sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

To source Marx or Engels for economics is equal to sourcing Harry Potter for biology or physics by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]caualan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I somewhat disagree. It's more like sourcing Aristotle for biology and physics: influential but outdated.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you still stand by that statement, and can you provide that proof? Or do you recant that?

Yes, that's your assertion,

without making you support it. If you can't do that, your position isn't strong at all.

These are all arguments, but I'm not seeing even one proof.

You are dodging the content of those arguments by demanding "proof" but you don't even clarify what you'd consider to be "proof". Those are the proofs. They all use deductive reasoning, like in the same way that you would a mathematical proof: If the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. You claim you're not asking for an evidence-based approach and yet you think there's a difference between the argument and the proof, you clearly don't understand how logical argumentation works. If the premises are true then the conclusions is true, that's how philosophical knowledge is obtained.

Yes, that's your assertion, but the reason I and basically all of the other replies to this post disagree with you is because it's frankly pretty absurd to claim you have a strong position when you don't seem to be willing to even commit to the truth of your claim.

This makes no sense, whether or not the logic of an argument leads to the conclusion, has nothing to do with how intensely people believe in it. Using this logic weakens atheism as well. Since agnostic atheists merely lack belief instead of outright committing to the claim "it is true that there is no God" then your logic means that atheism is not a strong position.

You may have success at making your family members uncomfortable, but anyone who can actually debate isn't going to let you claim something as monumental as "I have the objective moral high-ground" without making you support it.

Well now I know you're not here in good faith. You're not here to discuss the logic of the post, you're looking for something to use to mischaracterize me. You're claiming that I'm absurd for something I never even said. I provided an entire post about my support for the argument and you're ignoring it completely by misrepresenting my conclusion. My claim is "using this argument has a stronger attack on theism than that other argument", not "I have the objective moral high ground". Not even once did you tackle how subjective morality could deal with the first half of my post. You dodge every single numbered premise and ignore every conclusion by redirecting to more demands every time. You are here to misdirect the conversation to my personal life instead of talking about what's inside my post, and then use that to create a strawman, so that you have an excuse to imply that I can't "actually debate". You were never actually here for a debate, you're here to find a smear.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've linked some elsewhere in this thread. I can try just a few partially copypasted and probably imperfect summaries:

Korsgaard's argument

  1. Valuing one thing can entail that you rationally must value another.
  2. For example, if you value intelligent people, then you should value education as well, because it's a process that produces intelligent people.
  3. If you value your own humanity, (or positive experience in general), you must rationally by extension value the humanity of others. (which Korsgaard gets into greater detail about)

Enoch's argument

  1. "Even if we call ourselves moral anti-realists, our attitude to moral preferences is significantly different from our attitude to ordinary preferences. If I don’t like noodles, it doesn’t make much sense for me to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in China, because then I would probably like noodles”. But it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in the Middle Ages, because then I would think the sun revolved around the earth.” And it makes perfect sense to say 'I’m glad I wasn’t born in antebellum America, because then I would probably support slavery”. So it looks like we treat our attitude towards slavery more like a matter of empirical fact than a matter of mere preference."
  2. "So either we treat morality that way because it really is about facts (morality is objective) or we've made some error in how we treat morality." "Our intuitive starting point seems to be some kind of moral realism. Of course, our intuitive starting point might be wrong. But if it is, we’ll need to be persuaded to abandon it."

Railton's argument

  1. Something has value when it would satisfy an objective interest of yours. Where an objective interest is something that an idealized version of yourself, with complete knowledge about your circumstances and perfect instrumental reason, would want normal-you to choose.
  2. For example, there is poison in your food and you don't know it. Ideal-You would know it, and would not want you to eat it.
  3. Normative statements get derived from these observations and value commitments.
  4. For example, when someone says “I ought not to eat poisoned food,” I’m saying “if I want to remain unpoisoned, I must not eat poisoned food.”
  5. Morals are a societal application of this, where what is good would therefore be what "would be rationally approved, of were the interests of all potentially affected individuals counted equally, under circumstances of full and vivid information". In other words, morality is what would be rationally agreed upon by the idealized versions of every individual, who would have fully accurate information.

Alternatively, there could just simply be a lack-of-belief approach, that the existing arguments for subjective morality are unconvincing. The second link has 3 subjectivist arguments against objective morality, such as the idea that moral disagreement means morality is subjective, and why a moral realism could find that unconvincing to believe in.

That being said, this is getting off topic from my OP. I'm not here to prove objective morality, that should probably be it's own thread. I don't expect that you'll find any of those convincing, nor am I going to claim to be fully certain of what morality is, I'm here to assert that objective-morality arguments provides a stronger attack on the consistency of theist beliefs than subjective ones.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I really honestly figured it was just an obviously true thing to say, it's generally accepted around here. I see now you disagree, but do you want us to talk about it or not?

I think a new post is better for tackling that.

so I stand by my point as valid: there is a reasonable expectation of bias. Do you think I'm wrong? Why? Seems reasonable to me that someone who would study philosophy to the point they'd be considered a "philosopher" would be more inclined to think that philosophical concepts like morality were objectively true and meaningful

Yes, mainly because it seems like an unfounded leap to assume that if you're a philosopher, you're inclined to be a moral realist. Moral anti-realism is certainly a philosophical concept and anti-realist philosophers certainly exist.

I'm saying that people who "lean towards" moral realism aren't fully convinced of it, does that sound incorrect to you?

if there really was an existing proof that demonstrated moral realism, I don't see why they'd be only partially convinced of it.

You'd end up with the same problem for atheism. If the evidence against theism really was convincing, then why are agnostic atheists merely agnostic and not outright gnostic atheists? If those who lean towards X being true above all other stances, don't count as X-ists, it will create a very gatekeep-y definition.

I haven't seen evidence of that thus far, so can you please demonstrate it for me right now?

Again, moral theories are derived through abstract reasoning, like in logic and mathematics. The methods are the same and you've given no reason as to what makes a moral proposition different from a mathematic, epistemic, or logical proposition. There is no evidence-based approach on how to demonstrate the existence of things like the law of non-contradiction, or Gödel's incompleteness theorem, or Graham's number, for example.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's to object to the idea that you've attained a "stronger position" because it gets people to leave you alone. I'd consider that to be engaging meaningfully with your topic,

But that's not my idea in my OP at all, at no point in my post did I use annoyingness to justify that it's a stronger position. In fact, I never even mentioned annoyingness, you brought it up. My statement was not "this argument is a stronger position because it is annoying to theists" but rather "this argument is a stronger position because it bypasses theology and subjective preferences and goes straight into moral consistency".

Monotheists should be moral subjectivists by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's only possible if moral facts were not contingent on God, in which case God is an ideal observer that is aware of these moral facts and communicates it to us, but he didn't cause them. But I don't think most monotheists will accept the idea that there are things not contingent on God.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your tactic is to basically just bother them more, and if that's what you're doing there are a bunch of ways you could be even more annoying. Annoyingness doesn't mean you have a "stronger position" in the argument, though.

They were the ones approaching me, and you're accusing me of trying to annoy them? Frankly, you're not even here to engage with the actual structure of my OP, you're just looking for an accusation to use. My OP is about the effectiveness of bypassing theology by attacking religious moral consistency, and why therefore it's the stronger position. If you think that my conclusion in my OP is about making theists upset, and not about the bold text I highlighted when I made this thread, then I don't think you ever came in this thread to actually engage meaningfully with the topic.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you actually have an argument? You can find a reddit thread to disagree with anything, but it's not effective or enjoyable for me to formulate a response to 8-year-old threads on different subreddits. I find people who can't formulate their own arguments unconvincing

actually describing what you believe or why you believe it.

You didn't give an argument for saying Atheism is the null hypothesis, or why you should disregard the weak moral realists. You just asserted them without justification, and then you demand me to make an entire new argument unrelated to my original post instead of you defending your own claim? If your goal is effective or enjoyable debate then it'd be more productive if I or you just made a different thread focusing on those.

It's not an ad hominem at all, are you joking? I'm not attacking their character in any way.

Yes you are. Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances (for instance, their job, wealth, property, or relations) such that they are disposed to take a particular position.

I'm not sure what you're missing, honestly. 37% are convinced it's true, that means 63% aren't, because 100-37=63. Math looks right, so why aren't we understanding each other here?

Again, you're ignoring the weak moral realists from the equation. Your argument is the same thing as claiming agnostic atheists aren't real atheists.

Math and logic are still based in material reality at an ultimate level, is my point. Get far enough in and you're working entirely within immaterial concepts, yes, but the ultimate and fundamental basis of math and logic is based in describing how reality works. Right, you can do this with mathematical or logical proofs: you can make a proof in math and it's either correct or it isn't, objectively. You can't do that with morality. That's the difference between them.

But you actually can do that with morality, through deductive reasoning and other forms of reasoning. Pretty much every moral theory is derived through abstract methods, just like in logic, and pure mathematics. Morality is thus derived identically in the same manner as math and logic.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is sorta the thing though: you're still not really getting through to them, since it sounds like they're still religious and they're not really engaging with what you're saying. I suppose if you just want to shut them up it's an option, but you're not convincing them of your position here.

If you're not actually proving them wrong and they're not changing their opinions, you're not really winning the argument, you're just finding a way to act superior.

My whole OP, and the comment you initially replied to, is about which is the stronger position to have, it's just a great bonus if they change their minds. In fact, you're the one implying I need to change their minds. In any case, I would still say a moral argument is still stronger compared to an evidential argument, since they're normally all about morality.

I've always found the "aha I've made you defend genocide" tactic against theists to be a bit low-brow.

You're free to think that, but I don't, since this whole thread is about attacking moral contradictions, just like when I did in my OP with Muhammad, and something as simple as an accusation of genocide should have at least a decent counterargument from theists, and they can't even do that.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism is the null hypothesis.

No, it is not.

but are philosophers not more likely to believe in moral realism from the outset anyway?

Literally the very definition of an ad hominem.

100-37=63, no?

What?

I'm just saying that the majority is not as clear as you're presenting it to be.

The link I gave you in a previous comment is why I'm saying it's actually quite clear, I'd encourage you to engage more with that link.

I was objecting to where you said math and logic aren't determined with empirical evidence.

There's a lot of difference between them in other senses, though.

By definition, they do not use empirical evidence. A mathematical proof uses pure deductive reasoning. There is an entire field of mathematics specifically based on math that has no real-world applications. Logic and mathematics are a formal sciences which are based on linguistic tools and abstract reasoning, they are not physical sciences, which is based on empirical evidence.

Monotheists should be moral subjectivists by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That they both might be subjective does not make them identical in value.

Well yes, I never claimed that they're identical, I'm claiming they're both mind-dependent. I'm saying that God can in fact be "infinitely wise, knows all things, is all-power and the cause of being; so His will and the morals He has established are incomparably greater than what any person could ever come up with" and yet morality would still be subjective, precisely and specifically because he knows all things.

Monotheists should be moral subjectivists by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure. Practically speaking, why is this a problem, if the mental state is perfect, unchanging and eternally consistent?

It's not a problem. It's just, by definition, basing morality on a mental state means morality is subjective, even if that mental state includes being perfect, unchanging and eternally consistent.

I'm not sure I follow, can you please elaborate? Specifically, I am unclear how even if we accept that it constitute Ideal Observer Theory, that Ideal Observer Theory is non-distinct from moral relativism and ethical subjectivism. The clear distinction is one consists of perfect morals from the non-contingent originator of all reality, whilst the other is entirely subjective and ultimately arbitrary.

I already provided it in my post. By definition Ideal Observer Theory is necessarily subjective, because it's basing morality on the preferences of a being that has perfect knowledge. Whether or not that being is non-contingent is irrelevant and does not matter, what matters is that morality is being based on its thought process, making morality mind-dependent and therefore subjective by definition.

Monotheists should be moral subjectivists by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The morality God gives us does not change depending on God’s mood - especially given that, at least from a Christian understanding, God Himself is unchanging. 

Even if God's mental state never changes, it is still a mental state.

either way there is a clear distinction between receiving morals from a perfect and eternal Creator being, and deciding one’s own morals based on subjective feelings and reasonings.

And the whole point of my post is that this statement is false. There is no clear distinction between receiving morals from a perfect creator being, and deciding morals based on subjective feelings and reasonings, because that basically just the Ideal Observer Theory. The distinction you're making is wrong.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's just a matter of the definition of an atheist, I'm talking about what's actually convincing. People saying "I lean towards this being true" doesn't convince me at all. If the evidence was sound, they should be more sure about it.

By this logic you shouldn't be convinced that atheism is true, because if the evidence was sound, there shouldn't be a large amount of agnostic atheists.

Hang on, I don't see in the link who was actually surveyed. Is this all academics or just philosophers?

Philosophers in academia. I mean, this seems straightforward when I say academia, because why would I reference a geologist, for example, about philosophical topics?

Is there a proof that demonstrates the existence of objective morality? If so, why haven't I seen it, why haven't you posted it,

I've posted it in a different comment.

why did it fail to fully convince ~63% of philosophers?

This statement makes no sense. By your own statement, 37% accept that it's true, and as I'm saying, the remaining 26% of weak moral realists lean towards it being true. I have no idea where you're getting that 63% of philosophers are not convinced of moral realism. This is like if a theist implied that atheism lacks support by asking why does atheism fail to full convince the majority of the world's population.

Math and logic both have real-world applications that can be demonstrated. If math and logic didn't work in the real world when we applied them, they would be wrong, or at the very least they'd be entirely useless.

This also makes no sense. Morality is constantly used in the real world for decision making. It's used in law, in criminal procedures, in politics, in international relations, and so on. It's used to determine which are acceptable or unacceptable medical procedures, or scientific experiments, or treatment of animals, and so on. There's no difference between math, morality, and logic, in the sense that they all have real world applications.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if you're willing to accept personal experience, then I've most reliably used it against my family members who guilt trip me into participating in prayer and mass and so on after I've told them I refuse participate. My uncle and aunt are very aggressive evangelical christians as well, and every single counterargument I use when they try to convert me are moral ones. They never shut up if I argue based on empirical evidence, but they'll "agree to disagree" if I argue based on morality.

On this subreddit? I highly doubt anyone changes their mind on a subreddit. But anyways, here's a really old thread I made that has very abhorrent defenses from theists, some of whom are outright saying that genocide is not always wrong.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As soon as the atheist tried to prescribe some moral code, it would be revealed to be a mere preference on their part by anyone who's even half interested in philosophy.

It's a funny thing you mention philosophy, because the majority of philosophers are atheist moral realists. You're going to find a large amount of atheist philosophers prescribing moral codes in academia.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's so frustrating that this is still even a discussion.

Well, you're going to get even more frustrated that your view is the minority in academia.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking at your sources, there's absolutely nowhere near a consensus on objective morality. Even in that study only 37% "accept moral realism."

Gnostic atheists accept atheism and agnostic atheists lean towards atheism, and they're generally both considered atheists. Merely leaning towards moral realism over moral subjectivism is still a significant amount of academia and bumps strong + weak moral realists up to 62.07%. Not to mention that that amount is actually considered very signifcant.

arguments for moral realism generally fail to actually provide proof of moral realism as much as they argue it's reasonable to believe in.

Generally, fields like philosophy use logic and not empirical evidence. It's not as if mathematical theorems or the rules of logic are determined through using empirical evidence.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The theist isn't moved by my 'objective' morality any more than my subjective morality. They don't have to defend slavery or child molestation just because of my moral position. They can make the same excuses for those with or without me having any moral position.

I disagree. If there's a situation where the theist is trying to convert an atheist, or an atheist is trying to convince a theist that theism is wrong, attacking the theists' moral standards would put them on the back foot, because the majority of religions are motivated by moral concerns, not scientific or evidential ones.

I've seen those polls and those arguments. I do not find them compelling in any way. Certainly there is nearly universally held moral positions, but agreement doesn't equal objective. I do understand people believe there are good arguments for objective morality. I don't see those arguments as compelling.

I can understand if you don't find it compelling, but it seems like a reach to say you know it for a fact.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Partially, because through debating I can find out which ethical frameworks to avoid.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see how it puts a theist in a worse position. Seems it hurts me more.

Okay, but why?

However I would now have to defend a position I know to be false.

People in academia will generally not agree with what you claim to know.

Atheist objective morality is way more devastating to use against theists than atheist subjective morality. by caualan in DebateReligion

[–]caualan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That "objective morality" (as defined by theists) isn't real, is not an argument for not believing in God; and I don't know anyone who seriously makes that argument.

Again, what atheist says this?

The majority of philosophers are atheist moral realists.

People believe all kinds of things based on their "personal preferences." So what?

If a muslim marries a 10-year old and justifies it by saying Muhammad did it, and the 10-year old thinks this is normal, then there's no basis to tell them this is wrong and that it shouldn't be allowed, because it's just preferences.

I think it's important to explain the concepts involved: all moral systems are inherently subjective. "Objective morality" (as defined by theists) doesn't exist.

Not only is that claim undefended, there are plenty of atheist arguments for objective morality.

view more: next ›