Does Atheism Necessarily Imply Subjectivism?

Hmm, since you made the effort to post a link to a dictionary, kindly point out where it says in any of the descriptions given, that it means unchangable, i.e. "does not allow change"?

It's not there, is it?

Is this a simple misunderstanding of the term and definition, or yet another attempt to obfuscate ad tedium?

 

"pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est
1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2. Free from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3. Free of dirt, defilement, or pollution: "A memory without blot or contamination must be . . . an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment" (Charlotte Brontë).
4. Free of foreign elements.
5. Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary style.
6. Complete; utter: pure folly.
7. Having no faults; sinless: "I felt pure and sweet as a new baby" (Sylvia Plath).
8. Chaste; virgin.
9. Of unmixed blood or ancestry.
10. Genetics Produced by self-fertilization or continual inbreeding; homozygous: a pure line.
11. Music Free from discordant qualities: pure tones.
12. Linguistics Articulated with a single unchanging speech sound; monophthongal: a pure vowel.
13. Theoretical: pure science.
14. Philosophy Free of empirical elements: pure reason."

It is there. You just need to learn how to read and comprehend what you are reading.

 

it doesn't say anything about something "pure" not allowing change though, does it? lol

Why not quit the silly semantic bickering and address what daniel aready clarified for you:

 

Morality is what societies have developed in order to live in peace and harmony. It is easier to "operate" a society that has a base of morality.

Relgious beliefs are used by societies to put "teeth" in the moral code. Things like an afterlife make it easier to convince people that they should not vary from commonly accepted moral standards. To me religion is the moral law enforcement department of any society - a good thing to be sure.

I don't think how one views god has any purpose other than that. Every society has had religions. The reasons are obvious, at least to me.

 

Still don't understand?

Let me assist with some examples:
One can observe how the characteristics of a "pure" blood-line change over the generations...
A "pure" beer changes in composition and flavour when the proportion of ingredients is changed...

One can also observe the changes in a "purely" human concern such as morals over the centuries...

Except, it usually isn't me who fails to comprehend what is being said. This little offtopic diversion is a good example.

Sic.
See above.

 

Societies use laws for this fucntion, and the teeth are police and courts.

Religion is a moral basis upon which we as society shape our moral code and, through that lens, our laws.

There are disconnects. For example, most religions are against sexual promiscuity, our society has certainly not criminalized that behavior - and yet, over the long term, promiscuity is still damaging on an individual level, greater rates of depression, broken, empty relationship, and a societal level, where there are more STD's, single mother households, and sexual addiction.

 

wrong.

religion is a paradigm to explain that which is unknown.

it is also something that provides some kind of certainty in an uncertain world.

one of the most important purposes of religion is to provide meaning for our lives.

all of these things have become less relevant in the last few hundred years, largely because of the reorientation of religion to try and fit a logical framework. it doesn't make sense logically. It only works on other levels - primarily that of the emotions.

religion can be a guide to reinforce moral codes, but it is not a moral basis upon which we shape or moral code.

the basic moral codes revolve around ensuring that societies can function, and are pretty universal to a greater or lesser extent.

where there are variations, these usually occur within a clearly defined framework, and are based on particular factors which may include scarcity of resources (which can explain many things acceptable in some societies, but that we would think beyond the pale), or a social structure that affords different rights to certain groups or individuals, or tribalism (where outsiders are excluded from enjoing the protection afforded to others by a particulat moral code).

all of these examples can be seen in christian societies over the centuries.

 

#1 - why is their less meaning our purpose to our lives today then a few hundred years ago?

#2 - Do you think faith in God being there makes every aspect of our lives absolutely certain?

#3 - I suggest you take a good hard look at tribal codes, like Pashtuwali, which is very similar to the deuteronomic codes, Roman standards of imperial masters enshrined over largely enslaved masses, and modern morality. All of these societies have religion.

Even in the Pashtu beld of Af-Pak, there is a saying tha that the Pashtu, while fiercely Muslim are only half Muslim. This is because while they will fight fierecely to defend Islam and sharia law with one hand, they will, despite Koranic law, still treat women like cattle on the other as per the ancient Pashtu tribal custom.

This is one of teh defining movements of teh current struggle in Afghanistan, where governance is derviced from the Koran (Mullah Mohammed Omar) or from tribal customs, loya jirga, (Karzai).

The idea that Christianity has not shaped Western values and traditions is silly, and simply taking the march of history for granted because things are just naturally this way is simply not correct. A lot of people fought very damb hard to make it this way.

 

you should have read my post properly.

I said:

all of these things have become less relevant in the last few hundred years, largely because of the reorientation of religion to try and fit a logical framework. it doesn't make sense logically. It only works on other levels - primarily that of the emotions.

no. but religion gives us something to believe in, which can increase our sense of certainty - including the permancence of our own lives after death.
#3 - I suggest you take a good hard look at tribal codes, like Pashtuwali,

but religion is not essential to morality, or enslavement. the dark side of religion, as with any "ism" - is that it can be used by the powerful to manipulate and enslave others.

I would like to get back to you on this - maybe tonight when i get home.

I don't disagree.

obviously it has.

and I think there is plenty of evidence that many christians don't understand this all that well - not just atheists!

 

YOU still don't understand... Did you even read the definitions and examples set up in the dictionary pertaining to 'pure blood lines'.... ie... incest. So are you speaking from experience? Or are you just running your mouth again without validating any of the information that you are placing on this forum?

You also admit through your example of the beer, that composition and flavor changes with the ingredients change.... it is no longer pure in relation to the original pureness.

Then they are no longer pure... they have changed by the application of external forces. NOT PURE.

Yep... you have done your share in keeping the thread off topic.

 

The responses to my and others posts have changed from obfuscating misreading and pointless semantics to angry obstinance and trollery.

This is no longer of interest to me.

 

I can sympathize with you. It's easier to play semantics than it is to actually address any points. It's telling when you have to hide behind that to keep from revealing just how baseless your claims are.

 

Can't handle the pressure? Is language messing with your mind? Language must not be your forte'... "trollery".... what is "trollery"?

 

Points are being addressed. The points of the many false claims being made by people who do not comprehend the language they are using.

 

Messing with language for the sake of it just isn't one of my interests.

This form of trollery is getting too repetitive and boring to bite.

 

no it is not.

atheism is absence of belief in God.

there are plenty of atheists who lack objectivity.

god's existence can be neither proven nor disproven - it is, in my honest opinion, more likely that there is no God, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support that the biblical God is real (at least as he is portrayed), but there are plenty of things that many atheists might believe in, even though the evidence is pretty scant.

 

OK, so what is illogical about the message of Jesus? What has changed?

Are we suddenly less in need of compassion? Hope? Morals? Family?

The message hasn't changed, just the tools of criticizing it.

So? Are you telling me that atheists are not equally certain that there is no God? That they are certain they have it figured out? You do understand that you first tell us we are having to change to adjust to logical frameworks, but are then absolutely certain.

I think strict creationists and so called agnostic atheists have an equal amount of totally unsupportable beliefs. Why is only one logically flawed?

Why is religion not necessary for morality? THis appears to be an article of faith for atheists, who, after inhereting the moral code derived from Christian principles in the West have simply declared Christianity unecessary.

The abscence of religion is no guarantee that you will not be manipulated by the charismatic and the unscrupulous. The upside of religion is that it is a published moral code, and as imperfect as it is, it is a non-violenet method of building consensus to combat legimate wrongs - as in the case of the abolition movement.

There is a fundamental flaw here in this analysis. THink it terms of a relationship, if you meet a man or woman who is clearly a good an honorable person, clearly kind and compassionate, intelligent and wise, and you reject them because he might at some point be violenet .... because some other man was once violent .... because some men are manipulated ... who is at fault there?

No worries.

I think people are generally more intelligent than they let on ;o)

 

The highlighted text says:
"largely because of the reorientation of religion to try and fit a logical framework. "

Please take note and address it.

I see little to nothing the two share, and btw, why "so called" agnostic atheists?
Perhaps a reminder of what it is might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Not faith, but empirical evidence.
No, secular humanism has little in common with the approval of slavery and the oppression of women who have no soul - practiced Christian morality for almost 2000 years.

Nor is the presence of religion.
I don't think I'll need to cite examples to you as a historian.

Well, I fail to see the superior value of this code which you have claimed is objective and absolute.
If I were hiding a Jew in my house and the Gestapo came knocking at my door, I definitely would LIE about hiding a Jew.
Which travesty of morality would regard this as sin???

I sometimnes wonder if what I think is pretent dumbness isn't the real thing...

 

It was addressed. Once again, the falalcious appeals to authority have to stop. You are not judge of whether something has been addressed, and quite frankly, you are interrupting a steady, even discussion with yet more superfluous accusations and one sided obstinance.

Everyone knows your opinion, how about actually supporting instead walking around haughtily telling people how they aren't doing things.

Yep - accept all its practitioners sight that web site like Biblical Creationists do the Bible and say see - therefore it cannot be wrong! The simple fact of the matter is that every agnostic atheist is actually a strong atheist.

Yourself as proof, can't actually know - but certain we are rapists. Its just an excuse to avoid evidence.

Yep all Christians are slave owners Troll.

And now you are back to 'evidence' that you are no doubt not asking for?

I would do a better job of hiding them. There are also ways to answer something, even in that situation without lying. "There are no Jews in any of these room gentlemen (Because they are in the attic)."

The fact that you go to such exterme to justify lying ...

Must be a mirror.

 

But see, the problem with that view is that atheists - and humanity in general - has not borrowed their moral code from Christianity. Morality has developed independently of Biblical teachings.

For instance: we no longer stone rebellious children, or kill homosexuals, or sacrifice animals. Why? Morality has changed. It has become accepted practice to use contraceptives, allow women to have rights and be viewed as equals, and any number of social and moral positions that were previously unacceptable because of the Bible.

Now that our morality has departed from the Bible, atheists try to point this out and Christians try to ignore the parts they don't like.

 

seriously N - I don't know whether you deliberately misread my posts or have some kind of comprehension problem.

I never said anything about the message of Jesus.

you are right the tools have changed. People tried to explain religion using logic. It doesn't work. the religious sphere is not determined by rational thought - its emotions and human need that drives religion.

your thinking is a mystery to me.

again - your thinking is a mystery to me.

this is too well known for rational debate, and I think Daniel (and others) have made some excellent points WRT this.

did I say it was?

again - the workings of your mind are mysterious to me - I don't understand the relevance of this response to what I said.

you use those Afghan examples as if they are evidence for a religious base to moralisty - well - sticking with the same religion ....

an Iraqi Shia woman fasted during Raamadan when she was breastfeeding. the Somali women I knew were shocked - they regarded this as immoral because it was bad for the baby ... maybe the sunni perspective and the shia perspective were different - not in my experience - but people who grew up in places where there had long been food shortages may have been more conscious of the impact of a breastfeeding mother's diet on a young child.

Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims have long shown more flexible attitudes on cross dressing and gender than most other muslims - and than most Europeans - why? look at these things in the general region - Thailand for instance.

lets move to christianity .... go to any spanish speaking country during carnivale - then go to Ireland jsut before lent - different attitudes towards morality are pretty clear even within the same christian sect (catholic).

when I was a girl, a woman who left her husband - even though he was beating her - was regarded as sinful - til death do us part and all that - now - the church supports women who need to leave violent husbands - and there are so many examples - as I think Daniel referred to - it is pretty clear that people may try to use religion to underpin morality - but morality is reflective of a range of other pressures - including the environment, the historical context and the cultural context. and as the evidence suggests - even our survival instincts.

I wasn't talking about intelligence.

 

no it wasn't.

 

I have made a statement, that's either true or false.
The appeal to authority fallacy is described here, there was none in my post.

Uhhh???
Why not address my points instead of making gratuitous accusations?

Lols, no, there are no commonalities between this wiki page and the bible.
It gives a very good explanation and overview of what agnostic and atheism mean in combination.
I suggest you have a look.

One more time: I have not called you a rapist, nor anyone else here - I have corrected you before on this.
STOP DELIBERATELY MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!
(It's very un-Christian, btw)

Nope, that's not what I said or implied.
Are you denying that slavery is condoned in the bible and has been practiced for the best part of 2.000 years by Christians? Are you REALLY???

And please do not call me names.
How did this escape mod notice?

I am indeed not asking you to show any evidence here. lols

Yep, empirical evidence, of practiced Christian morality is what I referred to - I am sure that as a self-professed historian you know exactly what I am referring to.

Try this one: "Are you hiding a Jew, Sir?"
Are you trying to tell me lying and deceiving, withholding the truth, is immoral in this extreme situation?
If no, then your allegedly objective, absolute moral code is in fact - neither!

Think about the implications before responding.

 

No one exists in a vacuum, even the most ardent atheist today, particularly
one from a Western culture...has been influenced, albeit indirectly, from religious
mores' and values.

To claim,

"I don't believe in God, and still lead a moral life" is intellectually dishonest because
sub-consciously religiously based moral values still influence most of Western thought.

Sartre is nothing special philosophically either...long before he came along, Immanuel Kant
was stirring the existential pot. Kant held the categorical imperative that if there is no God,
man would still have to invent Him because morals must be objective.