Atheists who abort are sacrificing the child for a higher priority.
Sounds like 'a GREATER GOOD'.
The STATE ... the PEOPLE (collectively) ... the "GREATER GOOD".
Objective, or subjective?
Last edited:
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Atheists who abort are sacrificing the child for a higher priority.
The STATE ... the PEOPLE (collectively) ... the "GREATER GOOD".
I get that. A higher priority, but NOT to a 'deity'.
Perhaps you should provide your definition of Atheism..
Ahhh ... a fantasy land. Nature of Eden.
My mistake. I was thinking of the real nature where people want to survive and need to hunt for food or defend their farm from animals or face droughts and migrations (like the Tribal Migrations across Europe caused by the early Hun successes in Asia.)
Carry on, I have no idea how your UTOPIA functions.
Sacrifice in the sense of giving up, surrendering, losing, suffering the cost. An atheist makes sacrifices if they give up this thing for that thing.
Is this ‘objective morality’ for atheists?
No. It is subjective.Is long term holistic pleasure for all human beings an objective thing?
No. It is subjective.
Pleasure for some is hedonism, sadism for others, romance for others and gluttony for still others. So “holistic pleasure for all human beings” is an imaginary construct that ignores the reality of human beings.
Short term pleasures can be subjective. Long term holistic (involving the whole human person) pleasure is not subjective, because it has to do with the objective definition of what it means to be human. Happiness is not a subjective thing. It is objective.
Absent God, I do not believe anything worthwhile in human nature is “objective”. People are born male or female (objective). People want to survive (subjective). People love or hate (very subjective).
What Is Objective Information?
The word “objective” refers to factual, data-based information that is not informed by bias. Although feelings and personal opinions are not objective, objective data like facts or historical information can form the basis for an opinion or feeling. When someone gives you an objective assessment of a topic, it is formulated from data, verifiable facts, or other irrefutable evidence without considering the speaker’s personal feelings.
So what are the unbiased FACTS and DATA about “long term holistic pleasure” upon which you draw your alleged “objective” conclusions?
[I have already listed several FACTS and DATA upon which I drew my contrary conclusions which you dismissed as “subjective” by fiat.]
That is arguing much the same as my posts. People inherently know there is a moral standard, because they appeal to it in some ways....The fact that humans behave immorally is not evidence against objective morality. In fact, that humans behave immorally presupposes objective morality as the standard.
No. Even murder is subjective.It is an objective fact that certain behaviors will lead to the survival and long term holistic pleasure of all human beings, and certain behaviors will lead to their destruction and misery.
Murder, for example, will lead to the destruction of these ends, because murder is the destruction of a human being.
True for many people (perhaps even most, I have no statistical data) but not for Nihilists. There are MANY (too many) that hold to a world view of no objective morality [or truth] and live accordingly.That is arguing much the same as my posts. People inherently know there is a moral standard, because they appeal to it in some ways.
People will naturally appeal to the moral law when they feel violated. People tend to defend themselves against the moral law when they are accused of violating it, that is, they will claim valid exception to that moral law.
However, this is not the same thing as being able to objectively define what the moral law is. The point is that people naturally, inherently sense there must be one, because they need it for their own protection.
First, I think you provide a great deal to this discussion, so don't despair.True for many people (perhaps even most, I have no statistical data) but not for Nihilists. There are MANY (too many) that hold to a world view of no objective morality [or truth] and live accordingly.
(I was one and I was not alone.)
AK, the references to atheists in your posts may apply to some atheists, but their morality in such cases does not emanate from their atheism.Objective morality for the atheist would refer to a harmony, or order of behavior, between human nature and the rest of Nature. This harmony is most conducive to certain universal human purposes: such as survival of the species and long term, holistic pleasure for all human beings. On Natural Law, for the theist or atheist, an act like murder is wrong because it violates the harmony between human nature and the Natural Law/Created Order. Murder is detrimental towards the goals of survival of the species and long-term holistic happiness for all people. When a person commits murder, they not only harm their victim, but they also harm themselves.
No. Even murder is subjective.
If I kill an enemy in war, it benefits me and harms them … so there is no “holistic pleasure for all human beings”. If he kills me, I am not better off, nor is my family.
If no one kills anyone, ever. Then the Psychopath continues on a rampage as the Police Officer does nothing to stop them. If the Police Sniper murders the terrorist, then the room full of hostages live. All SUBJECTIVE.
Where are your OBJECTIVE FACTS?
- Different races have different skin colors (an objective fact). … How does that create an Objective Natural Morality based on “long term holistic pleasure of all human beings”?
AK, the references to atheists in your posts may apply to some atheists, but their morality in such cases does not emanate from their atheism.
There are plenty of hardcore neo-Darwinists who like to appeal to “survival of the fittest,” the cold, impersonal nature of the natural world, random chance, DNA determinism, etc., especially when railing against God, theists, or religion in general. I don't think I've ever heard one argue that they wouldn't mind if someone attempted to murder them, but that's a different matter.
True for many people (perhaps even most, I have no statistical data) but not for Nihilists. There are MANY (too many) that hold to a world view of no objective morality [or truth] and live accordingly.
(I was one and I was not alone.)
There is no expectation that “life is fair”. Nothing that we are, nothing that we say and nothing that we do has any real meaning. It can be summed up in a philosophy of life as follows:First, I think you provide a great deal to this discussion, so don't despair.
As for nihilism, I'm not completely familiar with that version. Do you mean the nihilist absolutely does not care if you kiss him or cut him, that it is all one to him with no sense of justice whatsoever, that is, never a sense of feeling violated? Not that I'm planning to test it out, mind you.
Respectfully, NOTHING produces happiness for all human beings.There are MANY (too many) that hold to a world view of no objective morality [or truth] and live accordingly.
Yeah, and they are objectively wrong. They are wrong even by atheist standards. Nihilism does not produce survival and happiness for all human beings.