This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#331C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 8:49:57 AM
kozlo100 posted...
Ok, one more thought experiment and we'll draw this all together. You see a small child you don't know and don't have any connection to in pain. Still proceeding under the premise that God does not exist, do you help this child? Might you help the child under the premise that you feel empathy for her? Might you also do it because you understand that someone values her in the same way that you value those close to you, and you feel empathy for them as well?


Yes, of course I would help the child whether I believed in God or not for a variety of reasons, including the ones you mentioned and beyond. Please don't think I'm making the point that atheists shouldn't value people.

Faust_8 posted...
Everything I said supported that. Everything I said pointed to how everyone, everywhere, assigns imaginary values to pretty much everything, even if they believe in a god with their whole being. Thus to use that a criticism of "atheism" (again, a misunderstanding of atheism) is pointless. It's redundant because when you really think about it, you're just accusing us of what we both already know the both of us do.

So I really don't see how any of your finger pointing at any arbitrariness, imaginary, or invented anything has any relevance.

If you already agree that we can highly value things that are ultimately only valued because we invented value for them as a consensus, why is this topic still going? That is exactly where subjective morality comes from; we decided to value human happiness, health, and well-being, and we don't give a damn if the rest of the universe doesn't give a damn about any of that. Because to us, these things matter and have value. It doesn't matter that they don't have value when you take the humanity out of the equation, because we ARE the humanity.


To simply state facts about atheism in contrast to other systems of thought is not "criticizing." If you get angry about it and say I'm "finger-pointing," it makes you seem pretty insecure about the facts of atheism.

You're also wrong when you say that all belief systems are equal in this way. If you're an atheist, you have to admit that the idea that humans have equal value is imaginary if you're going to be intellectually honest. If you're a Christian or follow some other religion, the idea that humans have equal value is not imaginary.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#332lastheroPosted 1/30/2013 8:55:10 AM
To simply state facts about atheism in contrast to other systems of thought is not "criticizing."


The only 'fact' of atheism is that it involves not believing in a god or gods.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#333C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 8:58:52 AM
lasthero posted...
The only 'fact' of atheism is that it involves not believing in a god or gods.


^As if there are no repercussions to your worldview when you believe there are no gods.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#334C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 9:01:18 AM
There are various facts about life on earth that come with the belief that no god exists. If you don't realize this, go back and read the topic (or at the posts between me and kozlo).
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#335ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 9:06:46 AM
C_Mat posted...

To simply state facts about atheism in contrast to other systems of thought is not "criticizing." If you get angry about it and say I'm "finger-pointing," it makes you seem pretty insecure about the facts of atheism.

You're also wrong when you say that all belief systems are equal in this way. If you're an atheist, you have to admit that the idea that humans have equal value is imaginary if you're going to be intellectually honest. If you're a Christian or follow some other religion, the idea that humans have equal value is not imaginary.


Yes it is, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that God or anything attributed to him is also not imaginary.

Further, as Kozlo has said before, if value is generated by ourselves, so what? You've already stated that you ascribe value to all kinds of things sans God; and being that your God can't be shown to be anything more than imaginary either, what gives you the right to criticize our system?
#336Faust_8Posted 1/30/2013 9:15:03 AM
Exactly. Telling me I imagine my values is just telling me what I already know. And you can't exactly criticize the system because you have de facto admitted to doing it yourself and agreeing that it works.

You believe in God and thus you believe that's the reason people have value...but what about sports? Money? Democracy? Steak? Gold? Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Forests? Did God tell you to value those?
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#337kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 9:25:10 AM
C_Mat posted...
Yes, of course I would help the child whether I believed in God or not for a variety of reasons, including the ones you mentioned and beyond. Please don't think I'm making the point that atheists shouldn't value people.


No, I understand you're not saying that.

The point is, taking the answers you've given and stringing them together gets you subjective morality. You hold that human life has value, and would act as if all life has value, even in the absence of God there to grant that value to us.

Certain kinds of mental illness aside, humans value human life instinctively, and that's enough to build a morality from.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#338C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 7:24:55 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Yes, of course I would help the child whether I believed in God or not for a variety of reasons, including the ones you mentioned and beyond. Please don't think I'm making the point that atheists shouldn't value people.

No, I understand you're not saying that.

The point is, taking the answers you've given and stringing them together gets you subjective morality. You hold that human life has value, and would act as if all life has value, even in the absence of God there to grant that value to us.

Certain kinds of mental illness aside, humans value human life instinctively, and that's enough to build a morality from.


Is that it? Because I agree with all this. I said several times in this topic that I wasn't trying to dismantle the concept subjective morality. If atheism is true, then of course morality is subjective (and if Christianity is true then it's also still subjective in some aspects). If this was all you were building up to, I have no disagreement here. Do you disagree with anything I've said as I was breaking down the difference between the idea that humans objectively have value and the idea that humans subjectively have value?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#339C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 7:28:19 PM
Faust_8 posted...
Exactly. Telling me I imagine my values is just telling me what I already know. And you can't exactly criticize the system because you have de facto admitted to doing it yourself and agreeing that it works.

You believe in God and thus you believe that's the reason people have value...but what about sports? Money? Democracy? Steak? Gold? Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Forests? Did God tell you to value those?


To answer your question, no. Now where did I criticize atheism?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#340Faust_8Posted 1/30/2013 9:20:16 PM
C_Mat posted...
Faust_8 posted...
Exactly. Telling me I imagine my values is just telling me what I already know. And you can't exactly criticize the system because you have de facto admitted to doing it yourself and agreeing that it works.

You believe in God and thus you believe that's the reason people have value...but what about sports? Money? Democracy? Steak? Gold? Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Forests? Did God tell you to value those?


To answer your question, no. Now where did I criticize atheism?


...Where did I say you criticized atheism? "The system" means subjectively determining value on a individual or species level.

Is that it? Because I agree with all this. I said several times in this topic that I wasn't trying to dismantle the concept subjective morality.


What? When you've said stuff like this, I just can't believe that. This is from the first page.

Because human can construct their own morality to say that murdering innocent children is alright, while a Universal Rule can say that murdering innocent children is wrong regardless of what a human thinks about it. How do you fail to see that?

No, sorry, your views have simply shifted as this topic went on. You were most definitely trying to discredit subjective morality when this topic began, and anyone who goes through the topic and reads your posts would think it's obvious.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while