It seems both atheists and dogmatists undervalue the subjective experience. They equate subjective opinion with falsehood. |
|
Atheists often say that they believe in objective right and wrong. They do not believe in an objective authority that distinguishes the two concepts, yet they still insist on using the term 'objective'. |
|
It seems both atheists and dogmatists undervalue the subjective experience. They equate subjective opinion with falsehood. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Personally I'm an atheist who believes right and wrong are always relative and subjective, but that there are definitely certain acts that are overhwhelmingly going to be considered right or wrong by almost everyone in almost every situation. |
|
Last edited by Darkmatters; 10-07-2011 at 06:31 PM.
I've always thought it's the other way around, anything that a person can define is subjetive, because it depends on the 5 senses and conclusión of a measuring ( machines ) the things that are closest to being objective ( to us ) are our feelings, what we think and what we experience, because it's in direct contact with our mind. |
|
Are you dreaming?
Lucid Goals
Astral Proyection [ ]
No. |
|
Last edited by Darkmatters; 10-07-2011 at 07:42 PM.
No, you just have your definitions of objective and subjective backwards. Objective means something everyone agrees on - subjective means only one person (the subject) is aware of it. Thoughts and feeling are subjective, readings made by measuring instruments etc are objective. |
|
Last edited by Darkmatters; 10-07-2011 at 08:17 PM.
Yeah that's correct, my bad, so much times having people saying something is false or useless because it's subjective, that I thought I'd make people think more about it turning objective and subjective around. |
|
Are you dreaming?
Lucid Goals
Astral Proyection [ ]
Thank you for being big enough to admit when you were wrong. That's pretty rare, even in this rather enlightened place. And it's a good thing you brought the subject up because it led to that very informative article. |
|
Thanks for the article Darkmatters. |
|
Last edited by Dianeva; 10-07-2011 at 09:56 PM.
I'm not sure I'm buying mowgli's reasoning here: |
|
Just to put this bluntly, atheists lack the knowledge that they need to rationally operate in as perfect a manner as the average animal emotionally operates. |
|
Last edited by IndieAnthias; 10-09-2011 at 01:12 PM.
Very well said Indy. It ties in strongly with a post I just made on another topic: |
|
Wow, yep, good stuff. touche, bro. What thread is that from? |
|
Last edited by IndieAnthias; 10-09-2011 at 10:21 PM.
Last edited by Darkmatters; 10-09-2011 at 10:41 PM.
Which makes NO sense, since if we only have our 5 senses... everything would HAVE to be subjective. At some point, regardless of where "information" comes from, someone experienced that information through senses, and then their brain arranged it in a way that makes sense to THEM. |
|
Question: Can you do something that you actually believe is wrong? By doing it aren't you making a this a special case where it isn't wrong? |
|
I should probably correct that statement to say people tend to consider any view outside their own as false until proven true. Unfortunately, many people who readily identify as atheist or a dogmatic religion are much less likely to listen to the proof. They just poke holes when they listen at all. To an atheist, being skeptical ends up becoming the same type of circular logic a dogmatist uses to confirm their own beliefs. Doubt is a necessary tool to survive this world. But listening is a more important tool. |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 10-12-2011 at 06:42 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Animals usually murder babies because either its not their baby(or a chance it is not), and they are competition, or there is some problem with food and they cant feed them. The other thing is if they just get so stressed out they flip out and do something crazy, which humans can do as well. Humans probably don't kill babies because of how much effort we put into raising them. It isn't cost effective to kill a baby when it takes that much effort. Humans work as a group as well, and the bigger the group the more they can do. So competition isn't as big of an issue. So if you take the low competition it is more cost effective to allow someone else to have a child that will then help the group, than to kill all children to insure your the only one passing down your genes. |
|
I wrote a lot of stuff than deleted it. |
|
If he really believes it is wrong would he have a desire to do it? If he does I don't think he really understands the concept wrong. If a person really understands why force and domination are wrong they aren't going to use them unless they believe it will save lives or something like that. |
|
Last edited by StonedApe; 10-13-2011 at 07:30 PM.
Most people know stealing is wrong, but if they had a chance to steal a million dollars and there was almost no chance of being caught, a big chunk of them would steal it any way. You know its wrong, but its a million dollars. Most people know stealing is wrong but if they were starving they would steal food. Surviving in that case is more important than being morally good. You might really feel bad about doing it though. |
|
As an atheist, I believe that morality is a social construction (this applies to animal societies as well) and is not objective. An objective morality asserts that there is a moral standard that exists outside of the human mind but morality makes no sense outside of the context of social relationships. In order to reap the benefits of living in a group we had to develop a standard of behavior that does not harm individuals in the group, thus hurting the group as a whole. If there were no human beings alive the assertion “gay marriage is wrong” would make no sense because this moral proposition exists only in relation to human beings. |
|
Last edited by stormcrow; 10-14-2011 at 07:56 AM.
Bookmarks