Morality > Truth?

[The6thMessenger]

So I've been thinking.

Waaaaaay back, i had a lengthy discussion with brimstoneSalad as to why we ought to be an atheist than a theist -- the philosophical underpinning of Atheism. And we concluded that atheism is the best position, because it meant to do good, to do the least harm, as opposed to theism just HAPPENS to do good. Essentially, Atheism is the best position, because it's the moral choice.

I understand why we ought to be moral, because if everyone doesn't act morally then it's detrimental to our lives, that we can live happily if everyone's just doing what the fuck they want, like blowing up other people, stealing money and stuff.

But what if a god really did exist? That Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism true, that the malevolent judeo-chrisian and/or islamic god is real, or any malevolent god for that matter that's like "Fuck you in particular!". I still wouldn't subscribe to their religion, and practice their rituals, but surely i would be convinced that there is a god since it's undeniably true, and I'm pretty much be fucked.

But if our reason for Atheism is a moral one, yet the truth is otherwise, how do we go about this? If the falsehood does the least harm, would we choose falsehood over the truth since it's the least moral choice? would we still not acknowledge the existence of such a malevolent god just because it's moral to do so?

The only compelling argument against hard solipsism is a moral one.

Same case; what if hard solipsism is demonstrably true? Nevermind how it's proven but rather if it's really proven, but what if there is really just one mind, that i am just being tricked by stimuli in seeing such a world? If it's true, should we believe otherwise because it's Moral to do so than it's True?

Does Morality triumphs over Truth?

[brimstoneSalad]

Waaaaaay back, i had a lengthy discussion with brimstoneSalad as to why we ought to be an atheist than a theist -- the philosophical underpinning of Atheism. And we concluded that atheism is the best position, because it meant to do good, to do the least harm, as opposed to theism just HAPPENS to do good. Essentially, Atheism is the best position, because it's the moral choice.

You misunderstood.

Atheism is a conclusion of science and logic, and we should accept science and logic for moral reasons.
If science and logic were "false", we would have no means to obtain reliable information about the world (indeed, the objective world would not exist): In this case, morality would have no consequence.
If science and logic are true, we live in a world where we can obtain more reliable information about it and we can (with that information) act morally or immorally. So, in order to be moral, we must accept science and logic as true, even if they "might not be".

This was my point about solipsism, and in the prior discussion.
Values that relate to others in an objective world only exist in that context, and we must (in order to be moral), play it safe and assume that context exists.
We assume others have feelings so we do not hurt them in ignorance or delusion. If they don't have feelings after all, no harm was done anyway.

I understand why we ought to be moral, because if everyone doesn't act morally then it's detrimental to our lives, that we can live happily if everyone's just doing what the fuck they want, like blowing up other people, stealing money and stuff.

No. As long as you're the strongest person, or stronger than most, you can live a very pleasurable life raping and murdering and stealing and eating meat to destroy the environment and needlessly harm animals and then strapping a bomb to a doctor and making him replace your vital organs which you destroyed with your diet with ones from your genetic match of an inbred child you just killed. Just be smart enough not to get caught, or enjoy it enough until you do to make up for it.

Morality is something you have to give a damn about on your own, because it's the right thing and you want to be a good person. That's it. You don't get a cookie from god or an eternity in heaven for being a good person.

This is probably not something you care about, or at least it's not something you have ever indicated you might care about, so it's not likely something you would understand.

But what if a god really did exist? That Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism true, that the malevolent judeo-chrisian and/or islamic god is real, or any malevolent god for that matter that's like "Fuck you in particular!". I still wouldn't subscribe to their religion, and practice their rituals, but surely i would be convinced that there is a god since it's undeniably true, and I'm pretty much be fucked.

Since you have indicated no sense of morality or compassion in the past here, it seems to me that you would subscribe to their religion -- because then you WOULD get a cookie for obeying them if they really existed.
You have no basis by which to judge these beings as evil, you have no high horse to sit on and shun these gods, when you see no value in morality (nor understand it).

Or maybe you've changed, and have acquired an interest in objective secular morality?

Morality is not: Do all of the nice things you wanted to do anyway and feel good about it, then do all of the wicked things you wanted to do and just ignore it and rationalize it away.
It's not an exercise in cherry picking like religion is. You don't get to habitually and intentionally do bad things without working to stop and call yourself a good person (unlike Christians).

But if our reason for Atheism is a moral one, yet the truth is otherwise, how do we go about this?

The moral thing is to believe the truth as demonstrated by science and logic. If these beings were empirically demonstrated and logically consistent, then we should believe it. Believing it, a moral person may still reject following these gods if they are evil, but he or she would still need to believe they existed.

This person would still be an atheist, because he or she is rejecting the gods in a personal sense and not following/worshiping them.

Same case; what if hard solipsism is demonstrably true? Nevermind how it's proven but rather if it's really proven, but what if there is really just one mind, that i am just being tricked by stimuli in seeing such a world? If it's true, should we believe otherwise because it's Moral to do so than it's True?

If hard solipsism were true, there would be no morality or immorality, and so no cost in continuing to reject solipsism.

Unlike the existence of god-like beings, were the knowledge of these things may inform moral action in reality (assuming they are scientifically proven and logically consistent), hard solipsism is a dead-end, where no choices you make would matter.

To be safe, assume you have a mental illness and that whatever "proof" you are seeing is a delusion. Assume that others still have feelings -- this may be true, and it is the safer assumption, since assuming this has no possible cost.

Does Morality triumphs over Truth?

Aside from perfect logic, truth is never absolute -- that's the point. We should use morality to guide us in determining which truth is most likely, and also morally useful.

The truth of hard solipsism would be morally useless, and would make any behavior meaningless. So rejecting it (as in the case of a possible delusion you are suffering from) has no cost, and can only have moral benefit if it ends up being true that you were suffering from mental illness. Even if you think you have found a purely logical proof for solipsism, reject it under the assumption that your thought process is not operating properly due to mental illness and that it is not a valid proof.

[The6thMessenger]

You misunderstood.

Atheism is a conclusion of science and logic, and we should accept science and logic for moral reasons.
If science and logic were "false", we would have no means to obtain reliable information about the world (indeed, the objective world would not exist): In this case, morality would have no consequence.
If science and logic are true, we live in a world where we can obtain more reliable information about it and we can (with that information) act morally or immorally. So, in order to be moral, we must accept science and logic as true, even if they "might not be".

Values that relate to others in an objective world only exist in that context, and we must (in order to be moral), play it safe and assume that context exists.

We assume others have feelings so we do not hurt them in ignorance or delusion. If they don't have feelings after all, no harm was done anyway

So accepting the truth is the moral thing to do? Okay. So you can't truly accept Science and Logic etc. as true if you don't do it via morality?

Did i get that right?

This was my point about solipsism, and in the prior discussion.

To be clear, i'm not pushing solipsism, i'm simply using it as an example of what-if using impossible possibilities.

No. As long as you're the strongest person, or stronger than most, you can live a very pleasurable life raping and murdering and stealing and eating meat to destroy the environment and needlessly harm animals and then strapping a bomb to a doctor and making him replace your vital organs which you destroyed with your diet with ones from your genetic match of an inbred child you just killed. Just be smart enough not to get caught, or enjoy it enough until you do to make up for it.

Morality is something you have to give a damn about on your own, because it's the right thing and you want to be a good person. That's it. You don't get a cookie from god or an eternity in heaven for being a good person.

Ok.

This is probably not something you care about, or at least it's not something you have ever indicated you might care about, so it's not likely something you would understand.

Look, i just remembered our philosophical discussion about Atheism, and why it seems to be always hinged on what is moral, so i asked. My reason for Atheism primarily is my value of what is true, even if it could harm. So i wondered why your reason hinged with morality, so i asked.

Although to be honest, i'm angry right now -- part of the brooding teenage phase i think. There's people i would take pleasure to see suffer or die in the world. Like everyone in ISIS or any equivalent, I would like to see everyone of them as nothing more red-paste splattered like a mural.

There's also this deep desire to just leave this damn planet to rot, like to go and have a life on mars if sustainable. But that's just me.

Since you have indicated no sense of morality or compassion in the past here, it seems to me that you would subscribe to their religion -- because then you WOULD get a cookie for obeying them if they really existed. You have no basis by which to judge these beings as evil, you have no high horse to sit on and shun these gods, when you see no value in morality (nor understand it).

I would acknowledge his existence, but i wouldn't worship him. If it was Allah, Jehovah or Yahweh, i'd rather burn in hell -- i hate those guys, but honestly if it were someone like Buddha or Vishnu, maybe i will. I don't know, it hasn't happened yet so i can't be sure.

Or maybe you've changed, and have acquired an interest in objective secular morality?

Like i said, i was just curious why morality is everything to the reason you gave me as to why atheism with philosophical reasons.

I am just plain curious. You can say that i'm like a scientist, i like knowing things and expanding my knowledge.

Morality is not: Do all of the nice things you wanted to do anyway and feel good about it, then do all of the wicked things you wanted to do and just ignore it and rationalize it away.

It's not an exercise in cherry picking like religion is. You don't get to habitually and intentionally do bad things without working to stop and call yourself a good person (unlike Christians).

Okay.

The moral thing is to believe the truth as demonstrated by science and logic. If these beings were empirically demonstrated and logically consistent, then we should believe it. Believing it, a moral person may still reject following these gods if they are evil, but he or she would still need to believe they existed.

This person would still be an atheist, because he or she is rejecting the gods in a personal sense and not following/worshiping them.

Isn't that Atheism is the lack of belief, while Irreligious is lack of religion? Wikipedia did define them differently.

If hard solipsism were true, there would be no morality or immorality, and so no cost in continuing to reject solipsism.

Unlike the existence of god-like beings, were the knowledge of these things may inform moral action in reality (assuming they are scientifically proven and logically consistent), hard solipsism is a dead-end, where no choices you make would matter.

To be safe, assume you have a mental illness and that whatever "proof" you are seeing is a delusion. Assume that others still have feelings -- this may be true, and it is the safer assumption, since assuming this has no possible cost.

Like i said, it was just another example.

Aside from perfect logic, truth is never absolute -- that's the point. We should use morality to guide us in determining which truth is most likely, and also morally useful.

I see, okay. That's clearer. So concluding your answer:

The moral thing is to believe the truth as demonstrated by science and logic. If these beings were empirically demonstrated and logically consistent, then we should believe it. Believing it, a moral person may still reject following these gods if they are evil, but he or she would still need to believe they existed.

This person would still be an atheist, because he or she is rejecting the gods in a personal sense and not following/worshiping them.

[brimstoneSalad]

Values that relate to others in an objective world only exist in that context, and we must (in order to be moral), play it safe and assume that context exists.

Right. Or if you do, you're just being dogmatic in another way.

So accepting the truth is the moral thing to do? Okay. So you can't truly accept Science and Logic etc. as true if you don't do it via morality?

You can't substantiate it if you don't. You'd have to use circular reasoning, like you accept science just because and that's that. Is that different from somebody accepting the Bible just because and that's that?

Look, i just remembered our philosophical discussion about Atheism, and why it seems to be always hinged on what is moral, so i asked. My reason for Atheism primarily is my value of what is true, even if it could harm. So i wondered why your reason hinged with morality, so i asked.

Your reasons are dogmatic, like a religious person's. You aren't really different from Muslims or Christians. You just accept what you're told is science or what you want to believe is true.

Although to be honest, i'm angry right now -- part of the brooding teenage phase i think. There's people i would take pleasure to see suffer or die in the world. Like everyone in ISIS or any equivalent, I would like to see everyone of them as nothing more red-paste splattered like a mural.

An yet, if you had some perspective, you could realize that you're every bit as bad as ISIS: Maybe worse.

There's also this deep desire to just leave this damn planet to rot, like to go and have a life on mars if sustainable. But that's just me.

There's always a way out, you can take it if you want.

I would acknowledge his existence, but i wouldn't worship him. If it was Allah, Jehovah or Yahweh, i'd rather burn in hell -- i hate those guys, but honestly if it were someone like Buddha or Vishnu, maybe i will.

This is just dumb teenage angst and moodiness. Why do you hate them? Did they hurt your feelings? Did they steal your boyfriend?
It's hard to express how immature and irrational that sentiment is.

Isn't that Atheism is the lack of belief, while Irreligious is lack of religion? Wikipedia did define them differently.

Most broadly, Atheism is just not being a theist. A theist is somebody who believes in and worships a god or gods in some form.

If you just believe the beings exist but reject them as your gods and don't and won't worship them, you aren't really a theist. "God" is an arbitrary title if it doesn't relate back to worship because it has no consistent or rational qualifications in itself: worship is pivotal in the definition.

[Red]

You can't substantiate it if you don't. You'd have to use circular reasoning, like you accept science just because and that's that. Is that different from somebody accepting the Bible just because and that's that?

Your reasons are dogmatic, like a religious person's. You aren't really different from Muslims or Christians. You just accept what you're told is science or what you want to believe is true.

But what if you look into how this stuff works?

An yet, if you had some perspective, you could realize that you're every bit as bad as ISIS: Maybe worse.

Well at least she's not killing people.







yet

There's always a way out, you can take it if you want.

I think you may have pushed the envelope on that one.

This is just dumb teenage angst and moodiness. Why do you hate them? Did they hurt your feelings? Did they steal your boyfriend?
It's hard to express how immature and irrational that sentiment is.

I'm pretty sure it's not because she doesn't believe in God, rather from all the immoral things that were mentioned in the bible, or the Qur'an, or whatever. Still though, if we knew for sure which God was the real God, I would worship the shit outta him. Mainly because, other than the fact that they're the creator of the universe, I get a free pass into Heaven.

But that's just me. I'm pretty sure The6thMessenger is just saying that out of spite or something. I'm fairly certain she doesn't really mean it.

If you just believe the beings exist but reject them as your gods and don't and won't worship them, you aren't really a theist. "God" is an arbitrary title if it doesn't relate back to worship because it has no consistent or rational qualifications in itself: worship is pivotal in the definition.

oh like a deist?

[EquALLity]

Essentially, Atheism is the best position, because it's the moral choice.

Do you agree with that?

But if our reason for Atheism is a moral one, yet the truth is otherwise, how do we go about this? If the falsehood does the least harm, would we choose falsehood over the truth since it's the least moral choice? would we still not acknowledge the existence of such a malevolent god just because it's moral to do so?

So the situation is like:
A) Perpetuate falsehoods, producing more good.
B) Perpetuate truths, producing more bad.

Well, since choice A produces more good, it is the most moral choice by definition, so in that case I would agree we should spread those lies.
Of course, that's not our current situation. Religions are false, and they inspire immoral actions.

There's people i would take pleasure to see suffer or die in the world.

It might give you pleasure to take vengeance, but that doesn't make it ethical.
Revenge is pretty much unethical by definition, IMO, because it's harming others for the sake of harming others.
So even if the idea of it gives you pleasure, you still shouldn't do it.

You believe in objective morality, right?
If you do, do you also care about it? From what I remember, you didn't before, but maybe you do now?

Like everyone in ISIS or any equivalent

ISIS is horrible, obviously, but their members do care about what they perceive to be morality.

You agree that morality exists (I think), but do you care about it?

[Red]

ISIS is horrible, obviously, but their members do care about what they perceive to be morality.

Eh this is something I've been asking myself. Do they care about morality, or just wealth and power? Or both? Or something else?
Because, in some sense, you have to consider the fact that they want to do good, even though realistically it's far from that.

[EquALLity]

ISIS is horrible, obviously, but their members do care about what they perceive to be morality.

Eh this is something I've been asking myself. Do they care about morality, or just wealth and power? Or both? Or something else?
Because, in some sense, you have to consider the fact that they want to do good, even though realistically it's far from that.

It seems hard for me to imagine that people would risk their lives and leave everything they have to join a terrorist organization if they didn't think they were doing the right thing, and they just wanted wealth and power.

The living conditions in ISIS are really bad, from my understanding. I think it's just the leadership that has a lot of wealth and power.

I'm not saying ISIS terrorists aren't horrible people, but I believe they do care about what they perceive morality to be.

[brimstoneSalad]

But what if you look into how this stuff works?

It's all based on certain premises, like scientific methodology, and the untruth of magical thinking and anti-realism. You must accept these premises first.

Well at least she's not killing people.

Of course she is.

ISIS members rarely kill people.
Discounting inflated numbers from non-civilians, lightning kills far more people than ISIS does.
Given their numbers, some 100k or possibly more, and the number of civilians they kill a year -- maybe 10k -- and the turnover in their forces, the vast majority of ISIS fighters probably never kill a civilian directly, primarily focusing on defense and military targets.
Sure, they engage in terrorism too, but it's really a drop in the bucket in terms of world fatalities.

So is an ISIS member not killing people, because it doesn't happen every day for every member?
Nonsense. They all share this burden of responsibility.

Heart disease kills thousands of times more people a year -- something she is very responsible for promoting.
And global warming is set to kill a lot more in the third world -- it already is killing people.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

These are conservative estimates. Global warming, which the pink one is greedily fueling, will have ten times the death toll of terrorism soon. That's HER greed, killing other people because she enjoys it.
The pink one's support of the war in the Middle East through taxes and wanton waste of resources has also already killed otherwise peaceful Muslims to the tune of around a million.

She's no less a killer, she's just less justified. ISIS are ignorant and don't know any better. She should know better, and could easily change but only doesn't because of apathy and a sense of greedy entitlement.

There's always a way out, you can take it if you want.

I think you may have pushed the envelope on that one.

People who complain that they hate this world so much always have a way out. She should stop complaining.

If she exercised a modicum of effort to become a better human being, she could start caring about the suffering of others and stop being such a angsty miserable lump and do some good in the world.

I have little patience for useless complaining lumps of gluttony and self pity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism
That's all self serving hedonism will get you.

She needs to take control of her life, and start giving a shit about others if she wants to be worth anything in this world.

I'm pretty sure it's not because she doesn't believe in God, rather from all the immoral things that were mentioned in the bible, or the Qur'an, or whatever.

That the thing: She has no basis to condemn these things as immoral. She doesn't care about morality.
She knows what she's doing is wrong -- that she's harming her own health, and destroying the world around her (including killing other human beings), but she doesn't care at all.

She's just a self-centered angsty teenager who likes to complain about things that personally bother her but doesn't care how horrible she is. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

ISIS is bad, but she is possibly worse.

oh like a deist?

Like an atheist who believes in ghosts. They're just really big powerful scary ghosts.

[brimstoneSalad]

ISIS is horrible, obviously, but their members do care about what they perceive to be morality.

Eh this is something I've been asking myself. Do they care about morality, or just wealth and power? Or both? Or something else?
Because, in some sense, you have to consider the fact that they want to do good, even though realistically it's far from that.

It seems hard for me to imagine that people would risk their lives and leave everything they have to join a terrorist organization if they didn't think they were doing the right thing, and they just wanted wealth and power.

The living conditions in ISIS are really bad, from my understanding. I think it's just the leadership that has a lot of wealth and power.

I'm not saying ISIS terrorists aren't horrible people, but I believe they do care about what they perceive morality to be.

ISIS members are mostly trying to do good, they are just incredibly ignorant. Mostly tribes people who have never had access to good education. Islam is all they know, and they're trying to defend what they see as attacks on their homeland and way of life.

ISIS members are at least trying to be good people in taking up arms and risking their lives, they just fail at it due to ignorance (which, arguably, is no fault of their own because most of them don't even have access to education).

In contrast, The6thMessenger is fully informed/has ample access to information about the harm she does, is fully responsible for her actions, and chooses to do evil instead of good.

At least in terms of moral responsibility for harmful actions, she is the much worse person.