Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 07:19 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You've been given examples (like altruism and empathy in other animal species) that demonstrate that there are behaviors among some living organisms that would predate any morality constructed by human societies. You have had it explained to you how morality is subjective and relative.

Now, why do you still reject these answers given to the questions you ask and claim to want answered?

Tomasia, you ever going to address me?

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, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2015 09:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But is it always wrong to eat a cheeseburger? Even if you're nearly staved and it's the only food you have that can keep you alive? Is eating a cheeseburger still wrong even in this scenario? If not (i.e. context matters), then the act of 'eating a cheeseburger' is not objectively wrong.

Does the fact that I'm starving, mean that eating a cheeseburger will not raise my cholesterol?

When a doctor tells me it's wrong, if all wrong means here "is that it would raise my cholesterol", than yes it's still wrong in this sense.

If someone held a gun up to my head, and told me to write the answer to 2+2, as 5. My answer is still wrong mathematically.


Thank you for tacitly admitting that 'wrong' is contextual, and that 'eating the cheeseburger' can be both bad (increased cholesterol) and good (nourishment) at the same time! It's almost like the simple act of eating a cheeseburger is dependent on context to determine if it's bad or good! Rolleyes


And if it's dependent on context, it's not objective, it's subjective. The act of eating the cheeseburger is subjective to whether or not increased cholesterol will affect you negatively and is something to be avoided (and for some people, it may not be). Also, what if you want to increase your cholesterol or you have to? Is 'better health' something you can show to be an 'objective good'? Even if you could, would increasing your cholesterol always be 'objectively bad' to any given person's health? Laughat


Thanks for proving my point Tomasia! Now would you please stop with your tired analogies? It's getting to be a bit much to catalog your litany of failures.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:06 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What? You can't be living in a Normal Happy Manner if you don't believe Morality is Objective?

"But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral"

In Ruse's view morality is not dependent on your beliefs regarding it, but the gene-based psychology that operating here in-spite of whatever beliefs you hold, regardless if you see morality as illusory, or non-existent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:19 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2015 10:22 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thank you for tacitly admitting that 'wrong' is contextual, and that 'eating the cheeseburger' can be both bad (increased cholesterol) and good (nourishment) at the same time! It's almost like the simple act of eating a cheeseburger is dependent on context to determine if it's bad or good! :roll eyes:

Do you believe that 2+2=5, being "wrong" is contextual as well, there by making the wrong here subjective too?

I already gave an example in which I would have to answer 5 to save my life. It can be wrong (mathematically) yet right (to save my life).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:06 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What? You can't be living in a Normal Happy Manner if you don't believe Morality is Objective?

"But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral"

In Ruse's view morality is not dependent on your beliefs regarding it, but the gene-based psychology that operating here in-spite of whatever beliefs you hold, regardless if you see morality as illusory, or non-existent.

You're not getting at there is a difference between the "Has to" and the "is" still. that's his, what is statement but he also made non-contradictory Has to statements.

His point is also flawed, at least his example is because he makes it saying, oh no you couldn't act like the Ancient Romans.... well Romans had a gene based psychology and acted in their ways following their genetic moral belief. So obviously there is something more to the factor of morality if ones saying the way Ancient Romans acted was unkempt compared to people today just acting on their genetic moral beliefs.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thank you for tacitly admitting that 'wrong' is contextual, and that 'eating the cheeseburger' can be both bad (increased cholesterol) and good (nourishment) at the same time! It's almost like the simple act of eating a cheeseburger is dependent on context to determine if it's bad or good! :roll eyes:

Do you believe that 2+2=5, being "wrong" is contextual as well, there by making the wrong here subjective too?

I already gave an example in which I would have to answer 5 to save my life. It can be wrong (mathematically) yet right (to save my life).

There is just a fundamental comprehension problem here, or you do indeed have an "end goal" that you have set your course to achieve at all costs, while facing strong headwinds along the way. How many times are you going to contradict yourself and argue what you see as objective, or objectively wrong or right? A 9 year old could present a better case for argument than you have in this (and many other) threads.

Oh, and kids are "dimwitted" if they can't differentiate between "objective moral wrongs" and other "wrongs" - really? Does a young child raised by racist or homophobic parents need to figure out what is and what is not wrong about the values he/she is taught? Where were you even going with that comment?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 08:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Maybe to some very dimwitted child, who can't distinguish between various iterations of wrong, and needs it spelled out to him and each and every time, or he'll default to assuming it's meant morally.

Flash back to your youth there Tommy boy?Laughat

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're not getting at there is a difference between the "Has to" and the "is" still. that's his, what is statement but he also made non-contradictory Has to statements.

You mean Ruse is not getting it?

Quote:His point is also flawed, at least his example is because he makes it saying, oh no you couldn't act like the Ancient Romans.... well Romans had a gene based psychology and acted in their ways following their genetic moral belief.

Perhaps the Roman were acting in relationship to their gene based psychology. That we're just moist robots acting in different ways dependent on our environment. If we were in Rome, we might just act like the Romans.

If I took away your prosperity, some aspects of your security, you might be inclined to act more brutish, more prone to thievery etc..., than in your current environment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 10:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're not getting at there is a difference between the "Has to" and the "is" still. that's his, what is statement but he also made non-contradictory Has to statements.

You mean Ruse is not getting it?

Quote:His point is also flawed, at least his example is because he makes it saying, oh no you couldn't act like the Ancient Romans.... well Romans had a gene based psychology and acted in their ways following their genetic moral belief.

Perhaps the Roman were acting in relationship to their gene based psychology. That we're just moist robots acting in different ways dependent on our environment. If we were in Rome, we might just act like the Romans.

If I took away your prosperity, some aspects of your security, you might be inclined to act more brutish, more prone to thievery etc..., than in your current environment.

I certainly would, but that really wouldn't likely be putting me into Ancient Rome, that'd be more like putting me about 15 miles from where I am into a underdeveloped urban area. Plenty of Romans that we would deem acted brutish had plenty of security and prosperity.

Do you truly think aspects of sociology or social psychology aren't serious factors into how people behave? Do you deem all sociological ideas are psudeo-science or just 1 particular one? At least this can lead a little bit more on topic since the last posts I saw of the OP insinuated he felt this way that the social element doesn't have a factor upon people.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
Tomasia, before you continue your roundabout of repetition, I think it would be good for you to answer a few basic questions more honestly.

1) Why are you asking questions about subjective morality? Because the answers you have given thus far about being interested in what atheists believe is bullshit. Because you have been given answers, but reject them. Do you believe you are effectively arguing for moral absolutism and effectively against moral relativism?

2) If objective morality exists, what does that mean? What is the significance?

3) If you believe in objective morality based on faith (which is essentially what you said when you admitted that you couldn't demonstrate that morality is objective), then how is it objective morality? Wouldn't something that is objectively true, be objectively demonstrable? If it is objectively true, please demonstrate that.

4) If you can't demonstrate that it is true, and it is something that must be assumed to be true based on faith, how do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: