Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 06:21 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  and expecting those who recognize his muddled thinking, to follow along.

It all get's tiring after awhile.

How the fuck would you ever recognize muddled thinking Tommy? You're a righteous example of total clarity at all times after all Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
27-05-2015, 06:22 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 08:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  My delegates are soon going to do their Governance exam which includes questions on culture, ethics and behaviour.

I sincerely hope they haven't been reading this thread.

Big Grin

It is now apparent that they didn't read this silliness as they all passed their exam.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
27-05-2015, 06:24 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  and expecting those who recognize his muddled thinking, to follow along.

It all get's tiring after awhile.

How the fuck would you ever recognize muddled thinking Tommy? You're a righteous example of total clarity at all times after all Dodgy

Me describing biological behavior using biology, is apparently too difficult Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 06:28 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:16 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  But now you're not comparing the same things as in the original scenario. Are we comparing the faux pax itself against murder, or the yelp review about it?

The comparisons only serve to question if there are any meaningful distinctions between one expression of subjective wrong, i.e murdering someone for disgracing your honor is wrong, and wearing that dress with those shoes is so wrong, (faux pax, those relating to beauty standards, food taste, musical sensibilities etc..) and when it comes to subjectivity in the moral domain.

Are we understand the subjective aspect of moral wrong, to mean the same as the subjective aspect in other arenas commonly associated with subjectivity? Or is there a unique form of subjectivity here, where the terms means something different?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 05:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 05:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is the question I asked

The He here asked:

"As an atheist, why would I not come to the same conclusion?"

Not all atheists subscribe to moral relativism/subjectivism, many subscribe to moral realism.

Citation required.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-05-2015, 06:31 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  You're a righteous example of total clarity at all times after all Dodgy

I am, thank you for acknowledging that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 06:31 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 05:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 05:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't think behaviors are related to your genetics?

(I'll give you a hint, Dawkins is correct)

Dawkins Memetic's is nothing other than pseudo-science. I don't even think he puts as much stock in it as you. You must imagine him as the sort of the Darwin of culture here?

No, it is a hypothesis, and Dawkins clearly states that.

Quote:And again, your equivocating here. Culture is not something reduced to behavior. Nor is it transmitted through genes. As if I were to take a baby born in some other culture, and raise him in a place with an entirely different culture, he'd up expressing the cultural views of his ancestors, rather than his new found communities.

You are missing the point. Culture is biologically based just as beavers building dams is. They are both examples of the extended phenotype.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-05-2015, 06:31 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 06:16 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  But now you're not comparing the same things as in the original scenario. Are we comparing the faux pax itself against murder, or the yelp review about it?

The comparisons only serve to question if there are any meaningful distinctions between one expression of subjective wrong, i.e murdering someone for disgracing your honor is wrong, and wearing that dress with those shoes is so wrong, (faux pax, those relating to beauty standards, food taste, musical sensibilities etc..) and when it comes to subjectivity in the moral domain.

Are we understand the subjective aspect of moral wrong, to mean the same as the subjective aspect in other arenas commonly associated with subjectivity? Or is there a unique form of subjectivity here, where the terms means something different?

You don't even seem to understand that something like "the golden rule" is moral relativism and subjectivity at work. The golden rule quite literally is about not doing to others what you'd not want done to you. It's relative to YOU and YOUR values, which are subjective. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-05-2015, 06:33 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 05:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The He here asked:

"As an atheist, why would I not come to the same conclusion?"

Not all atheists subscribe to moral relativism/subjectivism, many subscribe to moral realism.

Citation required.

"Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is "out there" in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape).[16] Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on.[17]

Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience. He has admitted to being committed to some form of moral realism (viz. moral claims can really be true or false) and some form of consequentialism (viz. the rightness of an act depends on how it impacts the well-being of conscious creatures).[18]"

"Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink,[4] John McDowell, Peter Railton,[5] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[6] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[7] Russ Shafer-Landau,[8] G.E. Moore,[9] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[10] Thomas Nagel, Derek Parfit. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[11] Moral realism has been studied in the various philosophical and practical applications.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 06:36 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 06:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Citation required.

"Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is "out there" in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape).[16] Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on.[17]

Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience. He has admitted to being committed to some form of moral realism (viz. moral claims can really be true or false) and some form of consequentialism (viz. the rightness of an act depends on how it impacts the well-being of conscious creatures).[18]"

"Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink,[4] John McDowell, Peter Railton,[5] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[6] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[7] Russ Shafer-Landau,[8] G.E. Moore,[9] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon, Thomas Nagel, Derek Parfit. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[11] Moral realism has been studied in the various philosophical and practical applications.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

In the case of people like Sam Harris, he also doesn't ascribe to free will because he views everything as behaving according to the fundamental principles of the universe. Even your behaviors and actions, which makes them more like chemical reactions occurring as a result of disequilibrium.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: