Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #240962 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #240960 by J Mac

that atheism is immune to such criticism.

Unless you can come up with doctrines and motivations that arise from atheism, it is immune. What you are talking about are characteristics of people, not specifically atheists

2602. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240961 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #240958 by J Mac

then a blonde would be more than justified in pointing out that "even without blondes brown haired people would find something to fight about."

No, I disagree. It is factually correct, but suggests a property associated with brown-haired people specifically - that they would find something to fight about. This property is true of people in general, but in that sentence it is implied that it is restricted to a sub-group of "people".

2603. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240954 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

Comment #240953 by J Mac

Could you imagine a brown haired person, even if they didn't know the context, getting offended at such a statement and feeling the need to fight against it? I can't.

I can. If someone said "brown haired people will always find something to fight about", I can imagine someone with brown hair being deeply puzzled as to why they were being defined as a group in that phrase.

EDIT: Without religion, there is no group called "atheists". There are just people.

2604. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240952 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:42 am

Comment #240950 by J Mac

So should we deny the truth value of true statements

There are many true statements that have no sensible meaning.

"There will aways be people with brown hair who like apples".

Does it make any sense to include the "brown hair" bit?

This discussion illustrates Sam Harris' point about the very term "atheist" being a problem. It allows for meaningless associations.

2605. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240948 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #240947 by J Mac

Apathy has it right. What I am talking about in terms of critique is the way Robertson does things - to suggest that people have attitudes or motivations because they are atheist.

2606. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240944 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #240939 by J Mac

If I said: "Without religion people would still fight" Would you have a problem with that?

None at all.

Well guess what, people without religion are called atheist. Therefore "without religion [people without religion who can rightly be called] atheists would still fight"

The problem I have with this is that it implies linkage between "atheism" and "fight". Pedantic of me, I know, but that is just the way I am.

Also, atheism makes no sense only in the presence of religion. Without religion, the term "atheism" would vanish, as it would make no more sense that "afairyist".

2607. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240937 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

Comment #240932 by J Mac

How can anyone enter into rational argument against a theist when you come in with your own rule that your position is immune to criticism? It's a one way shoot out, you get to criticize theists but they are not justified in criticizing you?

Of course they can criticise me. They can criticise my position. But what makes no sense is to say that I do something because I am an atheist. Atheism is an absense - it provides no "hooks" to hang motivations on.

So, what I have a problem with is phrases like:

They pointed out that even without religion atheists would still fight.

Is the label "atheism" anything to do with the fighting? I say not. Atheism itself can provide no reason for fighting. It is an absense. You always need another factor - someone is an atheist AND .... something else - likes a particular football team, or is a nationalist. But the first bit is irrelevant - take out the "is an atheist" and you loose nothing in understanding the motivation.

2608. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240931 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #240924 by J Mac

Better call me a coward too.

Atheism can't be associated with anything because it is a label for an absense. It makes no sense to critique "atheism", one can only critique the reasons why someone had arrived at that conclusion.

I agree with Sam Harris that the label itself is difficult. I find it makes no more sense to say "atheists will do something" than to say "afairyists will do something".

You have to add other factors, and say something like "atheist rationalists".

2609. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240897 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #240894 by Sargeist

That is a very good way of putting things.

2610. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240895 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 8:55 am

Comment #240891 by Sargeist

And so... maybe this means that, within any meaningful definition of "objective morality", morality based on pain-avoidance and happiness-increase could be said to be objective?

Not really. The problem is that who gets to say pain-avoidance and happiness-increase are good? Some people think that pain-avoidance and happiness-increase require gay people to be oppressed. Some religious people think that they may require living a pretty miserable live in order to experience a happy and pain-free afterlife.

All we can do is have a personal belief about what is good, and then discuss this with others to see if they share that belief. Ethics should be a collaboration, not a personal assertion.

What I was arguing about with Fanusi was his insistence that death and suffering are objectively and absolutely evil. I think using such terms is both wrong and problematic.

2611. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240887 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #240869 by Quetzalcoatl

Heh.

I actually see the real basis for fairness and democracy and secularism is .... not wanting to get hit (in all kinds of ways)!

If we aren't going to resolve questions by shouting or force, then we have to sit down and talk. The use of reason in public discussions is advisable because most people are reasonable about most things and it also helps protect the minority and individual against majorities. That is a good idea, because almost everyone is in some kind of minority.

So I think that a requirement for fairness, all the way up to the wish for secular democracy, is based on enlightened self-interest.

2612. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240867 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #240858 by Sargeist

I would say it is more about fairness than a slippery slope. I don't believe groups should get privilege because of what they claim to believe. Consistency is not just a vague feeling, it is the basis of a fair society.

2613. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240852 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 7:10 am

Comment #240844 by Sargeist

It all seems to come down to a certain amount of "ick", a bit of "emotional reaction" and a sprinkling of "do unto others."

I think that is a fair summary.

My ethics include a version of "do unto others" that goes like this:

"Don't make it possible for things to be done to others that you would not like to be done to you".

This means that claims of absolutes aren't reasonable. I can't go around claiming, without a convincing proof, that I know the absolute truth, as I can't then ask that someone else proves their claim of knowing the absolute truth about something.

2614. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240814 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 5:01 am

I have to say I find some Colbert only mildy amusing. I am not keen on the interviews, as it seems to sometimes be an attempt to be funny through watching an embarassed interviewee stumble.

It takes someone with debating skill and quick wits, like Richard, or Neil Shubin to get through it with dignity.

2615. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240805 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 4:41 am

Mark Jones-

'Anti' lobbies have abounded, and I don't see why an anti god lobby should strike anyone as 'hilarious'. But, by definition, it will be a broad church (rats, used that word again).

Why should atheism be "anti god"? Not believing in something does not mean one has to be against others believing in it.

What Robertson is trying to do is to imply that because atheists are lobbying, they must have some "atheist agenda" or "doctrine".

There is no agenda that arises out of atheism itself. What it comes from is a basic desire for fairness and democracy. Involving faith in public discussions is undemocratic. People with claims of special abilities (to know what the mind of God thinks) want their views to be taken seriously with no more justification than we trust them about their claims to have this superpower. They argue that abortion is wrong "because it is against God's will", for example.

Campaigns for secularism aren't anti-belief-in-god. They are about fairness. Many religious people support secularism because it prevents other religions from trying to impose their views.

Freedom to not believe is not so great when those who do believe get privileges.

2616. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240462 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #240447 by Fanusi Khiyal

If there's no absolutes - how is any answer possible? How could you determine anything?

Reason is not based on consequences, but on evidence. If you wish to abandon reason because you don't like the lack of answers, then why not have a chat with David Robertson. I am sure he would appreciate another convert.

2617. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240437 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Comment #240432 by Fanusi Khiyal

Er... I'm an actual scientist, for the record. Of course when we investigate something we don't know that a given view or hypothesis is right - but we know that there is a view that will be right.

I have been an actual scientist for most of my life. I am 48, so that is a long time.

We don't know that there is a view that will be right. All views have to be shown to be possibly right by evidence. All views have to be questioned unless there is "proof".

2618. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240427 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #240418 by Paula Kirby

Afraid not, Steve. And I'm not going to make any rash promises either - I'm already feeling I'm going to need several lifetimes to read everything on my list.

Fair enough. But I shall try and persuade you to put it high up on your list - it is an excellent book.

Indicentally, have you heard that our "mutual friend" David Robertson is writing a new book?

2619. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240420 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Because the quest to find any truth - moral or scientific - is based on the premise that those truths actually exist and that our reason is competent to understand them.

I think you have a seriously messed-up view of science. Science isn't about truths actually existing. It is about testing to see if a view might be right. Even if we get the evidence, it does not mean that the view is right, just that it hasn't yet been shown to be wrong.

2620. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240403 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #240277 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

There are either no absolutes or some absolutes. It is not an absolute claim to say we must be skeptical. That is the scientific position, demonstrate absolutes or abandon them.

That is a great summary.

I think that, sometimes, we can lose track of which side we are on, and who our enemies and allies are. I don't think the intellectual battle we should be fighting should be atheism versus religion. It should be about absolutism versus skepticism. The foundation of reason is to admit that one might be wrong. I have many religious friends who are prepared to debate their views. I think that they are more friendly towards reason than atheists who have dogmatic views (such as libertarianism).

What we need to fight against is fundamentalism of any kind - be it religious, or political. I have come back after a short break and posted here because I think that there has been too little reaction here against political fundamentalism, perhaps because of the view that it may be an ally against religious fundamentalism.

2621. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240384 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Paula-

Science shows that the offspring of an incestuous relationship are more likely to suffer from genetic defects. However, these days it is possible to prevent offspring occurring at all.

Have you read the excellent book "Evolving the Alien" by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen? I don't know how accurate the book is, but it talks quite frankly about sex and evolution. It suggests our understanding about sex and its advantages for diversity is far too simplistic. Incest in some species is quite common, and seems to cause little harm, and also there are many, many species in which sexual reproduction has been abandoned altogether, and yet the species thrives. There are some fish species that require the sexual act to reproduce, but are still parthenogenetic (Billy Sands has written about this: http://basketofpuppies-billy.blogspot.com/2008/08/sexually-deviant-monosexual-fish.html)

2622. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240268 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 7:57 am

Fanusi-

Sorry, Steve, your demand that all absolutes be abolished is an absolute demand in its own right. So abolish thyself first.

Oh for goodness sake Fanusi.

This kind of silly word-play is even more tiresome than my habitual pedantry.

Either demonstrate absolute moral values in your next post, or concede that me and Bonzai might actually have a point.

2623. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240260 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 7:28 am

Comment #240259 by Bonzai

As happens so often, someone expresses my view far better than I can. You have summarised what I am after perfectly.

(Apart from the "interesting" bit")

2624. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240253 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #240250 by decius

It's all the gay republicans, surely. Apparently you don't need that many. According to Pat Robertson, just one lesbian (Ellen Degeneres) caused the Katrina destruction.

2625. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240247 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #240244 by Quetzalcoatl

I agree completely. The term itself has problems.

2626. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240246 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #240242 by Smith

My point is that there is no point proposing different moral systems (different models) to someone who believes that their system is the absolute truth.

First you have to break through their belief in absolute values.

2627. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240239 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #240238 by Smith

I read the whole post. We already have much to offer potentially - rationality and democracy and human rights.

The problem is that we have to destroy absolutism in order to get that message across. We can't do that while supporting absolute values, unless we have convincing proof of the existence of such values, which has eluded philosophers since the beginning of civilization.

We can only convince them that they should change their minds if we can convince them that their claim to know the absolute truth about morality is wrong.

2628. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240236 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 6:03 am

Comment #240234 by Smith

To me, your insistance on convincing the "misguided" before you have anything substantial to offer for them to reconsider their biases seems self-defeating.

But what do we have to offer them?

2629. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240233 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 5:59 am

NMcC-

Good post.

The problem as I see it is that "might as well be considered objective" is not going to convince anyone who disagrees with us, who really is sure that their views are truly objective and absolute.

This is why I think we have to convincingly get rid of absolutism before we built up to "might as well be considered".

2630. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240230 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 5:52 am

Fanusi-

You should read what Paula Kirby wrote.

I said I believe that many things are wrong, but I can't prove that they are objectively and universally wrong.

2631. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240224 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #240219 by Laurie Fraser

The danger of an "absolutist" position is that it can lead to much more radical "solutions"

Yes, that is what worries me. Even the position itself is dangerous.

Comment #240220 by Smith

Who on earth wouldn't try his utmost to avoid suffering and seek happiness for himself?

Many people try and avoid suffering by identifying certain things as good and evil. The problem is when people end up with conflicting ideas of what good and evil are. As an example, some people think that homosexuality is evil, and gay people should be "converted" otherwise they will suffer in hell.

The way to overcome such views is to try and convince such people that their supposed absolute standard of evil is no such thing - it is just a construct of their culture or religion. So, in order to live together, we need to negotiate standards.

I believe that this argument holds even if there were absolute standards of good and evil. Those standards are utterly useless unless we can show everyone an unambiguous way to determine them. I actually wrote a blog post about this a while back. (I called it the "Magic Map" situation - where someone claims to know the true direction, but can't demonstrate that they actually do http://zarbi.livejournal.com/134308.html)

2632. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240217 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 4:30 am

Comment #240214 by Smith

The problem is that so many don't agree. Some religious people don't believe that suffering is evil. How can it be, as it is all part of God's plan?

2633. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240215 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 4:28 am

Comment #240213 by Laurie Fraser

I have probably been pushing the point about true absolute objectivity a bit too much, but it was to try and make a point which was how we deal with questions of morality in democratic societies. My theme throughout all the my posts here has been what is required and what should be protected for democracy.

2634. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240212 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 4:02 am

Comment #240210 by Smith

So, why can't we let Fanusi define "good" and "evil" the way he does? His definitions sound quite reasonable to me.

I think his definitions are reasonable, but they are just his definitions.

Because others have different definitions of good and evil. If we are to persuade them that they are wrong, we have to have some kind of proof (or at least very strong evidence) that they are. This means that just saying "this is my definition" isn't enough.

There are two alternatives I see. One is to find a proof of objective moral values. The other is to accept what I believe to be true in that objective moral absolutes don't exist, and we have to negotiate what our standards are, based on agreed starting positions.

I apologise if this sounds pedantic, but I think it is a very important point. One aspect of the battle against religion is to prevent people claiming truth without proof, and just saying that things are true because they "know it to be so". We have to avoid that too.

2635. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240209 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:55 am

Comment #240208 by decius

There you have the middle ground.

Perhaps it is my fault that I have not indicated that I held this position all along.

I am "absolutely" not a moral relativist. But the problem I have is that all I can base the foundations of my morality on is my feelings, and the understanding that others have such feelings too.

Because of that, I am in no position to say that anyone else is "objectively" right or "objectively" wrong. All I can say is that if you share my feelings, then you may want to consider what I say.

2636. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240207 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #240204 by Jack Rawlinson

It is the cheek of distorting Godel's Theorem that annoys me. He goes from "there are truths you can't prove" (simplifying horribly) to "I know stuff that is true, and I don't need to prove it".

2637. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240206 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:45 am

I have just had a thought that might help things.

It may be that systems of ethics could be considered rather like logical or mathematical systems.

Once you have picked the axioms, and the rules, then you will inevitably come to certain conclusions about what is right, and what is wrong.

The problem is picking the axioms and the rules, because, in the end, you have to pick them based on moral value judgments.

2638. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240205 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:40 am

Then why getting entrenched on two unreconcilable sides, when perhaps we could concede some points to Fanusi while helping him out of his platonic misconceptions?

I really can't see what to concede, but that could be just my stubborness!

I have no doubts that all healthy humans will feel that certain things are wrong. We can, pretty much, objectively test that they have these feelings, and that they suffer.

What I am trying to say is that we can't declare the rightness and wrongness of a situation by definition.

We have to start with positions arrived at by negotiation with others ("pain is bad", "life is better than death"), and then work up from those to build up systems of ethics, all the time realising that those systems are a human construct. They don't exist like scientific truths - out there somewhere to be discovered.

What I am strongly against is someone declaring that a position is clearly objectively good, or clearly objectively evil. Declaring such positions without proof is, I honestly believe, undemocratic.

Even if there were objective moral truths, you have to be able to demonstrate this by proof, you don't get to say "I am right".

2639. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240201 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:29 am

Comment #240196 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve's endless footling mumbling that widescale suffering isn't evil ignores that that is the definition of evil.

I didn't say it wasn't evil. I think widescale suffering is dreadful, and wrong. It is wrong to me because I have adopted a certain moral framework. But in the end, which moral framework I adopt is based on axioms which I just have to accept. I have no proof that they are objectively true.

You may have noticed that Steve can't say why, if there's no objective moral truth, he can argue against theocracy, or in favour of democracy - or engage in the kind of moralistic condemnation of me that he keeps doing.

I argue against theocracy because I have empathy for others, and I have decided to base a moral framework on that empathy.

This isn't footling about. It is about the use of reason. It is about not imposing views on others by fiat. It is about democracy, and freedom.

2640. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240197 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #240195 by decius

Science provides evidence that can be used to help build ethical systems.

For example, the discovery of mirror neurones means we know both that other people experience empathy, and why they do.

2641. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240194 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:18 am

Fanusi-

But why do you want it?

Because I have empathy for others.

Talk about my standards is irrelevant, until you have proven that there are objective and absolute standards by which you can measure them.

You keep talking about such standards, but won't deliver the goods. So far all we have had is that evil is what you assert it to be - no proof of any kind.

2642. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240193 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #240186 by decius

I am certainly not putting a case for moral relativism. Fanusi sets up a false dichotomy between objective moral absolutes and full moral relativism.

So, why trying to discuss the issue on purely philosophical grounds, when science is so much more successful at just about everything?

Not in this area. Science can say why healthy people feel empathy and discomfort at the thought of others suffering, but it does not give us ethical standards.

2643. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240192 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #240187 by Fanusi Khiyal

I did Here it is again:

"'that human action and idea that causes widespread suffering"

No, that is you saying what you label evil. It is just assertion. Evil is a moral judgment.

All you are saying here is "widespread suffering is wrong because I say it is".

2644. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240185 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 2:54 am

Comment #240182 by Fanusi Khiyal

So what? Why should we care about democracy? Why should we give a damn what the minority or the individual thinks? By what right do you assert otherwise?

I give a damn about democracy because I want fairness in the world.

However, I am making no claims about the absolute rightness of what I want, unlike you.

I have answers to those, but you don't seem to have them.

You keep saying you have objective answers, but you refuse to prove their objectivity.

It is evil if we wish to live. I have repeated this so often: if we choose to live, then suffering is evil. Now what. is. so. difficult. about. that?

You keep throwing this word "evil" around. You need to

1. Define it clearly in a non-circular way.
2. Show that it is an objective property.

2645. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240180 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 2:43 am

Steve, I am really tired of this. I have said that suffering is evil because it is inimical to human life. THat's a basic fact

No, it isn't a "basic fact". It is an assertion.

it's hardwired into us. And that hardwiring is relavent if we choose to live. What is so damn difficult about that statement?

It is hard-wired that we suffer. You have not shown that it is hard-wired that it is evil.

For the record, my views aren't dangerous to society, but essential to its maintenance

You don't get to declare yourself right by assertion.

And here's my second question: By what standard would you say that the killing of homosexuals as espoused by Islam is wrong?

By the standard of negotiated human rights achieved by consensus.

So what? What's the problem if it is dangerous to society? Why should I care? By what right do you say that a danger to society is bad?

I don't claim any right to say that a danger to society is bad.

What I am saying is that if one is concerned about maintenance of a democratic society, then one should be worried about making unprovable claims about absolutes. Making such claims is fundamentally undemocratic, as it is promoting what is right by assertion, not reason. That gives the minority or individual no ability to counter the views of the majority - it leads to decisions based on who shouts "I'M RIGHT" the loudest.

So, even if you personally believe that there are moral absolutes, you can't honestly use that belief to justify anything unless you can prove that, otherwise you are doing nothing more than shouting "I'm right".

2646. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240176 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #240171 by Fanusi Khiyal

Fine. Thank you, that's the admission I've been looking for.

"Admission"?

I don't honestly see how there can be any other definition of evil than 'that human action and idea that causes widespread suffering'. This is based on one single choice - to live, and why have I had to repeat this so often?

This is a statement of what you personally believe. It isn't proof of anything. If you want to talk about objective moral absolutes you have to prove that they exist.

That people experience suffering does not lead to objective moral absolutes.

Statements that there are absolutes and you know what they are are dangerous to society unless you can come up with proof of this that others, with a different view of morality, will accept.

2647. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240174 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #240170 by Fanusi Khiyal

As I understand the term is simply means that a given society views things one way, and others view it another way, and there's nothing to choose objectively between them.

There isn't. We have to start from what we expect others will accept as axioms, such as that pain and suffering are bad, and work from there.

This isn't objective. What is objective is that people experience pain and suffering and generally don't like it, but to move from there to objective ethics can't be done.

Now, Fanusi - that proof you said you could give us?

2648. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240168 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 2:10 am

Fanusi-

Why is it so damn difficult to admit that?

No-one is saying that racism doesn't cause suffering. The problem is when someone claims that this suffering is wrong by some sort of objective truth about ethics.

To try and link back to the subject of the thread, we have to argue our case to be equal in society using reason. That use of reason means we have to accept that claims of objective truth need to be proved.

2649. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240163 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 2:00 am

Comment #240160 by Diacanu

I was just about to respond :)

Your "zombie" comment made me think. We already do practise a form of racism in Western cultures and consider is moral. Just look at the way we treat our very close cousins the great apes....

2650. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240161 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:58 am

Comment #240157 by Fanusi Khiyal

Seriously, what is so damn controversial about saying that a non-racist society is more free, provides greater happiness to its members than a racist one? What is the problem here?

There is nothing controversial. The problem is your claim that this is objectively "good", as against some kind of cultural construct.

You said you could prove it true. Please do!