Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 10:57 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).

You are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong' - incorrect and immoral.

Stop doing that. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
27-05-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I really think you mean relative not subjective in this context.

I'm seeing conflation of subjective/objective with relative/absolute in this discussion.

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
27-05-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:54 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

I don't know, what are the sociology and social psychology factors here?

And the only thing I can recall referring to as pseudo-science here is memetics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 11:13 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).


[Image: img_1625.jpg?w=682]


Nope, that's called moving the goalpost motherfucker. Drinking Beverage


You created the cheeseburger example, I on the other hand showed what a massive pile of uncritical bollocks that was, and I could easily go into more depth about just how not-objectively right or wrong the act of 'eating a cheeseburger' is. Fortunately I guessed correctly that you'd miss even the simplest point (either through genuine ignorance or purposeful deflection) and saved myself the effort of writing a page long diatribe ripping you a new asshole.


But even here you're so oblivious, you've shot yourself in the foot. With a howitzer.

At point...

Blank...

Range...


"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)." -Tomasia


Context once again, context always matters. Within the context of algebra, the statement '2+2=5' is wrong (for now we'll ignore higher math that can show things like 1+1 both equals 2 and does not equal 2, or other paradoxes of set theory). However there can be contexts in which '2+2=5' can be correct, such as an error on a multiple-choice test that renders '5' as the answer to be scored as 'correct' on a multiple-choice Scantron test. It all depends on context.


That has been the primary point since the very beginning, and it's the one you continuously refuse to acknowledge. Instead you seemingly prefer to make tired and shitty false analogies that show just how much you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about, as evidenced by how easily we can turn them back around on you.


In other words, stop doing this.

[Image: 299.gif]

Your face will thank you for it. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 10:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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).

You are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong' - incorrect and immoral.

Stop doing that. Drinking Beverage

I'm not. None the wrongs highlighted in the above examples were wrong in an immoral sense, at least not for me. When i said it's right to save my life to answer 5, it just means that answering 5 would save my life, not the saving my life is the moral thing to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 10:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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?

I'm going to repost these, just to make sure you got them

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-05-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 10:54 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

I don't know, what are the sociology and social psychology factors here?

And the only thing I can recall referring to as pseudo-science here is memetics.

Who here has claimed that a science of memetics exists? Another straw man for you? Consider

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
27-05-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't know, what are the sociology and social psychology factors here?

And the only thing I can recall referring to as pseudo-science here is memetics.

Who here has claimed that a science of memetics exists? Another straw man for you? Consider

He equated me pointing out Dawkins' meme hypothesis with memetics.

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, 11:18 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 10:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong' - incorrect and immoral.

Stop doing that. Drinking Beverage

I'm not. None the wrongs highlighted in the above examples were wrong in an immoral sense, at least not for me. When i said it's right to save my life to answer 5, it just means that answering 5 would save my life, not the saving my life is the moral thing to do.

Factual wrongness has nothing to do with the discussion - it's a red herring.

Stop doing that. Dodgy

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
27-05-2015, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2015 11:23 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Context once again, context always matters. Within the context of algebra, the statement '2+2=5' is wrong (for now we'll ignore higher math that can show things like 1+1 both equals 2 and does not equal 2, or other paradoxes of set theory). However there can be contexts in which '2+2=5' can be correct, such as an error on a multiple-choice test that renders '5' as the answer to be scored as 'correct' on a multiple-choice Scantron test. It all depends on context.

lol, moving the goalpost huh? Let's quote you:

"And if it's dependent on context, it's not objective, it's subjective. "

You just stated the 2+2=5 being wrong is dependent on context.

Does this mean 2+2=5, is not objectively wrong, but subjectively wrong? If you're not about to appeal to factual relativism, you know you're about to contradict yourself, so I can see you shuffling your feet a bit. It's fun to watch though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: