Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_JAK]

ALITD,

Let’s address your original title to these pages.

You state: “Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists”

A false conclusion that such atheists “must be nihilists.”

First, the concept of “moral truth” is relative. It’s relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc. That which is “moral” in one culture may not be in another culture. Hence “moral truth” is relative to those factors listed.

Second, be sure you understand the meaning of “nihilist.”

nihilist

nihilist

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions

all the definitions from the link above should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Your statement of title is incorrect. You recognize that atheists believe
in “moral truth.” Not only are ideas of morality relative, but ideas of truth are also relative -- relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc.

Now let’s consider moral

moral

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

All the definitions from the link on “moral” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

truth

truth

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

All the definitions from the link on “truth” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Given these understandings of terms in your title, it’s clear that you have not the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

JAK

JAK, Light doesn't have much use for dictionaries or definitions. Light prefers to make definitions up as he/she goes along.

harmony,

Is that so?

The communicative qualities inherent in language are in very large part dependent upon consensus of meaning in the words we choose. Of course, if the intent is to subvert meaningful communication, one can do that by the very mechanism you attribute to ALITD.

One might wonder what any intent or purpose ALITD has at all in a medium wherein words are nearly the exclusive tool for an exchange of thought.

JAK

[_beastie]

Come on out of your little closet, Ray, you're giving yourself away on MAD:

I'm not impressed with "ark steadies", but I'm not denying their right to post either. I'm wondering why there seems to be so many "brights" among exmos. And this comment from Dennett says a lot too. He really believes that believers are not very bright. I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum to Dennett. Here is Dennett's definition of a "bright":

QUOTE

What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview


If you don't hold a naturalistic worldview, you're not very bright. Someone said they found this thread offensive. Well I find Dennett's opinion offensive, very much so. Dawkins is on his mission to end religion, so is Dennett, and I will oppose them (not that I don't have objections to aspects of religion, but I think it will be horrific if society went the way Dennett/Dawkins want). I think some exmos take the same approach to Mormonism.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 4217&st=60

I think you always wanted us to know it was you.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

JAK, Light doesn't have much use for dictionaries or definitions. Light prefers to make definitions up as he/she goes along.

Yes, because the proper way to determine a word use is to break up phrases into their component definitions, then put them back together again. That's how I learned a hobby horse is a horse that makes model airplanes.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

First, the concept of “moral truth” is relative. It’s relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc. That which is “moral” in one culture may not be in another culture. Hence “moral truth” is relative to those factors listed.

This is hardly a settled matter. As it happens, moral relativism is so unrespectable that slightly more than zero academic philosophers of meta/ethics subscribe to it. If anything is settled, it would be that this position is too poor to take seriously. As it happens, I think "moral truth" is not relative to those factors along with rest of the world who has given the topic a modicum of thought. More importantly, the term moral truth just means that moral statements are truth-apt; that is they assert a certain state of affairs, that reality is a certain way. Believers in moral truth think some of those statements are true. That people really are right to assert that killing Mormons is wrong. Clearly, you think this is a relative issue, showing what your rejection of God has wrought and how truly dangerous you are. But even so, that has no implications that would show my assertion problematic. All I did show an argument that shows that atheists who assert moral truth and aggregate value theory assert something that ultimately is nihilistic, meaning that no actions have moral meaning. It doesn't matter what you do. People's replies to me have ranged from gratuitous personal attacks, exclaiming "nuh huh!", demanding I prove God, responding to arguments not actually made, and lessons in logic from people who would have trouble reasoning their way out of a paper bag.

[_JAK]

First, the concept of “moral truth” is relative. It’s relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc. That which is “moral” in one culture may not be in another culture. Hence “moral truth” is relative to those factors listed.

This is hardly a settled matter. As it happens, moral relativism is so unrespectable that slightly more than zero academic philosophers of meta/ethics subscribe to it. If anything is settled, it would be that this position is too poor to take seriously. As it happens, I think "moral truth" is not relative to those factors along with rest of the world who has given the topic a modicum of thought. More importantly, the term moral truth just means that moral statements are truth-apt; that is they assert a certain state of affairs, that reality is a certain way. Believers in moral truth think some of those statements are true. That people really are right to assert that killing Mormons is wrong. Clearly, you think this is a relative issue, showing what your rejection of God has wrought and how truly dangerous you are. But even so, that has no implications that would show my assertion problematic. All I did show an argument that shows that atheists who assert moral truth and aggregate value theory assert something that ultimately is nihilistic, meaning that no actions have moral meaning. It doesn't matter what you do. People's replies to me have ranged from gratuitous personal attacks, exclaiming "nuh huh!", demanding I prove God, responding to arguments not actually made, and lessons in logic from people who would have trouble reasoning their way out of a paper bag.

I’m inclined to accept harmony’s evaluation of you, ALITD.

You offer not the slightest refutation of my comments as a whole as you choose to eliminate the whole of my address.

The most elementary historical review of cultures, civilizations, and societies demonstrates my address to you.

JAK previously:
First, the concept of “moral truth” is relative. It’s relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc. That which is “moral” in one culture may not be in another culture. Hence “moral truth” is relative to those factors listed.

Second, be sure you understand the meaning of “nihilist.”

nihilist

nihilist

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions

all the definitions from the link above should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Your statement of title is incorrect. You recognize that atheists believe
in “moral truth.” Not only are ideas of morality relative, but ideas of truth are also relative -- relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc.

Now let’s consider moral

moral

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

All the definitions from the link on “moral” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

truth

truth

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

All the definitions from the link on “truth” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.


ALITD stated:
This is hardly a settled matter.

JAK:
That’s not a refutation nor a recognition of the analysis.

ALITD stated:
As it happens, moral relativism is so unrespectable that slightly more than zero academic philosophers of meta/ethics subscribe to it.

JAK:
You continue (true to your form) as you rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance continues to fail as refutation.

moral relativism

And how do you plan to deny the existence of a multitude of cultures, societies, and civilizations which have been historically documented in the evolution of human experience? It will take you some time to read all the website just above. It’s the whole of the site not an isolated misrepresentation by a phrase pulled from the context of the whole.

Your assertion is not supported by any consensus of present-day philosophy in regard to the historic evolving notions of morality. Even in our present day, great differences can be documented with regard to what groups or individual thinkers consider to be moral.

And the notion that one view alone is the only “moral one” is fantasy, ignorance, arrogance, and pretension.

“Moral relativism” is a demonstrable with evidence not only from cultures, societies, and civilizations, it is demonstrable within all of those as individuals disagree on matters of discourse and conduct.

ALITD stated:
As it happens, I think "moral truth" is not relative to those factors along with rest of the world who has given the topic a modicum of thought.


JAK:
You demonstrate that you are poorly educated and that you don’t think. You make it up as harmony observed. “I think” as you pontificate is a feeble, paltry, trivial response. An overwhelming body of evidence for differences in perceptions of what’s moral throughout history of human evolution lies before you in every culture, society, or civilization which has emerged in human interaction.

You have made no working definition for “truth” let alone “moral truth” in your musings. Like the Alice in Wonderland character, you meaning anything which pleases you, you mean nothing at all.

ALITD stated:
More importantly, the term moral truth just means that moral statements are truth-apt; that is they assert a certain state of affairs, that reality is a certain way.

JAK:
More truth by assertion. You, ALITD, do not construct standard definitions for the English language (or any other language). Worse, you ignore standard meanings and application of words. Read the definitions.

However, you do establish moral relativism in your comment here as you recognize (if only subconsciously) differences in conclusions reached. And those differences are reached within societies, cultures, civilizations, AND by individuals within some context of the same groups.

So, I thank you for establishing moral relativism even as you utterly fail to refute it.

ALITD stated:
Believers in moral truth think some of those statements are true.


JAK:
Is there a point here? “Believers” are unreliable. Why? They are unreliable because they believe different things. They have a different notion of just what is a moral issue or a “moral truth.”

“...some of those statements are true.” What does that mean? (I know, as harmony observed, it means whatever you want it to mean -- no more and no less.)

ALITD stated:
That people really are right to assert that killing Mormons is wrong.


JAK:
Entirely irrelevant to the discussion here, and entirely non sequitur to any comments between us.

ALITD stated:
Clearly, you think this is a relative issue, showing how what your rejection of God has wrought.

JAK:
The sudden shift of subject makes clear that you are profoundly lost in this discussion. Your comments are irrelevant and entirely off topic -- and you indeed are in the dark.

ALITD stated:
But even so, that has no implications that would show my assertion problematic. All I did show an argument that shows that atheists who assert moral truth and aggregate value theory (a subset of moral realism held by almost all moral realists) assert something that ultimately is nihilistic, meaning that no actions have moral meaning. It doesn't matter what you do in any sort of ought sense.

JAK:
Since you have entirely lost any context or syntax here, you’ve become an absurdity.

You showed nothing that you claimed. You understand nothing about the meaning of the words you used. And since you do not address standard usage of the words, one can only conclude that you have not the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

JAK

[_JAK]

ALITD,

Assertions absent credible evidence don’t support your position.

You stated: “As it happens, moral relativism is so unrespectable that slightly more than zero academic philosophers of meta/ethics subscribe to it.”

No evidence did you provide for the claim. You have been unable to refute that in the evolution of human cultures, civilizations, societies, etc. there is documented practice, mores, and law which confirms these many cultures, civilizations, societies, etc., have observed different customs as well as different laws which confirm that their various notions of moral conduct is codified in different ways.

You have failed to define your own use of terms demonstrating consensus of view which would lead to anything other than the relative merit of various behaviors or laws governing behavior.


ALITD stated:
“As it happens, moral relativism is so unrespectable that slightly more than zero academic philosophers of meta/ethics subscribe to it. If anything is settled, it would be that this position is too poor to take seriously.”

Let’s see your consensus of evidence in support of this claim.

Speculation is employed in “meta/ethics” in your statement.

See Wikipedia which states:
{...meta-ethics addresses the question "What is (moral) goodness?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.}

No discussion of that issue can escape relative merit and discussion of what constitutes areas which it might address.

“Ethical properties and evaluations” necessarily address relative merit and hence address relative moral concepts or behavior or law.

Read:
Meta-ethical questions

In part, you will find this.

{1 What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments?
2 What is the nature of moral judgments?
3 How may moral judgments be supported or defended?[2]
A question of the first type might be, "What do the words 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' mean?" (see value theory). The second category includes the question of whether moral judgments are objective or relative. Questions of the third kind ask, for example, how we can know if something is right or wrong, if at all.}

Further read this:

{A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not contain any ethical evaluations. An answer to any of the three example questions above would not itself be a meta-ethical statement.
The major meta-ethical views are commonly divided into realist and anti-realist views, despite the fact that some labels, such as cognitivism, do not recognize the realist/anti-realist boundary:
· Moral realism holds that there are objective values. Realists believe that evaluative statements are factual claims, which are either true or false, and that their truth or falsity does not depend on our beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes towards the things that are evaluated. Moral realism comes in two variants:
· Ethical intuitionism and ethical non-naturalism, which hold that there are objective, irreducible moral properties (such as the property of 'goodness'), and that we sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral properties or of moral truths.
· Ethical naturalism, which holds that there are objective moral properties but that these properties are reducible to entirely non-ethical properties. Most ethical naturalists hold that we have empirical knowledge of moral truths.}
------------------------

There is nothing here which supports your claims and for which you present nothing as support.

Discussions of moral notions consistently involve subjective imposition of cultural, societal, and civilizational notions.

Hence, notions of moral truths are inherently linked to the relative merit of such concepts. They are articulated, dissected, revised, and codified in various groups (previously mentioned).

Let’s see your evidence that “moral truth” is contrary to the evidence easily accessible regarding the relative merit of claims for “moral truth.”
-----------------------------
In addition:

Ethical subjectivism, which holds that moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of observers. There are several different versions of subjectivism, including:

Moral relativism (compare "cultural relativism"): This is the view that for a thing to be morally right is for it to be approved of by society; this leads to the conclusion that different things are right for people in different societies and different periods in history. Though long out of favor among academic philosophers, this view has been popular among anthropologists, such as Ruth Benedict.


You have provided no evidence against the analysis here.
----------------------------

Your previous affirmations of God in no way assist you. The emergence and evolution of gods and later God notions are inconsistent with one another. They are also inconsistent within their own framework.

For example, Christians don’t agree on what is moral conduct. The same religion as a result of its many interpretations does not demonstrate consensus on issues of “moral truth.”

If it did so demonstrate consensus, we would find a universal that is absent in Christianity.

And while each denomination, sect, or cult claims to have THE “moral truth,” the fact is there is absence of consensus on the matter.

And you, ALITD, do not write the moral truths nor do you speak for any such fiction.

To argue that morality or “moral truth” is not relative is to claim that one fully and accurately knows. It’s an unrealistic ego trip. With 6 billion humans presently on the earth and countless perspectives on what various cultures, societies, and civilizations regard as “moral,” we have at our view evidence that moral behavior and conduct (codified in law) is widely varied.

People with narrow and limited perspective (such as you) have great difficulty escaping the box in which they fictionalize that only they have “moral truth.”

You have established no credible support for your narrow view and have presented nothing beyond assertions.

JAK

[_A Light in the Darkness]

The most elementary historical review of cultures, civilizations, and societies demonstrates my address to you.

That different people have had different beliefs about what moral truth is does not mean that moral truth is relative to culture. This is no more the case of moral facts, if they exist, than it would be of beliefs concerning the age of Washington D.C. What history testifies to is people's differing knowledge and grasp of the truth, not the nature of that truth itself. Francis Bacon seems all the more right with each passing page this thread reaches.

You continue (true to your form) as you rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance continues to fail as refutation.

You are the one who made an empty assertion. You did not back up your view at all. I chose the most sensical route to replying to your condescending lecture, which is to point out that your position is generally regarded as laughable by academic professionals. It's a nice contrast between your attitude and the reality of the situation. You're views are no more respectable than the preacher who declares, "I didn't come from no monkey," and your demand for refutations of your bald, ridiculous assertions is the height of arrogance.

And how do you plan to deny the existence of a multitude of cultures, societies, and civilizations which have been historically documented in the evolution of human experience?

I don't. The existence of multiple views on what is right doesn't change the fact that people make errors in their beliefs. Some culture's views are simply wrong. As it happens, the latter readily explains the former. Moral relativism might be something appealing to those looking to justify their sin-nature, but the arguments you employ in its favor don't even show the least bit of awareness of existing criticisms.

Your assertion is not supported by any consensus of present-day philosophy in regard to the historic evolving notions of morality. Even in our present day, great differences can be documented with regard to what groups or individual thinkers consider to be moral.

Moral relativism has the unusual distinction — both within philosophy and outside it — of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

[_Runtu]

I don't. The existence of multiple views on what is right doesn't change the fact that people make errors in their beliefs. Some culture's views are simply wrong. As it happens, the latter readily explains the former. Moral relativism might be something appealing to those looking to justify their sin-nature, but the arguments you employ in its favor don't even show the least bit of awareness of existing criticisms.

Here your argument boils down to your assertion that you know what's right. How do you know such moral truth? Might not your view, or your culture's view be "simply wrong"?

[Guest]

Here your argument boils down to your assertion that you know what's right. How do you know such moral truth? Might not your view, or your culture's view be "simply wrong"?

I'm not making a case for moral realism in this thread. I'm just asserting that those atheists who believe in it, along with two other things, reduce down into moral nihilism. I provided ample argument for that. Relativists like Jak escape the problem, but only with the cost of being moral relativists: a widely disrespected view that differs little from nihilism proper in practice. However, I am able to point out that the argument offered her in favor of moral relativism is shortsighted. It tries to point out the fact that people have had differing views on what is moral truth to establish moral relativism. But trivially we can understand that different views by different people and peoples throughout history doesn't support moral relativism, because people have the ability to be wrong with the truth still remaining universal. Just because people have different opinions about what is true, that does not mean truth itself is relative to them. This objection and counter is apt for any assertion re: truth. People have had differing views on cosmology throughout history. That does not mean that the truth of the structure of the solar system is relative to culture. Some culture's merely may have a better grasp of the nature of the truth than others. As it happens, this is a vastly more reasonable way to look at the matter, but regardless, it shows the specific argument in favor of relativism lacking.

[_Who Knows]

AliD,

My post, which was relevant to your arguments here, has been completely ignored. Meanwhile, you answer people who seem interested in engaging in a battle of wits. In other words, you are ignoring on-topic behavior and rewarding off-topic behavior. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out which kind of behavior is going to prevail in the thread. Cheers,

-CK

Has he/she responded to your post yet?