A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 02:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 09:28 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  What difference does it make?

Those who believe in an objective morality always try to impose their view of morality on everyone else. Hilarity ensues.


And by 'hilarity' I mean war, torture, subjugation and the like. Drinking Beverage

I'm not prepared to go so far as to say "always", but I'll agree to "quite often".

... but that's a difference about BELIEVING there morality to be objective or subjective, not a difference about whether it actually is. And I'd note that believers in subjective morality can do the same thing.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Proof for universal morality;

Core scripture spanning the globe and time is the same in regard to goal, reason, and often, means of attainment, or adherance.

What the fuck? Seriously every time I read one of your posts I literally feel dumber. Like brain cells are killing themselves so they don't have to process this bullshit.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

The mind and conscience (if it exists) result from the chemistry in the brain. If there is a spiritual aspect, demonstrate it scientifically. Otherwise, all you have is brain chemistry.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?
Yes. Why would this matter?

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.
Site the studies that demonstrate this. I've raised children. I've been around classrooms and large groups of children. They are greedy little monkeys well accustomed to violence.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Again, it is selfishness and want of reward that has to be removed. If this can be done, then you can see the objective nature of wanting to advance life and better life in general for the sake of continued existence.

If you can see all life as one being or thing made up by the whole then evolution would also be able to be objective.
Does that mean it is now...not in an obvious and honest way, but I think it is a potential that involves things we all have so it's really close.

Morality is for the sake of betterment. Of course without self being input within the equation at all, or to the extent possible, subjectively.
Fuck. There go a couple more brain cells.

(31-12-2015 10:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I tell you what; according to you everything I just stated is false so why don't you go ahead and provide some evidence to refute a single rung I said. Then accuse it of being wrong. As if you have a fucking clue. I've done the research. What have you done?

What research? Your posts about conscience are wrong. Your posts about animal behavior are wrong. Your posts about the behavior of children were wrong. If you'd done any research you would know that.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
31-12-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I've done the research.

Let's verify that....

Quote:The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

What research have you done into the cause and effects of chemical changes in the brain? What references do you have that support the idea that a person's conscience causes chemical changes? How exactly is that measured? How do you quantify "more in-depth" cognition and emotion?

Quote:Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

You've already been given a link indicating that the answer is yes, at least sometimes. What research have you done in this area? What references do you have that delineate the frequency and nature of intra-species conflict of cetaceans?

Quote:Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

I'd be very interested in any studies that raised children with no positive stimuli. What references do you have that discuss that?

By the way, if raising children and mammals (a strange conjunction since children ARE mammals) without positive stimuli makes them extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good (whatever that is supposed to mean), then it sounds like you are advocating that. It is hard to tell since your writing skills are so poor.

Since you've done the research it should not be hard to provide references that substantiate your claims.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
31-12-2015, 07:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 06:17 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 10:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I've done the research.

Let's verify that....

Quote:The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

What research have you done into the cause and effects of chemical changes in the brain? What references do you have that support the idea that a person's conscience causes chemical changes? How exactly is that measured? How do you quantify "more in-depth" cognition and emotion?

Quote:Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

You've already been given a link indicating that the answer is yes, at least sometimes. What research have you done in this area? What references do you have that delineate the frequency and nature of intra-species conflict of cetaceans?

Quote:Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

I'd be very interested in any studies that raised children with no positive stimuli. What references do you have that discuss that?

By the way, if raising children and mammals (a strange conjunction since children ARE mammals) without positive stimuli makes them extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good (whatever that is supposed to mean), then it sounds like you are advocating that. It is hard to tell since your writing skills are so poor.

Since you've done the research it should not be hard to provide references that substantiate your claims.
Meant with positive stimuli.

Just spent over an hour copying and pasting many references and articles pertinent to my view. Then backed out by accident. Anyway. I if you are really curious then use the internet.

Most of what I said would be considered common sense if remotely decipherable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 07:43 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2015 08:37 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 06:17 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Let's verify that....


What research have you done into the cause and effects of chemical changes in the brain? What references do you have that support the idea that a person's conscience causes chemical changes? How exactly is that measured? How do you quantify "more in-depth" cognition and emotion?


You've already been given a link indicating that the answer is yes, at least sometimes. What research have you done in this area? What references do you have that delineate the frequency and nature of intra-species conflict of cetaceans?


I'd be very interested in any studies that raised children with no positive stimuli. What references do you have that discuss that?

By the way, if raising children and mammals (a strange conjunction since children ARE mammals) without positive stimuli makes them extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good (whatever that is supposed to mean), then it sounds like you are advocating that. It is hard to tell since your writing skills are so poor.

Since you've done the research it should not be hard to provide references that substantiate your claims.
Meant with positive stimuli.

Just spent over an hour copying and pasting many references and articles pertinent to my view. Then backed out by accident. Anyway. I if you are really curious then use the internet.

Most of what I said would be considered common sense if remotely decipherable.

They might still be there. Press the forward arrow on your browser. If you have a long post with multiple cut&pastes you should do it in a text editor (notepad++ is what I prefer) instead of the forum editor. You can make periodic saves and they keep some save your text's most recent history if you need to recover.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 08:34 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
My response to his video.

Challenge Accepted...but with a twist. I as an atheist will prove that moral absolutes exist, at least with the one presented in this video.

Killing babies is wrong because as a living organism, our main goal, just like any other living organism is not only self preservation, but the preservation of the species. This is not merely a a argument from Nature, because it simply does not just exist in nature and can observed as so, but is simply a quality of the physics of the universe in how our brains are constructed and how Eco live systems function. Without the preservation of the individual which makes up for the community which is a part of the ecosystem, the entire system collapses. The purpose of procreation is to replace older organisms with newer ones and multiply. It is nothing more than a far more complex process that single cell organisms do when they self replicate themselves.

Therefor, in order to "objectively" survive as a species and continue to exist, babies must survive.

Is that enough for you Sweet heart? Did I win the Gold star?

Yeah, thought so!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Meant with positive stimuli.

Just spent over an hour copying and pasting many references and articles pertinent to my view. Then backed out by accident. Anyway. I if you are really curious then use the internet.

How convenient. When I looked into conscience, while posting the above, I found that all the secular sources involved brain chemistry. Only the religious sources postulated supernatural.

We told you what was required: links, sources. I see: nothing.

(31-12-2015 07:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Most of what I said would be considered common sense if remotely decipherable.

Common sense is not always correct. Common sense once thought the world was flat.

Also, most of what you post is not remotely decipherable.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
31-12-2015, 10:29 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 08:34 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  ...
Therefor, in order to "objectively" survive as a species and continue to exist, babies must survive.
...

"M'lud,

Speaking for the rat population of the planet, I advocate baby-death on a large scale.

This is not just for the benefit of us, the rats, in order to create a food source, but for the benefit for all species. Humans are by far the most likely potential cause of the destruction of the planet and should be systematically eliminated.

I rest my case."

"Objection!

Speaking for the virus population, I advocate the survival of the species known as human. They, especially when young and vulnerable, prove to be excellent hosts."

"Objection overruled! You can use the rats. Rat-hosts may not be as tasty but you guys can do your plague thing again. I, Judge Cockroach, have spoken"

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 10:40 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 08:34 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Killing babies is wrong because as a living organism, our main goal, just like any other living organism is not only self preservation, but the preservation of the species.

Just gonna jump in here to point out that the only species of life that cares about the survival of the species is Homo sapiens, and not all of them do.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2016, 02:18 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 08:34 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Killing babies is wrong because as a living organism, our main goal, just like any other living organism is not only self preservation, but the preservation of the species.

Just gonna jump in here to point out that the only species of life that cares about the survival of the species is Homo sapiens, and not all of them do.

.... citation needed. How do we know we're the only species with members that care about the survival of the species? For that matter, by what methodology could that claim be falsified?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: