This God has given us a moral code by which to live. It is recorded in the Bible. Here are a few of the points that He has given us.

Love the Lord
Love thy neighbor as thyself
Do not bear false witness
Do not covet
Love your enemies
Do good to them that hate you
Pray for those that spitefully use and persecute you
You must forgive everyone
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Those are objective statements of morality. How people interpret them does involve some subjectivity, but the statements themselves are not.

Glenn

[california boy]

I give up.  You are really not understanding what I am saying.  My post was not about whether there is a God or not.

[Gray]

On 9/7/2018 at 12:52 PM, pogi said:

If they don't look to science and culture, where do they look for their morals and values?

All morality is based on a some chosen presupposition. Usually I see atheists starting with the presupposition that good is what leads to health, happiness and well-being for human beings. Most people tend to gravitate toward something along those lines, although appeals to some authority can sometimes subvert these values.

 

Quote

I would argue that morals and values are intrinsic to culture.  So, what does the culture of science have to say about morals and values?  Once we erode the foundational societal values and morals found in the Judeo-Christian culture of the West, on what foundational basis do we form new cultural morals and values from when science can tell us nothing?  Where do we turn as a people, and not just individuals, for cultural morals and values, and meaning?  There can be no cultural cohesiveness in morals.  Moral anarchy would result.  You could not convince anyone of your superior morals, because there can be no superior morals.  There is no foundation! There is no reason!  There is no universal purpose! 

Science can't tell us what we should value, but it can tell us what promotes health, happiness and well-being for human beings. Like I said, it depends on your presupposition. Human beings seem predisposed to value human welfare. We're biased, after all.

 

Quote

How does one justify "moral reasoning" when there is no justifiable reason for one moral or another? 

Once you have your presupposition, then you can start the process of moral reasoning. In other words, evaluating which behaviors do or do not lead to certain positive outcomes. The presupposition could be based on a scripture - for instance, by their fruits you will know them. So one could evaluate "fruits" to determine the fitness of a religious teacher or path. Moral reasoning, however, is hampered by a model that values obedience above everything.

 

Quote

Yes, morals and values are always subjective, but within the Judeo-Christian paradigm they are anchored in the concept of constancy and the infinite existence of life, law, purpose, order, and ultimate cosmic meaning.  This permanence, absolute order, and universal purpose of life justifies the subjective morals in their attempt to align with the divine.  From the theistic perspective - In mortality our perspectives (which define our morals) are relative to the divine order.  Without a belief in that order, there is no justifiable reason or purpose.  It is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant - While each of the perspectives of the blind men are relative and subjective, they are all anchored to the absolute existence of the elephant.  Take away the elephant (God and cosmic order), then relativity and subjectivity have no basis or reason, or purpose, no truth to discover, no big picture to find, no puzzle to solve, and no cosmic relevance whatsoever. 

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is one more presupposition - just as subjective as any other presupposition. Even with that to guide people, radically different moral conclusions are often reached, even within the same particular sect.

 

Quote

It is the mere belief in a universal cosmic purpose and meaning to life that anchors the mortal subjective nature of human existence to something worth living for.  Without that universalist perspective, the subjectivity of meaning looses its anchor and becomes absurd. 

Edit to add: Sorry if this sounds jumbled and hard to follow.  It will likely require further clarification before my point is understood.  I am just spitting out my thoughts without much time to give more clarity to my position.
 

I have not found this to be the case as I have transitioned from an obedience to God-based view of morality to one based more on "by their fruits you will know them" view of morality. Most of my old moral values have remained intact during the transition. Others have changed because the "fruits" based on the obedience to divine administrator model seemed to be bad fruits. I remain convinced of the importance of living a good, moral life.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

On 9/7/2018 at 1:52 PM, Glenn101 said:

Yes, if God were to cease to exist, there would still be an objective morality according to LDS theology although it would seem theologically impossible for that to happen. But that is not the same as there never being a God, no creation, and only the laws of physics. A universe created by a random alignment of atoms and devoid of life would be devoid of morality. Add animal life, even sentient human life and that would do nothing to make anything moral or immoral. Only when sentient, conscious life forms decide to make rules would some sort of subjective morality arise. That morality would be defined totally by the life forms based upon their emerging desires and though processes. 

Glenn

In Mormon theology, existence gives rise to Gods, not the other way around. Does that make the Mormon universe devoid of morality?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

What I meant was that it doesn't matter to the person that disagrees with you.  

This is very true. I agree that my morality is subjective, and that others have no obligation to listen to it. Let me ask you a question. When was the last time you had a disagreement with someone on a moral issue? Did you tell them that God disagreed with them? Did that matter to them? I can't think of a single time in my religious life when an appeal to God worked for me.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm coming at this argument from a philosophical standpoint, which isn't to say that we can't make a difference when we disagree with someone.  It's about the big picture.  The grand scheme of things and where arguments logically lead (which people disagree about).

As an engineer I must admit I'm coming at this from a pragmatic standpoint which I'm sure is part of the reason we are talking past each other. In practice, since we can't figure out what The Objective Standard of Morality is, everyone's experience with morality is subjective. Again even among very top down religions like the Catholic Faith, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day, significant disagreements on moral issues persist. In a pluralistic society like ours, with many faiths as well as many secularists people have to make moral arguments with appeals to things other than God. This seems to work really well. In almost all instances in my personal life appeals to God fell flat. My friends didn't really care what I thought God said when they thought God said something else. 

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

If you have two people who disagree about the morality of something, how (in the big picture) do you determine who is actually correct? If they are each the highest authority on the subject, then (again, in the big picture) they are both correct.  And they are both incorrect.  Because if whatever you decide is moral is moral, then that is also true for the person who disagrees with you.  Whatever they decide is moral, is moral as well.  While you believe that there is no higher authority than yourself, they also also believe the same thing about themselves.  So, in that context, your beliefs do no matter.  

When you disagree with your fellow saints, how do you determine who is actually correct? I don't disagree that there is a problem, but I just don't see how adding a God that we don't have access to (Paul said he saw through a glass darkly no?) helps here. Again for all practical purposes, since God has chosen not to reveal his objective morality to men (otherwise we wouldn't disagree about so many things) its impossible to appeal to God to determine who is correct. In the real world we have to try to find common ground. When finding common ground is impossible (like with Dictators) sometimes force is necessary. But just like believers, atheists don't cede moral authority just because someone disagrees with them. 

 

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

People can work to convince the others to agree with them (and maybe they'll succeed) but that doesn't change the fact that everyone is still each a law unto themselves, claiming their own moral authority to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Again God changes this how? Everyone interprets God in their own subjective way. How many Gods are there in the world? How many different sects? How many different approaches to Mormonism? And yet everyone thinks they are right. I

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, I didn't give up because I believed that my position more closely aligned with God than there's was (and I'm sure they believed the same).  We don't both have to agree to both believe that there is a higher moral authority than ourselves.  

I would say most atheists would say that they appeal to a higher moral principle. Some are laid out here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality 

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

If I were debating with someone from Saudi Arabia I might cite God, it would depend on who I was speaking with and the situation.  But whether I cited God or not, my arguments would still be based on an appeal to His authority and not mine.  I could be wrong, religious people are wrong all the time, but in the big picture--the grand scheme of things--the difference (between my position and your's) is that in my argument there actually is an authority in existence that determines what is moral and what isn't, and that authority is never wrong, even if I sometimes am.  

 

You appeal to God as your ultimate moral authority. I personally appeal to the ideal of maximizing the well-being of conscious beings. I guess I don't see any need to appeal to any authority to determine what is right. Does it harm others or yourself? Does it make you or others happy? It's not even that far from Mormonism. Didn't Joseph say that happiness is the design and purpose of our existence? Men are that they might have joy? What higher moral principle is there?

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I give up.  You are really not understanding what I am saying.  My post was not about whether there is a God or not.

I understand that point. You just do not seem to understand the point I am arguing. You have not engaged any of the points I have made. My arguments are based upon assumptions made for the sake of the argument, which they necessarily must be. First point was the assumption that there was never a God and never will be and that all laws etc. arose from human intellect. These laws would vary and evolve as humans changed and evolved, but there would be no inherent superiority between one humans laws or one society's laws and that of another. You have not addressed that at all. The second point is makes the assumption that the Christian God is God and exists as advertised, i.e. perfect, all knowing, all wise, and provided us with objective truths, objective morals that exist independent of and precede human intellect. You have not addressed that.

Here is your last quote on the subject:

Quote

My point was, (if you go back and read my post), is that what is claimed as the edict from God is completely subjective as well.  A man saying that he received his point of view from God does not make it a fact since God has not chosen to appear to all of mankind and imparted his view of morality.  Hence, it is no different than an atheist giving his opinion of morality.  They are both completely subjective.

You are arguing against and not acknowledging the assumption.

I think that the idea you are espousing is pretty well laid out in this article. It is food for thought and discussion, but not really pertinent to the points I am making IF THERE IS NO GOD vs IF THERE IS A CHRISTIAN GOD

Glenn

Edited September 9, 2018 by Glenn101
Added a thought

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Didn't Joseph say that happiness is the design and purpose of our existence? Men are that they might have joy? What higher moral principle is there?

Didn't Joseph believe that design and purpose came from God? Aren't you quoting a Book of Mormon prophet to make a point?

Glenn

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I understand that point. You just do not seem to understand the point I am arguing. You have not engaged any of the points I have made. My arguments are based upon assumptions made for the sake of the argument, which they necessarily must be. First point was the assumption that there was never a God and never will be and that all laws etc. arose from human intellect. These laws would vary and evolve as humans changed and evolved, but there would be no inherent superiority between one humans laws or one society's laws and that of another. You have not addressed that at all. The second point is makes the assumption that the Christian God is God and exists as advertised, i.e. perfect, all knowing, all wise, and provided us with objective truths, objective morals that exist independent of and precede human intellect. You have not addressed that.

Here is your last quote on the subject:

You are arguing against and not acknowledging the assumption.

I think that the idea you are espousing is pretty well laid out in this article. It is food for thought and discussion, but not really pertinent to the points I am making IF THERE IS NO GOD vs IF THERE IS A CHRISTIAN GOD

Glenn

I am suggesting a third option.  There is a God, but He hasn't actually told man what is moral or not.  In other words, the morality we attribute to God may not have actually come from him, but only from men who claim they received revelation from God when in fact, no revelation occurred.  Thus making supposed edicts from God just as subjective as any other form of morality.  

Given the change in morality over time and the different claims of different groups as to what God has said to them, this seems to be the most likely case for me.  If such morality came from God, you would expect it to be more consistent than it is.  

If a man claims to have received a revelation from God, does his beliefs have more credibility?  And how can you believe in God but only provide for a Christian God?  God may not have a religious affiliation preference at all.  So is all I am really saying is that your construct is way to narrow for the possibilities that are out there.  It is not just an either no God or Christian God construct.

Edited September 9, 2018 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Didn't Joseph believe that design and purpose came from God? Aren't you quoting a Book of Mormon prophet to make a point?

Glenn

Merely citing it to build common ground which I find useful in any debate. To me the idea of maximizing our well being and that of others as a moral principle is self evident. I have yet to talk to anyone from anywhere that disagrees with this moral principle. 

[Glenn101]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Merely citing it to build common ground which I find useful in any debate. To me the idea of maximizing our well being and that of others as a moral principle is self evident. I have yet to talk to anyone from anywhere that disagrees with this moral principle. 

Oh, I agree that it is a good moral principle and can be extrapolated from the teachings of the Christ.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I am suggesting a third option.  There is a God, but He hasn't actually told man what is moral or not.  In other words, the morality we attribute to God may not have actually come from him, but only from men who claim they received revelation from God when in fact, no revelation occurred.  Thus making supposed edicts from God just as subjective as any other form of morality.

I understand your point. You are starting with an assumption that there is a God and a further assumptions how the moral edicts came down to us. Now, if your assumptions could be proven, then you would be correct, and it is possible that you are correct. It is also possible that there is a God and there were prophets that actually did receive revelations and that they were recorded accurately, but would be getting into the nuances of the situation. My whole purpose was to point out that without a God in the picture there would be no objective morality. It would all be subjective. Is that something we can agree on?

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Given the change in morality over time and the different claims of different groups as to what God has said to them, this seems to be the most likely case for me.  If such morality came from God, you would expect it to be more consistent than it is

It would be consistent it it were applied consistently. It does not matter how pure and clear things may be, humans, on their own, have a way of screwing things up.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If a man claims to have received a revelation from God, does his beliefs have more credibility?

Here again we are getting into spiritual confirmation. It was trying to avoid that with my bare constructs and assumptions.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

And how can you believe in God but only provide for a Christian God?

Because that is the one the professor was talking about in the video. We could substitute Allah for the Christian God and the assumptions would be the same. If there is no God, all morals are completely subjective. If Allah is the creator, there can be objective morality. Or Vishnu, or Viracocha, etc.

Whether that objective morality has been transmitted to us accurately is another subject.

Glenn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

My whole purpose was to point out that without a God in the picture there would be no objective morality. It would all be subjective. Is that something we can agree on?

Yes! And my point is that 1) adding God to the mix doesn’t matter since we don’t have access to his objective morality - that is everyone’s morality is still subjective. 2) Subjective morality isn’t a problem. People and society has been getting by on subjective morality for a long time. 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes! And my point is that 1) adding God to the mix doesn’t matter since we don’t have access to his objective morality - that is everyone’s morality is still subjective. 2) Subjective morality isn’t a problem. People and society has been getting by on subjective morality for a long time. 

Do not agree with that. But I know that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that we do have such access.

Glenn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do not agree with that. But I know that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that we do have such access.

Glenn

Then why do faithful members of the church disagree on moral issues?

[california boy]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes! And my point is that 1) adding God to the mix doesn’t matter since we don’t have access to his objective morality - that is everyone’s morality is still subjective. 2) Subjective morality isn’t a problem. People and society has been getting by on subjective morality for a long time. 

This is also my point.  Since all three scenarios can not be proven, then they all become subjective morality depending on what you believe.  One is not more objective than the other.  

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Do not agree with that. But I know that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that we do have such access.

Glenn

And why is God's morality so inconsistent?  

Edited September 10, 2018 by california boy

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is very true. I agree that my morality is subjective, and that others have no obligation to listen to it. Let me ask you a question. When was the last time you had a disagreement with someone on a moral issue? Did you tell them that God disagreed with them? Did that matter to them? I can't think of a single time in my religious life when an appeal to God worked for me.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the argument that I'm making though.   It's not at all about what can be proved or what works in a disagreement.  These are philosophical issues so unless the argument was philosophical, they wouldn't be very effective.  It's a disagreement about the fundamental nature of morality, not on the correctness of any specific moral position. 

Quote

As an engineer I must admit I'm coming at this from a pragmatic standpoint which I'm sure is part of the reason we are talking past each other. In practice, since we can't figure out what The Objective Standard of Morality is, everyone's experience with morality is subjective. Again even among very top down religions like the Catholic Faith, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day, significant disagreements on moral issues persist. In a pluralistic society like ours, with many faiths as well as many secularists people have to make moral arguments with appeals to things other than God. This seems to work really well. In almost all instances in my personal life appeals to God fell flat. My friends didn't really care what I thought God said when they thought God said something else. 

Yes, pragmatically there are lots of valid ways to handle issues of morality.  Sometimes they work out, sometimes they don't.  

Quote

When you disagree with your fellow saints, how do you determine who is actually correct? I don't disagree that there is a problem, but I just don't see how adding a God that we don't have access to (Paul said he saw through a glass darkly no?) helps here. Again for all practical purposes, since God has chosen not to reveal his objective morality to men (otherwise we wouldn't disagree about so many things) its impossible to appeal to God to determine who is correct. In the real world we have to try to find common ground. When finding common ground is impossible (like with Dictators) sometimes force is necessary. But just like believers, atheists don't cede moral authority just because someone disagrees with them. 

Of course not.  No one--good, bad, or otherwise--cede's moral authority just because someone disagrees with them.   History is full of really bad people who did what they did with the belief that it was fully and completely moral.  These kinds of debates are not about trying to convince someone that they are wrong, but more about finding ways to validly judge the actions of others and have that judgement stand up in a court of debate.  But, even when people lose a debate, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.  That's why philosophy is so much fun and also so frustrating.  In the end, philosophy provides no final answers.

Quote

 

Again God changes this how? Everyone interprets God in their own subjective way. How many Gods are there in the world? How many different sects? How many different approaches to Mormonism? And yet everyone thinks they are right. 

 

God, or a higher power, doesn't change it in the here and now (not in a way that can be proven to anyone else, anyway).  It changes it in the big picture because if there is a higher power that determines what is moral and what isn't, it also means that someday (after life or during it) there will be some kind of reckoning where people will be held responsible for the choices they made, and that the measuring stick of those choices will not be their own, but that of the higher power.  Karma/final judgment/whatever (this debate does not deal at all with who or what the higher power is) will impact us in some way, if there is a higher power in charge of what is moral.

And if there isn't, then ultimately, someone's morality (or immorality) makes no difference.   

Quote

I would say most atheists would say that they appeal to a higher moral principle. Some are laid out here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality 

Yes, I've read that kind of stuff before.  It is interesting. 

Quote

You appeal to God as your ultimate moral authority. I personally appeal to the ideal of maximizing the well-being of conscious beings. I guess I don't see any need to appeal to any authority to determine what is right. Does it harm others or yourself? Does it make you or others happy? It's not even that far from Mormonism. Didn't Joseph say that happiness is the design and purpose of our existence? Men are that they might have joy? What higher moral principle is there?

It just depends on your perspective.  If you are wrong, and you are appealing to things that go against the morality of God, it would mean that ultimately you aren't maximizing the well-being of conscious beings, regardless of thinking you are.

JS said that happiness was the design and purpose of our existence, but he believed that that happiness could only be achieved by following the commandments of God because that was the only source of true and lasting happiness.  

We can probably all agree that there are a lot of things in this world that make people happy that are just plain wrong (that even atheists believe are wrong) and there are a lot of things that are good and moral in this world that are difficult and painful and tiring and do not produce much actual happiness in this life at all, though doing them is the moral choice.  Happiness is subjective enough that it's a poor measuring stick for morality and sometimes seeking happiness for ourselves and others actually makes the world (and those in it) worse off.

[pogi]

On 9/9/2018 at 8:41 AM, Gray said:

All morality is based on a some chosen presupposition. Usually I see atheists starting with the presupposition that good is what leads to health, happiness and well-being for human beings. Most people tend to gravitate toward something along those lines, although appeals to some authority can sometimes subvert these values.

Exactly my point!

But why stop there?  Why are these presuppositions so sacred that they do not deserve the same questioning that religion itself has undergone?  You see, these presuppositions basically become a new religion - a new God.  So, why should it be immune from the same rational process and deductive reasoning, and fact-based, unbiased questioning that all religious claims undergo?  Why should we accept these presuppositions of health, happiness, and well-being for all human beings?    The emerging worldview requires that all sacred beliefs, biased ideologies, and emotionally based worldviews be questioned.  Intellectualism and the science-based culture of today insists on open minded and unbiased questioning of any and all presuppositions, assumptions, and ideologies.  That is why religion is going down.  That is the same reason why these presuppositions stand no chance to the emerging worldview.

Quote

The only thing worse than bias is conviction. The only thing worse than conviction is ideology. With ideology comes ideologues and demagogues.

How can these presuppositions stand up against modern attitudes such as these?  They can't!  They are entirely based in bias, conviction, emotion, and ideology - just like religion!

American's today blame social problems on the rejection of critical thinking and the glorification of emotional and irrational thinking:

Quote

"What Americans rarely acknowledge is that many of their social problems are rooted in the rejection of critical thinking or, conversely, the glorification of the emotional and irrational."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america

Yet, all moral presuppositions are emotional and irrational.

One report addressed 10 reasons why millennials are backing away from God.  A couple interesting observations:

Quote

3. Militant secularism: Embraced by media and enforced in schools, secular education approaches learning through the lens of “methodological naturalism.” It is presupposed that all faith claims are merely expressions of subjective preference. The only “true” truths are claims that are divorced from any supernatural context and impose no moral obligations on human behavior. People today are subjected to an enforced secularism.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/30/ten-reasons-millennials-are-backing-away-from-god-and-christianity.html

How can these subjective presuppositions that impose moral obligations on human behavior stand against this emerging worldview?

 

Quote

7. Intellectual skepticism. College students are encouraged to accept platitudes like “life is about asking questions, not about dogmatic answers.” Is that the answer? That there are no answers? Claiming to have answers is viewed as “impolite.” On life’s ultimate questions, it is much more socially acceptable to “suspend judgment.”

These "presuppositions" then become dogma.  Dogma cannot stand in the new age of secularism and intellectualism.

"Secularism champions universal human rights above religious demands".  I thought that was funny, because the idea of "universal human rights" is basically the same thing as a religious demand.   

One definition of ethical intellectualism:

Quote

Ethical Intellectualism (or Socratic Intellectualism) is the ethical view that people will do what is right or best just as soon as they truly understand what is right or best.

The problem with this is that it assumes that there is an objective right or best that inquiry can help us "understand". 

The path of unbiased, honest inquiry of all assumptions and presuppositions can only lead to one logical conclusion - nihilism.

Anything else is a dogmatic world-view that restricts the freedom of will and conscience of individuals to act in their own best interest. 

For the very same reason that people reject religion, they will also eventually reject these presuppositions. It will be seen as oppressive dogma based in irrational emotion and personal bias.  And, they would be right!  That is all it is. There is no intellectual anchor.  It simply becomes a problem of my will (or our collective will) is better than your's, and if you don't obey my/our will, then there will be punishment.  It will be seen as an oppressive religion that restrict the freedoms of the minority view. 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

On 9/7/2018 at 6:03 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The evidence shows that values stay. They stay because they transcend religion. They stay because we want them to. They stay because they are human. 

No, universal human rights and values are NOT innately human.   Values stay only because they have not yet been questioned by society in the same way that religion has.  Once all other subjective and emotionally based dogmas and ideologies are taken down, there will be nothing left to examine but social contractual values themselves. They are not intrinsically human.  Most humans do NOT actually practice the belief of universal well-being, health, and happiness of all individuals on earth.  Humans may profess these ideological values, but in practice, the large majority of humans cheat other humans, they deceive for personal gain, they take advantage, they hurt, they abuse, they kill, they steal...whenever they feel that they can get away with it.  The only thing keeping humans from doing what they really want to do are social-contracts.  The trend of unbiased questioning and intellectualism will expose these values for what they really are - completely biased and emotionally based/subjective dogmas that are oppressive.  They will be seen as a new God that needs to be taken down. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

On 9/8/2018 at 4:56 AM, california boy said:

To suggest that just because you don't believe in God then you can believe killing someone is ok is beyond the pale.  To suggest that if a person does not believe in a God then their life has no meaning is just as ridiculous.

Straw man

[pogi]

On 9/8/2018 at 8:40 AM, MiserereNobis said:

The existentialists would vociferously disagree with this statement.

What about the existential nihilist?

Values and meaning cannot stand on logic alone (as opposed to emotion) - they are based entirely on bias, they are emotional, they are subjective, they are irrational.  I don't know how any atheist (existentialist or not) can argue otherwise.  So, I do stand by the statement that "the only logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism."  Of course, atheists can come to other irrational, emotional, biased, and entirely subjective conclusions other than nihilism, but there is no objective, unbiased, logical foundation for it.  Once society insists on the unbiased questioning of all social dogmas, nihilism will prevail, because it will be seen that values are biased and to enforce those values on others who hold unpopular biases will be seen as oppressive. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

On 9/8/2018 at 11:07 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I'll add to this. If God doesn't create morality, then God isn't necessary for morality.

The problem is that you won't find an atheist who believes in an absolute and universal law/order/morality that is eternal and immutable.  Such a thing is seen as impossible in an ever changing and indifferent universe.  So, while you may be technically correct, that our God may not be necessary for this universal morality, a belief in a God is necessary for a belief in this type of morality.  The one cannot exist without the other, logically.   

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

On 9/8/2018 at 12:07 PM, MiserereNobis said:

No, it's not equal. He is going against reason. Reason is the moral authority.

It's interesting that morality is one field where many people think reason doesn't apply. We don't go to scientists and say: your reasoning is the same as any others. We don't go to philosophers and say: your reasoning is the same as any others. But for some reason in ethics we think there has to be an authority and reason cannot be used.

Why is that, do you think? Why can't reasoning be used for ethics when we accept it as an authority in other fields?

Because there is no unbiased, non-emotionally based, objective reason that can be observed and agreed upon by all.  Here is the only rational conclusion in the absence of a God - the universe is all that exists.  It (that included us) is indifferent.  Everything else is irrational and illusory. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Exactly my point!

But why stop there?  Why are these presuppositions so sacred that they do not deserve the same questioning that religion itself has undergone?  You see, these presuppositions basically become a new religion - a new God. 

I'm not sure that follows. A belief that cannot be empirically proven to be true is not the same thing as a religion or a God. For example, I have a strong belief that Cheap Trick's music is vastly superior to Justin Bieber. I can't prove it, it's just the way I feel about the music. But I don't worship my own taste in music, nor do I worship Cheap Trick.

 

Quote

So, why should it be immune from the same rational process and deductive reasoning, and fact-based, unbiased questioning that all religious claims undergo? 

Is that what religious claims are subject to? Certainly not most of them. Where religion intersects with science or history, sure. But that's only a small part of religion.

No one thinks my musical views need to be backed by reason or evidence. So why should a priori values be subject to it? One can always defend one's values by appealing to things like consequences, but it's impossible to ever defend a presupposition by some empirical measure. And yet without presupposition there are no values.

Quote

Why should we accept these presuppositions of health, happiness, and well-being for all human beings?   

If you're like me, you feel on an emotional level that these things are important, not only for yourself, but for the people you care about. If you're like me, you don't like to see other people suffer. Barring some kind of emotional disorder, most people do experience empathy, which leads to at least some shared values across many different belief systems.

Values are always and inherently subjective. If they weren't subjective they wouldn't be values. You seem to be arguing that this is a problem for some reason, but you haven't really articulated why.

 

Quote

The emerging worldview requires that all sacred beliefs, biased ideologies, and emotionally based worldviews be questioned.  Intellectualism and the science-based culture of today insists on open minded and unbiased questioning of any and all presuppositions, assumptions, and ideologies.  That is why religion is going down.  That is the same reason why these presuppositions stand no chance to the emerging worldview.

That's one way to view the world, but I don't think it's anything close to being dominant. One would have to be pretty naive to try to apply that to all areas of life. There are limits and boundaries to science, and everyone who is not a naive positivist/Reddit atheist knows that.

 

Quote

How can these presuppositions stand up against modern attitudes such as these?  They can't!  They are entirely based in bias, conviction, emotion, and ideology - just like religion!

Emotional thinking isn't great if you want to accomplish something scientific. But we're talking about values, not science. Values are rooted in emotion. They're not going away as long as human beings exist.

 

Quote

American's today blame social problems on the rejection of critical thinking and the glorification of emotional and irrational thinking:

Yet, all moral presuppositions are emotional and irrational.

I know you're doing a bit here, but really you're representing one naive and slice of the atheist spectrum. Not all atheists are philosophically naive, just as not all believers are scientifically naive.

 

Quote

One report addressed 10 reasons why millennials are backing away from God.  A couple interesting observations:

How can these subjective presuppositions that impose moral obligations on human behavior stand against this emerging worldview?

Millennials are, by and large, backing away from organized religion, not God. I think the biggest reasons are because religion has become politicized and because belonging to a religious community is no longer viewed as being as socially beneficial as it once was. 

 

 

Quote

These "presuppositions" then become dogma.  Dogma cannot stand in the new age of secularism and intellectualism.

Of course it can. There will always be dogma. Where are you getting this idea?

 

Quote

"Secularism champions universal human rights above religious demands".  I thought that was funny, because the idea of "universal human rights" is basically the same thing as a religious demand.   

In a way, yes.

 

Quote

For the very same reason that people reject religion, they will also eventually reject these presuppositions.

No, I don't think so. Religion sometimes gets into trouble where it tries to walk outside of its boundaries into history and science. But rejection of religion is more about cultural evolution than it is about some rising tide of positivism.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Gray

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure that follows. A belief that cannot be empirically proven to be true is not the same thing as a religion or a God. For example, I have a strong belief that Cheap Trick's music is vastly superior to Justin Bieber. I can't prove it, it's just the way I feel about the music. But I don't worship my own taste in music, nor do I worship Cheap Trick.

Yes, but when these dogmatic personal views are seen as superior to other's, then it becomes like religion.  When people of similar views group together to penalize anyone who choses to listen to Justin Bieber, then it becomes oppressive to freedom.  Any social construct that places your personal views above that of another is what will not stand in modern society.  Ultimate freedom - raw creature freedom, is the only logical conclusion and the only thing that can stand up to unbiased questioning.  Every other world view is emotional, it is biased, it is irrational, it is dogmatic when enforced upon others.

Edit to add: More to respond to, but it will have to wait.

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi