what is real?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not that complex really. Either morality is

1) a real external fact that cannot be changed by human opinion or
2) it is a subjective concept created in human minds that is subject to debate

Theists say it is the first , but Atheists treat it as if it is the first but can't provide any framework to support it being 1) and talk about 2) a ...[text shortened]... f 2) or come and join theists in 1). But don't blur the bondaries in some existential fudge.

You really think that most atheists believe morals are not up for debate? Perhaps I have misunderstood, but to me it seems obvious that if there's no god, which I think there isn't, morals have to be debated over and over again in as inclusive a process encompassing as great a percentage of the population as possible. The same way law does.

OK I'm ready to discuss morals now.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Which part do you disagree with ? Do you think morality can exist and be real , just like gravity ? Or do you think it is like subjective beauty (ie in the eye of the beholder).

It seems to me that Atheism is unable to create a catagory for "real" morality that exists outside of the world of human conception and subjectivity. But maybe I am wrong. ...[text shortened]... because it would no doubt be one. The onus would be on you to show me how it wasn't a fudge.

Understand that to the atheist, the notion of a fake god creating "real" morals presents a fudge too!

The question begins with whether there is or isn't a god. And the onus is on you there to show she isn't a fudge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I clearly misunderstood your earlier posts. I thought you said that natural rights were more or less defined by what nations codify in their constitutions. It now seems that you are merely claiming that nations recognize the existence of natural rights even though they may not agree on what those rights may be.

That is correct. 😏

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. "Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."

"Does it hurt?" asked the Rabbit.

"Sometimes," said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. "When you are Real you don't mind being hurt."

"Does it happen all at once, like being wound up," he asked, "or bit by bit?"

"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand."

"I suppose you are real?" said the Rabbit. And then he wished he had not said it, for he thought the Skin Horse might be sensitive.


But the Skin Horse only smiled

Originally posted by duecer
"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. "Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to pl ...[text shortened]... Horse might be sensitive.


But the Skin Horse only smiled

The Velveteen Rabbit! Brings a tear to my eye every time....

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]Which part do you disagree with ? Do you think morality can exist and be real , just like gravity ? Or do you think it is like subjective beauty (ie in the eye of the beholder).
What I disagree with is this false dichotomy.

It seems to me that Atheism is unable to create a catagory for "real" morality that exists outside of the world of hum ...[text shortened]... no doubt that it would be, I don't think rational argument is going to do the trick here.

The problem is with how you define 'real' in my view.
-----shark--------------

A tree is real , an idea is not real.

The objective is real , the subjective isn't - where's the problem?

Originally posted by The Dude 84
Understand that to the atheist, the notion of a fake god creating "real" morals presents a fudge too!

The question begins with whether there is or isn't a god. And the onus is on you there to show she isn't a fudge.

Er no . It's my thread and I'm asking what is real in regard to morals.

What's interesting is no Atheists seem able to tell me.

Like you, they keep trying to take me down cul de sacs.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The problem is with how you define 'real' in my view.
-----shark--------------

A tree is real , an idea is not real.

The objective is real , the subjective isn't - where's the problem?

A tree is real , an idea is not real.

The objective is real , the subjective isn't - where's the problem?
I can honestly say I don't know where to begin.

Ok, on what basis do you say that a tree is real and an idea isn't?

What category does an idea belong to, unreal?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".

Just to throw my atheist hat into the ring I have absolutely no problems whatsoever accepting relative "morals" (where here I'd ask you to define morals in such a way that it does not imply any notion of absoluteness).

I would find it repugnant from my point of view for another human to try and take away my life. I would regard the same attempt by a hungry tiger differently.

What precisely do you force me to accept which is so world-view shatteringly terrible if i don't accept absolute morality??? 😕

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I love you LJ. Your posts have replaced the nightly news as my main souce of entertainment

Thanks. You obviously have good taste in entertainment. 😉

Originally posted by knightmeister
what don't you understand about the following: absolutely nothing about any of this should be taken as specific to only theistic views. An atheist can very well hold that there exist objective moral facts, and, in fact, many atheists do hold to such a view.
-----lemon-------------------


You don't have be a Theist to believe that "objective moral ...[text shortened]... implications. If they did they would see the problem they have created for themselves.

You don't have be a Theist to believe that "objective moral facts" exist , but if you do believe that "objective moral facts" (OMFs) exist then you need to explain what this actually means and what the hell you are talking about.

How is that interesting? Doesn't something like that just generally hold? I mean, if one is going to make some claim (doesn't much matter what it is), there will often be reasonable expectation that she can explain what she actually means and what she is talking about. I would hope that people, atheists and theists alike, can follow through on this in any number of areas of discourse.

What you don't understand is that I don't stop anyone from holding these beliefs about OMFs , but I do expect some rationale. The reason is that to say that there are OMFs is actually quite a statement to make because of the implications of it.

Atheists who believe in OMFs don't seem to follow through on these logical implications. If they did they would see the problem they have created for themselves.

You'll have to excuse me for thinking that you are merely posturing here. Please delineate for us all these logical implications. Please go ahead and delineate the logical implications borne from the proposition that objective moral facts exist that are so problematic for atheists who hold to this proposition. Please list these implications for us so we can discuss them one by one. And please don't introduce any extraneous, question-begging premises. For instance, if you tell me that objective moral facts can only derive from God; and hence, an implication of this coupled with the proposition that objective moral facts exist is that God exists, which is problematic for any atheist; that would just be a clear example of question-begging in this context.

Now, please go ahead and list the logical implications (of the proposition that objective moral facts exist) that are so problematic in your opinion for the atheist.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In fact, in no way have you actually supported your claim that the atheist is logically committed to the view that morality is "not real".

--------LJ-----------

I have defined what I think is real morality and unreal.

It's your turn now.

Maybe if you could explain what this "real" morality is that Atheists think they can believe in it wou uman concept that exists in the subjective minds of men?

I'm very curious about this.

Look, I don't really know what your beef is. Whatever you claim or argue about morality, the atheist can simply make a dialectically symmetric or similarly structured claim or argument.

You want to say that morality is "real" in the sense that it is not subject to "change via debate" and that, basically, the moral facts are just the moral facts, independently of any attitudes or opinions or perspectives belonging to any human or group of humans. Well, the atheist can simply agree with you. The atheist can say that while atheists may argue and disagree amongst each other about what the moral facts actually are; and while there may be many competing views in play regarding what is valuable or regarding what sorts of person we ought to strive to be or whatever; that this doesn't have any bearing on the constitutive nature of the actual moral facts and that prevailing opinion doesn't have any determining effect on the truth values of moral claims. Of course, this is presumably also what you hold as well, given that bickering and arguing over the moral facts is also quite common among you theists. Just because theists, as a matter of descriptive fact, often hold conflicting and competing views and argue over what they think the moral facts are, that doesn't somehow thereby commit them to the idea that the moral facts are in and of themselves "open to change via debate", does it? Well, likewise, neither does the plurality of views among atheists commit atheists to something like that. I'm sure that many atheists think that presenting different views and competing arguments in the realm of moral discourse doesn't have any determining effect on the truth value of moral claims per se, but rather is a good way to foster discussion and to engage in the practices of justification. And, in so doing, they probably think it is a good way to help us individually and collectively converge on right answers (thereby converging on the independent facts of the matters). And I'm guessing that is also more or less what you think, too.

You want to say that morality is "something more than just a human concept that exists in the subjective minds of men". Well, again, the atheist can simply agree with you. You think there are facts (dependent on God) that get this job done, while the atheist can think there are facts (not dependent on God) that get the same job done.

If you want actual examples, there would be any number with which to familiarize yourself. I would have thought you would want to study some secular ethics to get at least some familiarity with the field before you go around declaiming on the subject. As a couple of quick examples, a virtue ethicist might claim that moral facts are facts regarding what sort of character traits conduce to eudaimonic type of human flourishing; or a consequentialist might claim that moral facts are facts regarding intrinsically valuable properties or states of affairs (toward which morally right actions conduce); etc. Many such accounts entail that "morality is real" by your very own characterization of what satisfies "real". You may claim that, well, what a virtue ethicist takes as constitutive of human flourishing; or what a consequentialist takes as intrinsically valuable; these are just matters of subjective opinion. Well, one could claim that what theist 1 takes as constitutive of God's will or God's nature; and what theist 2 takes as constitutive of the same; these are just matters of subjective opinion. If you counter that there are good standards of argument and inquiry and good justificatory practices to properly inform the theist's conception of the good; well, the atheist can claim the same about secular conceptions of the good.

So I'm just not understanding or sharing your sense of urgency about this matter.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Look, I don't really know what your beef is. Whatever you claim or argue about morality, the atheist can simply make a dialectically symmetric or similarly structured claim or argument.

You want to say that morality is "real" in the sense that it is not subject to "change via debate" and that, basically, the moral facts are just the moral facts, indep ...[text shortened]... ust not understanding or sharing your sense of urgency about this matter.

I appreciate that my own understanding of moral philosophy limited, but I'm not sure that an atheist has to reject theological ethics in favor of a secular ethical system.

If God is defined as a being who is always wholly good, or to use Knightmeister definition "God IS morality. His nature is what defines right and wrong...", then it follows that to be moral we ought to follow His will.

I don't see why the existence or non-existence of that being forces the modification of that statement, nor do I see why atheists should necessarily be excluded from the impassioned and often homicidal debates theists have in trying to determine what his will may be...

Where I agree there would need to be some modification, would be on the question of the status of objective moral facts. In this (and I could be wrong), I think Knightmeister is trying to say that if there is no God then there are no objective moral facts - which strikes me as an oddly nihilistic proposition. Of course, the atheist is free to simply assert the existence of moral facts independent of the question of God's existence (which some theists do anyway).

Originally posted by LemonJello
Look, I don't really know what your beef is. Whatever you claim or argue about morality, the atheist can simply make a dialectically symmetric or similarly structured claim or argument.

You want to say that morality is "real" in the sense that it is not subject to "change via debate" and that, basically, the moral facts are just the moral facts, independ ...[text shortened]... ust not understanding or sharing your sense of urgency about this matter.[/b]

My, but you do go on.

I'm not sure if it's just a natural loquaciousness or if you're simply trying to wow folks with your ability to use eudaimonic in a sentence (even if your use is incorrect). No matter, you are simply giving us a detailed and elaborate tour of a closet without any clothes in it.

The underlying issue is whether the moral has a foundation which can be deemed absolute. Everything you've offered is transient, so any aspect to which the atheist agrees with the theist, said agreement is apples wanting to be oranges. The theist doesn't pin his morals on the idea of supernatural, but rather on the reality of ultimate good... which is embodied in that supernatural being we call God.

At the end of the day, any moral the atheist holds dear is simply a lesser standard of good, based on something he likes and subject to any number of influences.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My, but you do go on.

I'm not sure if it's just a natural loquaciousness or if you're simply trying to wow folks with your ability to use eudaimonic in a sentence (even if your use is incorrect). No matter, you are simply giving us a detailed and elaborate tour of a closet without any clothes in it.

The underlying issue is whether the moral h ...[text shortened]... sser standard of good, based on something he likes and subject to any number of influences.

so basically, what you are saying is that an atheist cannot love his daughter or son or wife as much as a christian or a muslim?

when an atheist gives to charity, it has a lesser meaning than when a christian does it?

is this correct or would you like to modify or clarify your post?