Raf

Fun fact: Chuck Wagner (Automan) performed the role of Jekyll/Hyde for the national tour of the 1997 Broadway musical. 

And he was really good.

I mean I TRIED

Definitely not 98.6.

101?

105?

6 hours ago, WordWolf said:

That explains why I couldn't recognize any of the quotes. 

Yes, I picked quotes that I felt made it clear we were talking about Norman Bates but also that time had passed since the first movie.

Or so I thought.

I'm also taking an extended break from games, in case that was not clear.

I am choosing not to micromanage this thread. If the Christians are ok having their faith questioned outside the questioning faith forum, cool.

But for precedent's sake, let's not make a habit of it. 

13 hours ago, waysider said:

Even VPW argued that the soul is simply your breath life.

Yes, but honestly, did he seem like he had the slightest idea what he was talking about?

Charity,

I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it.

I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic.

I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

Quantitative: countable. We have a soul. One. It's a thing. Not part of our imagination.

Immeasurable: it doesn't have weight or mass. There's nothing about a soul that science can point to, independent of the body, in order to demonstrate its presence.

It might be easier if I asked you what a soul is, independent of the body.

I'm suggesting that St. Thomas Quinas' meditations on the soul carry no more weight in the real world than George Lucas' notes on how The Force works. (If you can think of a polite way for me to say that, I'm all ears)

My apologies to you personally.

I thought I was clear that this was as a species, not a criticism directed at you personally. I thought I was as far from singling you out as I could possibly be.

But it is inherent in our opposing views that we will occasionally step on each other's toes.

So allow me to rephrase, please, in a way that does not insult anyone directly or indirectly:

41 minutes ago, Raf said:

but when the body stops, so does the soul.

We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But for no logically defensible reason that I can discern, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies. I contend there is no basis for this belief. 

Again with my apologies, is that better?

Since this is the "atheism" side of the fence as far as conversation goes, it's not off topic to posit that the soul simply does not exist. It is a function of the body, the name we give to this complex firing of synapses that I cannot begin to articulate because of its chemical complexity, but when the body stops, so does the soul.

We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But in our arrogance as a species, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies.

I know, the alternative is to have "no hope," and that leads to a feeling of, well, hopelessness.

Then again, 10 trillion trillion years from now, I will not be burning in hell, so I have that going for me.

3 hours ago, oldiesman said:

I was thinking more along the lines of accurately defining the Old and New Covenants using objective/subjective standards which appears to be the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is objective v subjective morality, not objective truth claims v. subjective truth claims, a whole different subject.

4 hours ago, oldiesman said:

How does one talk about this issue only biblically then?   That's what I'm trying to do.   If you can develop some rules of the game that would satisfy everyone it would be terrific.  

We would have to restrict any references to the land post 1948. We would have to keep it in doctrinal (since in this forum too many of us would just say "No, God didn't give you the land, stop using ancient fairy tales as an excuse for what you want to accomplish in the 21st Century."

So the question would have to be, "do you believe modern day Israel has a claim to the promises recorded in Genesis and/or the Bible. To avoid politics, the answer would be Yes or No followed by an analysis of what the Bible has to say about the subject (the closest we could get to modern politics is establishing that modern Jews are the descendants of ancient Jews and Arthur Koestler was proved wrong by DNA).

7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

In an absolute sense, I'm not sure I'd consider ANY standard as "objective."  

A corollary of my point is that all morality is subjective by definition, including God's, assuming his existence.

Objective morality, in that framework, is merely acceding to HIS subjective morality, which would be as perfect as we presume Him to be.

4 hours ago, oldiesman said:

This is not political... please follow...

With the U.S. bombing of Iran, I've gotten into a couple of debates with Jews who believe God gave them that land for eternity and American Christians are supposed to understand that and acquiesce.  (Old Covenant)

However some Christians (myself) believe that Jesus' crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension and glory began a New Covenant wherein Jews who believe in Christ are no more Jews but now members of the body of Christ along with the Gentiles who also believe.  

The Old has been supplanted by the New (according to my belief).   Here are the questions:

Would it be accurate to say that both of these beliefs are subjective?

Or, is the Jewish religion really the objective one, and the Christian religion the subjective (being an adaptation of the first)?

 

I submit that these are conflicting claims to objective truth. I don't see anything subjective in either claim other than the decision of which claim to accept. Objectively, only one can be right (but both can be wrong, objectively).

On 6/20/2025 at 8:08 PM, waysider said:

Humans have a natural, built-in sense of morality. It's thought that this innate sense of morality may have been responsible for mankind's continued ability to survive as a whole. (Greater good vs individual needs)

 

Source: Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review - PMC

I felt the rest of his post was needed for context, because the idea that we have a natural, built-in sense of morality raises the question how that happened. The post provides a natural explanation for how that could happen.

Could you?

J/k

19 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

Wow now there's a question I was never asked in my 68 years.    Should I be concerned?

2 billion Muslims say yes.

Willing to take that chance?

How are you avoiding Islam's hell?

It was Psycho II.

Go ahead

That last post didn't format the way ai wanted. Sorry.

Quote

The problem with subjective morality can best be addressed AFTER one realizes objective moral values are not an option.

Subjective moral values are subject to conflicting standards. If I use harm-benefit and you use "God's Word," there is no independent arbiter to decide which standard is right or wrong. The best each side can do is appeal to the standard.

Now, I picked the hyperbolic examples to demonstrate you cannot presume the "God's Word" standard to be superior (slavery, death penalty, ordering genocide and baby killing). But those are hyperbole.

But what about something like abortion? Harm-benefit doesn't give us a clear answer. (Some would argue it does). God's word does. (Some would argue it doesn't).

In resolving disputes, subjective morality utterly fails. People simply disagree. And depending on the severity of those disagreements, we see different alliances, friendships, communities, denominations and even nations. 

 

The trick is, subjective morality does not CLAIM to be an arbiter of conflicting moral values.

In fact, it predicts unresolvable conflicts.

I have found that in attempting to discredit subjective morality, some theists will use hyperbole themselves. They'll say things like "What happens if you think rape is wrong and someone else thinks rape is right? Checkmate, atheists!!!" There are three problems with this strawman argument.

One: even if one were to conclude it discredits subjective morality, it does nothing to support objective values as a viable alternative (especially since the Bible's solution to the rape of a virgin is punishing the rapist by making him marry the woman he rapes).

Two: it doesn't discredit morality to have two people, or two groups of people, disagree on a given point, no matter how hyperbolic. Subjective morality, in fact, PREDICTS such disagreements in a way objective morality does not.

Three: while we may not have an impartial objective arbiter to resolve disputes, we have the next best thing: a partial, subjective arbiter imbued with authority to resolve such conflicts. Societal consensus. Government. Mores that have grown over time and established themselves to be most beneficial to community health and growth.

A person who does not believe rape, murder and theft are wrong is a danger to the health and well-being of everyone who disagrees with him. We can isolate that person socially and, if he actually commits these offenses, physically. 

That no two societies have independently arrived at the same set of laws is perfectly consistent with and predicted by a worldview in which all morality is subjective by definition. 

 

The problem with subjective morality can best be addressed AFTER one realizes objective moral values are not an option.

Subjective moral values are subject to conflicting standards. If I use harm-benefit and you use "God's Word," there is no independent arbiter to decide which standard is right or wrong. The best each side can do is appeal to the standard.

Now, I picked the hyperbolic examples to demonstrate you cannot presume the "God's Word" standard to be superior (slavery, death penalty, ordering genocide and baby killing). But those are hyperbole.

But what about something like abortion? Harm-benefit doesn't give us a clear answer. (Some would argue it does). God's word does. (Some would argue it doesn't).

In resolving disputes, subjective morality utterly fails. People simply disagree. And depending on the severity of those disagreements, we see different alliances, friendships, communities, denominations and even nations. 

Success!

There is actually no appreciable difference between the harm-benefit analysis I'm articulating and basic morality driven by human empathy.

In other words, Nathan, I see no areas of disagreement between your comments and mine, save yours are more succinct.

Mine are more geared toward addressing the presumption that god is a prerequisite for "objective moral values."

That is, yours is an argument. Mine is a counterargument.

Counterarguments take longer 

Using harm-benefit as an objective standard against which we can measure an action and determine whether that action is "good" or "evil" does NOT result in universal results, because we are human and each of us will value different things as part of our overall calculation.

On the after life thread, the question was raised about euthanasia and abortion.

Euthanasia causes a very serious harm: death. It also causes a very serious benefit: it prevents later suffering. So is it right or wrong? Well, who's making the decision? I would contend, and I'm sure many would agree, that the person doing the dying gets the determining vote. But you want that vote to be based on fact, not just speculation. I'm 55. My best years are behind me. So, what, I kill myself now? If I were to think that way in the absence of a medical diagnosis foreshadowing pain and suffering, you would probably want me to reconsider. I have a family to care for. Hm, the insurance money would come in handy, TBH. But my presence would be much more valuable than money. Lots to weigh. If I decided to take my life anyway, you would probably judge me to have been morally wrong to do so. 

But if my sister, whose final months of ALS were painful to watch, decided to ask for a medically assisted suicide, how could anyone deny her that right?

Abortion. I can think of a million reasons abortion would be morally acceptable. All involve terminating the life of a baby. In some cases the baby would have died anyway, or lived a short and painful life. I can't imagine interfering. But where do I draw the line? And why do I get to draw it? A pro-lifer draws the line elsewhere. And one need not be religious to be a pro-lifer. If you value the life of the fetus/unborn child over the mother carrying it, you will say abortion is always wrong. If you say the mother has the right to decide whether she is willing to puther body through pregnancy, you will be pro-choice. Honest people will disagree. And we will spend the rest of humanity struggling with this question. Because I cannot be forced to surrender my bodily autonomy to save someone else's life. Is it different if that someone is a baby in your uterus?

I'm not raising this to invite a political discussion but to demonstrate that there are limits to our capacity to reach agreement.