What do Atheists Believe?

[Skyler]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

[Skyler]

Likewise, every individual perspective of objective moral standards is subjective. That doesn't obviate the reality of an objective moral standard.

Yes, it does. It's different saying an apple is red, and saying the apple absorbs x visible wavelength. The former is subjective and the latter objective. But you can't say something is objective to begin with if the VERY SAME THING can be interpreted differently by different people.

Then you can't say the universe is objective, because "redness" can be interpreted differently if, say, someone is colorblind--or blind, period.

How about "the Earth revolves around the Sun"? Granted, it's been subjective once. How subjective is it now? Isn't this subjectivity proportional to our ignorance? Likewise, the universe is only as subjective as our ignorance allows for, but not inherently.

How about "Murder is wrong"? Granted, it's been subjective at different times in our culture. But how subjective is it now? Isn't this subjectivity proportional to our ignorance? Likewise, moral values are only as subjective as our ignorance allows for, but not inherently.

"Murder" has always been, and is still subjective, and the abortion dilemma proves it. What constitutes a "person" is an entirely personal question to which the community may achieve a necessary consensus, but to which many will still not agree. How planets orbit the Sun became objective when the technology to demonstrate it became available.

The number of planets orbiting the sun has always been, and is still subjective, and the Pluto controversy proves it. What constitutes a "planet" is an entirely personal question to which the community may achieve a necessary consensus, but to which many will still not agree.

[Beto]

Then you can't say the universe is objective, because "redness" can be interpreted differently if, say, someone is colorblind--or blind, period.

Don't "period" me, if you don't mind. If you think you're running out of arguments, admit it.

If you understood at all what I said, you would've realized the subjectiveness of "red", or "redness" was exactly what I was referring to. However, the universe is as objective as the reflection of visible wavelength that hits the eye. What you want to call that value, is completely up to you, but to get along with everyone else, one should compromise.

How about "the Earth revolves around the Sun"? Granted, it's been subjective once. How subjective is it now? Isn't this subjectivity proportional to our ignorance? Likewise, the universe is only as subjective as our ignorance allows for, but not inherently.

How about "Murder is wrong"? Granted, it's been subjective at different times in our culture. But how subjective is it now? Isn't this subjectivity proportional to our ignorance? Likewise, moral values are only as subjective as our ignorance allows for, but not inherently.

"Murder" has always been, and is still subjective, and the abortion dilemma proves it. What constitutes a "person" is an entirely personal question to which the community may achieve a necessary consensus, but to which many will still not agree. How planets orbit the Sun became objective when the technology to demonstrate it became available.

The number of planets orbiting the sun has always been, and is still subjective, and the Pluto controversy proves it. What constitutes a "planet" is an entirely personal question to which the community may achieve a necessary consensus, but to which many will still not agree.

I agree. The number of planets is subjective IF the categorization is put into question. Do you see the similarity between the categorization of planets or species, and the categorization of human behavior?

EDIT: Also, why are you purposely being contemptuous in these replies? Surely, a reply like "the exact same statement can be made about xxx" is more respectful and mature, even if inaccurate.

[Skyler]

Then you can't say the universe is objective, because "redness" can be interpreted differently if, say, someone is colorblind--or blind, period.

Don't "period" me, if you don't mind. If you think you're running out of arguments, admit it.

The "period" was to distinguish being colorblind from being totally blind. It wasn't intended to psychologically strengthen the argument.

If you understood at all what I said, you would've realized the subjectiveness of "red", or "redness" was exactly what I was referring to. However, the universe is as objective as the reflection of visible wavelength that hits the eye. What you want to call that value, is completely up to you, but to get along with everyone else, one should compromise.

However, the morality is as objective as the reflection of visible wavelength that hits the eye. What you want to call that morality, is completely up to you, but to get along with everyone else, one should compromise.

How about "the Earth revolves around the Sun"? Granted, it's been subjective once. How subjective is it now? Isn't this subjectivity proportional to our ignorance? Likewise, the universe is only as subjective as our ignorance allows for, but not inherently.

How about "Murder is wrong"? Granted, it's been subjective at different times in our culture. But how subjective is it now? Isn't this subjectivity proportional to our ignorance? Likewise, moral values are only as subjective as our ignorance allows for, but not inherently.

"Murder" has always been, and is still subjective, and the abortion dilemma proves it. What constitutes a "person" is an entirely personal question to which the community may achieve a necessary consensus, but to which many will still not agree. How planets orbit the Sun became objective when the technology to demonstrate it became available.

The number of planets orbiting the sun has always been, and is still subjective, and the Pluto controversy proves it. What constitutes a "planet" is an entirely personal question to which the community may achieve a necessary consensus, but to which many will still not agree.

I agree. The number of planets is subjective IF the categorization is put into question. Do you see the similarity between the categorization of planets or species, and the categorization of human behavior?

Yes.

EDIT: Also, why are you purposely being contemptuous in these replies? Surely, a reply like "the exact same statement can be made about xxx" is more respectful and mature, even if inaccurate.

Because I don't think it makes it quite as clear as actually demonstrating it. I'm trying to make it as absolutely clear as possible to eliminate any unintentional misunderstanding. I'm not trying to be contemptuous.

[Beto]

Then you can't say the universe is objective, because "redness" can be interpreted differently if, say, someone is colorblind--or blind, period.

Don't "period" me, if you don't mind. If you think you're running out of arguments, admit it.

The "period" was to distinguish being colorblind from being totally blind. It wasn't intended to psychologically strengthen the argument.

I apologize. I was getting a contemptuous "vibe" that results in rash reading and hasty replies.

Because I don't think it makes it quite as clear as actually demonstrating it. I'm trying to make it as absolutely clear as possible to eliminate any unintentional misunderstanding. I'm not trying to be contemptuous.

Even so, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate someone doing the same to you. We also think sarcasm is sometimes appropriate, but no one likes to receive the sharp end, so it's not encouraged and I try to resist the temptation. Posts take time to be thought up, and I think simply copying them changing a few words is a form of plagiarism, even if the end result isn't necessarily valid. Much to my dismay, if this is all you're going to do, and since you've repeated it in another thread, I rather debate with other people.

[Skyler]

Because I don't think it makes it quite as clear as actually demonstrating it. I'm trying to make it as absolutely clear as possible to eliminate any unintentional misunderstanding. I'm not trying to be contemptuous.

Even so, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate someone doing the same to you. We also think sarcasm is sometimes appropriate, but no one likes to receive the sharp end, so it's not encouraged and I try to resist the temptation. Posts take time to be thought up, and I think simply copying them changing a few words is a form of plagiarism, even if the end result isn't necessarily valid. Much to my dismay, if this is all you're going to do, and since you've repeated it in another thread, I rather debate with other people.

You're right. I stand corrected.

[olavisjo]

Tacking additional words on turns the argument into one that I did not present, but one that you find easier to knock down. That is a straw man argument.

I am not trying to knock down your argument, I am trying to understand what your position is.

So things are not as black and white as you seem to suggest. This is a very good example of how objective morals don't exist. What you consider wrong, I might not. Or what I consider wrong at one point in time, I might not in the future.

This may be where we are having a problem, I am not suggesting that things are black and white, in fact moral values become very complicated because they are objective rather than subjective.
For example some people may feel that abortion is wrong in any and all situations, while others may feel it should be permitted anytime the woman desires it, but the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two extremes.
Driving over the speed limit is wrong, unfortunately I did not realize that until I lost control of my car while I was going too fast. Society was protecting me from myself by paying police officers to give me tickets for driving too fast.
In the same way society is protecting us from ourselves by making recreational drug use against the law, there are countless number of people out there, who felt like you that it was not wrong, that are now suffering from dependency, mental illness issues, broken relationships with family and friends, AIDS from shared needles etc. If you were to visit these people in their affliction you may change your feeling about the practice. The drug user is not the only person who is hurt, drug abuse hurts all of us. And yet, the use of the drugs alcohol and caffeine in moderation is still okay and possibly other drugs as well. The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.
In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.
I am the wrong person to talk about morality in sexuality but, as for BDSM, it is fun as long as it remains playful and all parties respect each others thresholds, but when it becomes excessively violent all the fun goes out the window.
Stoning an adulteress is a bit extreme but letting her of the hook altogether is too lax, she does cause a lot of pain and suffering to innocent family members as does a womanizer.
A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.
As for the moral compass stuff, let me just rephrase it and see if it is not something that you already know from life's experience.
A person does not become depraved overnight, all the worlds worst people spent a lifetime of ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are. There are times when a decent person is given the negative opportunity to commit a serious violation, like a murder due to a great deal of passion, or embezzle an obscene amount of money. But when a person commits such a serious act, most decent people will be overcome by guilt and will fail emotionally and have a hard time even functioning normally.
So, help me out, where do we disagree with each other about moral values? I feel that we agree in principal, and our disagreement is merely semantic.

[JoeyKnothead]

All quotes below from post 395 p40)

For example some people may feel that abortion is wrong in any and all situations, while others may feel it should be permitted anytime the woman desires it, but the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two extremes.

Somewhere between the two extremes tells us nothing about where this objective moral value lies. The fact you are unable to locate this point is further proof of the subjectiveness of this value.

Driving over the speed limit is wrong...

You never been to Germany, have you? States here in the US can't even agree where this limit is to be set. Some police departments set traps for people to the point the Feds had to institute new laws relating to how and when these traps can be placed. Using a speed trap to gain revenue is hardly and example of morals, much less objective ones.

In the same way society is protecting us from ourselves by making recreational drug use against the law...

This is a violation of the principles of free will. There is nothing wrong with people using drugs as long as they are not hurting others. The fact alcohol is legal is further proof of the subjectiveness of this value.

The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.

The reason this 'fine line' can't be found is because it is as broad as society itself.

In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.

Back to drugs, I smoke pot daily. I reject any law that tries to force anothers' morality on my own. An unfair law does not an objective moral make.

I am the wrong person to talk about morality in sexuality but, as for BDSM, it is fun as long as it remains playful and all parties respect each others thresholds, but when it becomes excessively violent all the fun goes out the window.

What some would find playful others will find offensive. You gotta trust me on this one.

Stoning an adulteress is a bit extreme but letting her of the hook altogether is too lax, she does cause a lot of pain and suffering to innocent family members as does a womanizer.

The Middle East called, they'd like a word with you about this one.

A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.

I say it's abusive to indoctrinate kids into religion, some don't. The line of abuse moves and shifts with a given culture. There was a case in New York where a woman left her baby outside while she ate at a restaurant. Sure enough the police show up to arrest her. Come to find out in her native Denmark it is not uncommon to leave children outside of restaurants like this when weather permits. My opinion is it's an attempt to get as much sunlight as possible onto the baby, a result of living in a subpolar environment. I could expound on this if need be.

A person does not become depraved overnight, all the worlds worst people spent a lifetime of ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are.

All? Do you have special insight into the minds of all of these world's worst people? How are we to know each and every one was doing as you say? Where is the 'fine line' that separates 'us and them'?

most decent people will be overcome by guilt and will fail emotionally and have a hard time even functioning normally

Oh, so not all then? How are we to agree on what a 'decent' person is. By what means can we lock down what is decent?

I don't see anything in the above that points to an objective moral value. While it's true some may wish for these to exist, I say the above fails to show they do. Where above is an objective moral value shown to exist?

[Skyler]

All quotes below from post 395 p40)

For example some people may feel that abortion is wrong in any and all situations, while others may feel it should be permitted anytime the woman desires it, but the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two extremes.

Somewhere between the two extremes tells us nothing about where this objective moral value lies. The fact you are unable to locate this point is further proof of the subjectiveness of this value.

The same argument can be applied to the material universe. Some say that light is a particle, others say that it is a wave. The fact that they can't reach an agreement, then, must be further proof of the subjectiveness of the nature of light, by your reasoning.

In the same way society is protecting us from ourselves by making recreational drug use against the law...

This is a violation of the principles of free will. There is nothing wrong with people using drugs as long as they are not hurting others. The fact alcohol is legal is further proof of the subjectiveness of this value.

Wouldn't telling people not to hurt others also violate those principles of free will?

The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.

The reason this 'fine line' can't be found is because it is as broad as society itself.

Or, perhaps, it's because every individual is looking at that fine line from a different perspective?

In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.

Back to drugs, I smoke pot daily. I reject any law that tries to force anothers' morality on my own. An unfair law does not an objective moral make.

Neither does an unfair law a subjective moral make.

A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.

I say it's abusive to indoctrinate kids into religion, some don't. The line of abuse moves and shifts with a given culture. There was a case in New York where a woman left her baby outside while she ate at a restaurant. Sure enough the police show up to arrest her. Come to find out in her native Denmark it is not uncommon to leave children outside of restaurants like this when weather permits. My opinion is it's an attempt to get as much sunlight as possible onto the baby, a result of living in a subpolar environment. I could expound on this if need be.

Your example cites how an action which is considered abusive in one instance isn't necessarily abusive in another, different situation. In the same way, a shade of white may be called white, grey, or yellow, depending on what environment it's in. That doesn't mean the wavelength being reflected is subjective.

I don't see anything in the above that points to an objective moral value. While it's true some may wish for these to exist, I say the above fails to show they do. Where above is an objective moral value shown to exist?

I think that I've demonstrated that OMVs are a logically coherent explanation for morality as we observe it. In addition, any argument which can be applied to the non-objectivity of morality can also be applied to the non-objectivity of the universe. If, then, we presuppose that the universe is indeed objective, then we have no logical reason to dismiss morality as subjective.

[Goat]

I think that I've demonstrated that OMVs are a logically coherent explanation for morality as we observe it. In addition, any argument which can be applied to the non-objectivity of morality can also be applied to the non-objectivity of the universe. If, then, we presuppose that the universe is indeed objective, then we have no logical reason to dismiss morality as subjective.

No, actually, all you have done is demonstrate that you believe in objective moral values, without evidence.

Of course, this has to do with what you believe, not what atheists believe. This whole objective moral value thing is not on topic.. make another thread.

I know you believe your claims.. but, you have not shown a 'logical coherent explaination' for morality as we see it. It might be something you find satisfying, but you have not demonstrated ONE objective moral value.

[Skyler]

I think that I've demonstrated that OMVs are a logically coherent explanation for morality as we observe it. In addition, any argument which can be applied to the non-objectivity of morality can also be applied to the non-objectivity of the universe. If, then, we presuppose that the universe is indeed objective, then we have no logical reason to dismiss morality as subjective.

No, actually, all you have done is demonstrate that you believe in objective moral values, without evidence.

I can say the same thing about you believing in the objective universe without evidence.

Of course, this has to do with what you believe, not what atheists believe. This whole objective moral value thing is not on topic.. make another thread.

You're probably right on that. We should move the discussion elsewhere. I'll make a thread in the Ethics/Morality section.

I know you believe your claims.. but, you have not shown a 'logical coherent explaination' for morality as we see it. It might be something you find satisfying, but you have not demonstrated ONE objective moral value.

Well, you haven't demonstrated one objective attribute of the universe, either. You might find the idea of an objective universe satisfying, and I'm pretty sure you believe it, but you haven't shown a logical coherent explanation for it. So by your criterion, shouldn't we abandon belief in an objective universe?

[edited to clarify potentially offensive paragraph]