Conceptions of Atheism 2.0: Morality Requires a Source

[MamaMario13]

you're right! morality does come from god! BRB off to stone some homosexuals to death

[unassumption]

I'm not sure if this argument is always based around absolute morality (token action types wrong that will always be wrong in any situation), or objective (independant of mind). The heart of the moral argument often changes within an argument.

You seem to confuse subjectivism and relativism - though relativism is usually used perjeratively.

Evolution and psychology could explain the behavior. Philosophy could explain objective or absolute morals, if they even exist. God's morals = subjective

[kreskinkun]

I hope my mix-ups haven't confused anyone, but even if subjective is the wrong term it seems to at least get its point across. I'll read up on my mistakes for next time.

As I'm not an expert on theology, philosophy, sociology, etc., I'll admit to taking a bit of a lay-approach to the discussion, which can be imprecise, but hopefully speaks to the largest audience.

The next video should talk more about relativism, as well as atheistic notions of moral absolutes.

[unassumption]

No one's really an expert and you probably know more than most other people. The words involved in ethics seem to have foggy meanings, especially objective. I tend to use objective as "mind independant" but some use it as a synonym for absolute or rules-based morals or agreed on by a lot of people or divine law. Subjective gets correlated with everything from relitivism to outcome-based morals to nihilism, though i tend to use it for anything person-based.

Hard 2 use such vague words wrong.

[unassumption]

Hope to see your deconversion story one day - so boring never really being religious in the first place, you lack that story.

Christianity has morals that appeal to those of the day (in-group tribalism, dominance-heirarchy, sanctity-profanity) it was written in; it has helped to sustain those biases when they would have changed (to harm and justice based) with the economy.

We only tend toward very general things - it's the specifics that count and theism moulds them.

[kreskinkun]

Mine's a long and silly story (pretty embarrassing honestly) and I can't narrow down the single thing that deconverted me. It's like waking up groggy from a strange dream. Eventually I plan to document my experiences whether in text or spoken format but I may do it in an episodic manner, covering particular aspects of my faith, unfaith, and the conversion.

[unassumption]

The differences between the many translations (you can check a verse in different bibles with biblegateway - amazing differences). The message is the worst bible out there - it downright changes things to fit a modern theology. Soddomy becomes homosexuality, mention of genocide is skirted around.

King James version is one of the least accurate out there, though the most fun to impose on christians, with it's dragons and unicorns and the best to quote with the bible-language.

I tend to use NIV

[kreskinkun]

I didn't like using it too much but as I read different versions of the verse in question none of them felt terribly clear to me. I felt like I would have to explain them due to their context. I found that version and thought since it clarifies itself, at least I wouldn't have to do it myself. A questionable Bible is still probably more credible to the faith than an atheist's interpretation.

If the King James version was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me.

[unassumption]

As if there's a 'real' bible anyway. The correct translation of the oldest scriptures is probably less important, considering the ideas expressed in it would be no more important than harry potter if no one believed them, than the most popular bible or the bible that shaped the church as KJV certainly did.

Not sure what you mean by "good enough for mosses" though - it's not a particularly original translation of the original (written after mosses) from what I hear (From wikipedia admittedly)

[unassumption]

Anything said about the 'atheistic worldview' is a strawman.

The moral argument consists of several different arguments, though some theists jump between them on a whim.

Arguments that we would actually change our evaluations / behaviors (desires are often tossed in there too) if we had no god is very different from saying there is no philosophical justification for objective morality without a God harder to diss, tho the it doesn't not evidence god if true unlike the first, hence the jumping)

[SeventhHanyou]

Quick question.

Ayn Rand (one of my favorite philosophers) technically believed in at least one moral absolute (self-determination), and I think she constructed a fairly logical account in favor of it. As you must know, she was an atheist.

I've never understood why anyone must accept relative morality due simply to difference of opinion. You address this briefly in this video, and I'm going to watch your next one to see where you take it, but absolute morality is not a given IMO.

[SeventhHanyou]

Correction: RELATIVE morality is not a given. Neither absolute nor relative morality has been proven definitively, though.

[kreskinkun]

I'm sorry, Youtube didn't give me notice that I had a comment. It usually seemed to.

I watered down the definitions of relative or absolute morality in this video. This is because of the theistic claim that without God there can be no morals. Therefore, relative morality would be the alternative to an absolute morality with a divine imperative.

[kreskinkun]

The concept of absolute morality can be justified in an atheistic manner, just as you've said. When I get around to making the next video I'll explore a few atheistic notions of absolute morality, and talk about how one's particular definition of morality is a necessary piece of this puzzle.

[onimangakat]

Where's your next video, video-man?

[RyuDarragh]

I think you mean "axiom" rather than axes. An axiom is or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

[kreskinkun]

I was really just using the term axis to refer to something that hinges on something else, but I don't know whether that's a proper use at all in this context. While it's true in some cases that the propositions I'm referring to are taken as self-evident, it wasn't the use I was aiming for. All the same, it's probably a better word than what I used, and I'll use it instead in the future.

Thank you for the correction.

[RyuDarragh]

It really has several definitions, but I think this one is closeset to what you meant :)

[arrancartwin]

Google satisfies me.