Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 12:15 PM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is the contrast coming up here in some posts like from beardeddude. You act like you're asking new questions or respond saying you're looking for different ways people are looking at this but you just seem to glaze over it and never take any of it in. You just ignore it and go in circles repeating the same statements and using the same analogies that have been explained or demonstrated to be seen in other ways than your set view of it. Yet you just go on continuing the same set view.

This whole repeating circle thing has always been interesting to me. I see people glazing over what I said, never taking any of it. And you see me as glazing things over, never taking it in. I see people ignoring it, and going in circles, repeating the same statements and using the same analogies that I've explained and gone over the problems with, while you see me doing this.

In some way this circle appears to both of us as the same, but from different ends.

You claim to want to know what we think, but then reject what we say while complaining about us not believing you?

Do you hear your 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
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
27-05-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not objectively wrong because there is immense amount of missing information. Most people would make the assumption it's wrong, on a grade schooler 1st grader test I'd make the assumption, but in definitive reality, I don't know for sure.

Is there anything in your view that is objectively wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I have two apples, and someone gives me two more apples. Is it objectively true that I now have four apples?

If someone claimed, that no, if you have two apples and received two more apples, that would mean you have five apples, be objectively wrong?

Please explain what the actual fuck this has to do with morality. Consider

Because if you believe that 2 (apples)+2 (apples)=5(apples) is not objectively wrong, then it's not hard to see why you believe moral wrongs are not objective wrongs either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 12:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not objectively wrong because there is immense amount of missing information. Most people would make the assumption it's wrong, on a grade schooler 1st grader test I'd make the assumption, but in definitive reality, I don't know for sure.

Is there anything in your view that is objectively wrong?

The idea of Objectively wrongness... Cool

"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, 12:54 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 12:54 AM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, let's flip it then.
The wrath of my wife quite frankly scares me. If I grab a banana and as a consequence she gets wet and cold then she will put all the blame onto me. I will then get the cold shoulder from her and no sex for longer than I would like.

Have fear work in your favor, punch her in the face a few times, and threaten her with more violence if she withholds sex from you. No?
Then I'd have to chain her to the basement and somehow explain to her parents and friends why she seems to have disappeared.

(27-05-2015 05:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I find interesting about you, is that you incapsulate all your actions and inactions to stem from dread. You're the monkey afraid to grab the banana out of fear of getting beat up, fear of retaliation.
This is a common misconception.
First and foremost I think we all need to recognise that we have limited power, limited options. We aren't the strongest, we aren't invincible.

If you watch very young children they learn this lesson early on.
Put a two year old in with another two year old. They snatch things from each other, they push and shove, they hit.
They learn pretty early on that if they snatch something then the other kid either cries getting the attention of an adult who then tells the snatcher off or the other kids punches the snatcher and the snatcher cries.
It's just a reality of life.

Sure when we get older we reason to ourselves "yeah, I don't want that toy anyway, its not mine, I don't want to take it" but this is an introspection rather than a philosophical explanation. Most likely an excuse rather than the real reason.
We certainly don't constantly plot in our heads how we can pinch the object and get away with it, but then chicken out through fear of retaliation.
Philosophically (I think) it stems back to the real consequences rather than a desire to be good.

In a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina you see some people's mentality and behaviours change. People are in desperate situations plus there are no law enforcers around.
Watch Surviver tv show, it appears like life (its a reality show) but it is a game. You assume the rules of "morality" apply still. People are still themselves right? But then they go around lying, deceiving, forming alliances, breaking trust, spreading rumours... doing what it takes to outlast.
Smart people behave in a way that moves them towards their goals but also recognise what the real consequences and risks are and know that the consequences can move them away from their goals.
Its not about fear or dread. It is simply about assessing the situation and understanding the path of most likely success.
It's about having your eyes open rather than blindly following ideals and forgoing opportunity or personal and family benefit for the pride of being Good.

I'm currently reading Star wars books (Lost tribe of the Sith). I think a decent depiction is the Sith vs Jedi. The Sith are more awake, more real. They have emotions but are not lead by them to distinguish right vs wrong. They are always awake, always looking for opportunity to better their own lot. They recognise that others are doing the same, they are weary even in their own alliances.
The Jedi however are like monks, they deny themselves any emotions, they try to live to an honour or code. They live out of blind obligation rather than thinking for themselves. I find the Sith far more interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 01:19 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please explain what the actual fuck this has to do with morality. Consider

Because if you believe that 2 (apples)+2 (apples)=5(apples) is not objectively wrong, then it's not hard to see why you believe moral wrongs are not objective wrongs either.

And I keep saying morality is not simple math.

Look, maybe you can answer some questions for me.

1.) Why do you think torturing babies for fun is wrong?
2.)Why aren't atheists running around torturing babies for fun? (You said you didn't know that, fine. But the question is: why?)
3.) How do you think a society can reach a point of outlawing recreational baby torture without God?[/size]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) Why are you asking questions about subjective morality?

Because I find the topic of morality interesting. It’s like asking people who likes sports, why do you like arguing or talking about sports.

Quote:Do you believe you are effectively arguing for moral absolutism

You mean moral objectivism, not absolutism? They are not one and the same. But even so, the answer is no. But then again I don’t find myself arguing for moral objectivism to atheists. There are too many insurmountable bridges to cross, particularly in relationship to strangers on the internet. At best you can lead a horse to water, but can’t make him drink.

The only point I like to push towards, is the illusion of objectivity. To get folks here on the same page as other atheists, like Michael Ruse, or Daniel Dennett. Since I can’t argue or discuss things with thing, I try and create proxies. I’ve had some moderate success here, but nothing to brag about.

Quote:and effectively against moral relativism?

I think folks like Matt, and Stevel have already effectively argued against moral relativism, in support of moral nihilism. They’ve already won the debate, just that the losers here can’t recognize they’ve lost.

Quote:2) If objective morality exists, what does that mean?

That objective morality exists.

Quote:What is the significance?

That objective morality exists.

Quote: Wouldn't something that is objectively true, be objectively demonstrable? If it is objectively true, please demonstrate that.

Is it objectively demonstrable that reality is not an illusion? That sophism is not true? Can you demonstrate to me that you’re not a zombie, and are conscious and self-aware to the extent that I am? That factual relativism is wrong?

Can you prove to someone that believes there is no such thing as an objective reality, that there is an objective reality?

If one held beliefs like this, the furthest bridge you can likely take them to, is to acknowledge the illusion of objective reality/objective morals. Or in other words I don’t see myself as arguing for objective morality, as much as the illusion of objective morality. Trying to convince you or anyone else here of anything more than that, is a fools errand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please explain what the actual fuck this has to do with morality. Consider

Because if you believe that 2 (apples)+2 (apples)=5(apples) is not objectively wrong, then it's not hard to see why you believe moral wrongs are not objective wrongs either.

That doesn't really follow. There are things that are objectively true in the correct context. You keep ignoring context.

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, 01:43 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 01:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 12:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Because if you believe that 2 (apples)+2 (apples)=5(apples) is not objectively wrong, then it's not hard to see why you believe moral wrongs are not objective wrongs either.

That doesn't really follow. There are things that are objectively true in the correct context. You keep ignoring context.

Yeah, but to be fair to him, context would be inconvenient for whatever trainwreck point he's trying to work his way towards. So it only makes sense that he'd do so.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-05-2015, 01:55 PM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) Why are you asking questions about subjective morality?

Because I find the topic of morality interesting. It’s like asking people who likes sports, why do you like arguing or talking about sports.

Quote:Do you believe you are effectively arguing for moral absolutism

You mean moral objectivism, not absolutism? They are not one and the same. But even so, the answer is no. But then again I don’t find myself arguing for moral objectivism to atheists. There are too many insurmountable bridges to cross, particularly in relationship to strangers on the internet. At best you can lead a horse to water, but can’t make him drink.

The only point I like to push towards, is the illusion of objectivity. To get folks here on the same page as other atheists, like Michael Ruse, or Daniel Dennett. Since I can’t argue or discuss things with thing, I try and create proxies. I’ve had some moderate success here, but nothing to brag about.

Quote:and effectively against moral relativism?

I think folks like Matt, and Stevel have already effectively argued against moral relativism, in support of moral nihilism. They’ve already won the debate, just that the losers here can’t recognize they’ve lost.

Quote:2) If objective morality exists, what does that mean?

That objective morality exists.

Quote:What is the significance?

That objective morality exists.

Quote: Wouldn't something that is objectively true, be objectively demonstrable? If it is objectively true, please demonstrate that.

Is it objectively demonstrable that reality is not an illusion? That sophism is not true? Can you demonstrate to me that you’re not a zombie, and are conscious and self-aware to the extent that I am? That factual relativism is wrong?

Can you prove to someone that believes there is no such thing as an objective reality, that there is an objective reality?

If one held beliefs like this, the furthest bridge you can likely take them to, is to acknowledge the illusion of objective reality/objective morals. Or in other words I don’t see myself as arguing for objective morality, as much as the illusion of objective morality. Trying to convince you or anyone else here of anything more than that, is a fools errand.

This was the biggest load of ignorant bullshit I think I've ever read. And it's dishonest.

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: