CARM has more questions for us!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2016, 01:31 AM
CARM has more questions for us!
Here is the first list.

Quote:What makes something moral?
Do you have any objective moral standard, or are all your morals subjective?
Do any actions automatically have moral value, such as rape being wrong, or is the moral value assigned by people?
Why ought a person not steal?
Was the atheist Joseph Stalin wrong for killing over 42 million people in the 1900s? If so, why? If not, why not?
From the perspective of an atheist, is the action of rape wrong even if it furthers the species?
In atheism, if you say rape is wrong because it harms someone, why is harm the standard of morality?
If you believe something is morally wrong (like rape), "ought" you do something about it and impose your value on others?
If you "ought" to impose your moral value on others (like stoping a rape), what gives you the moral right to do that?
Do you believe that the subjective opinions of a society offer proper basis for morality?
How do you know if a society is improving morally?


and the second list.

Quote:How do atheists define harm and what justifies their definition as being the right one?
How is appealing to the majority desire not committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum to determine morals?
If it is a logical fallacy, then why do atheists appeal to it?
Why "ought" atheists work to reduce harm?
How is it not a double standard when defining good as that which reduces harm, and that which reduces harm as good, yet atheists complain when Christians say that God is by nature good and what is good is what reflects God's nature?
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists work to stop abortion since it causes the greatest harm to a life by killing unborn babies?
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists be morally obligated to join the military and go to war with radical Islam so as to stop its spread and thereby reduce harm to millions of people?
If reducing harm is morally good, then does it imply that the ends justify the means as long as harm is reduced?
If the ends justify the means, then are lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, etc., all okay if they reduce overall harm?
If an atheist believes that religion causes harm, then shouldn't he use lies with religious people in order to undermine their religious presence and expansion and reduce harm?
If reducing harm is morally good, then how many hospitals have atheists built, or wells have they dug, or cultures have they taught agriculture, and provided electricity to, etc.?
Since Christians build hospitals, dig wells, visit 3rd world nations and upgrade their technology, thereby reducing harm, then why are atheists increasing their attacks on Christianity?
Why do atheists work to get the 10 commandments removed from public areas since those same 10 commandments reduce harm when followed?
If atheists are routinely getting the 10 commandments removed from public places, then are they advocating lying, stealing, adultery, and theft since they don't want those prohibitions posted publically?
What is it about not lying, stealing, murdering, and committing adultery that are unconstitutional? (This question only applies to the U.S.A.)
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists appreciate Christians who seek to reduce the greatest suffering of people by trying to get them saved in order to avoid eternal damnation?
Would it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn't know about it and no one ever finds out since no one is harmed but it gives the rapist pleasure?


I will probably answer these in a video sometime soon but I thought I would share them with you guys since hearing answers from others helps shape the "how" I would go about answering these myself, although I would have an answer to them I would want to think of the best way to go about answering it to make the most sense.


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
12-10-2016, 01:41 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
The moral question never makes much sense to me tbh, because I think it primarily misunderstands that not all atheists have the same morals or even the same view on morality and where it comes from.

It's a philosophical question that most people will answer differently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ViolexTV's post
12-10-2016, 04:40 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
Lots of implied strawmen in the questioning.

Atheism is a lack of belief or disbelief in god or gods.

Morality is the product of our social conditioning and our own perceptions about what is right and wrong.

I fail to see a connection.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
12-10-2016, 05:31 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
Wow. That is an amazingly offensive list of questions. Logical fallacies, dishonest phrasing, incorrect definitions.

They seem rather obsessed with rape. Projecting?


My impression is that the list was intended to provoke.

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
12-10-2016, 05:37 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
Who are CARM?

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
12-10-2016, 05:42 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
(12-10-2016 05:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  Who are CARM?

Christian Apologetics Resource Ministry
carm.org
It is Matt Slick's website and if you don't know who he is, count your blessings.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
12-10-2016, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 06:39 AM by Fatbaldhobbit.)
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
Here's my take:

What makes something moral?

A particular action is moral or right when it promotes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow minimizes harm or suffering or it does both.

A particular action is immoral or wrong when it diminishes happiness, wellbeing or health, or it increases harm or suffering or it does both.


Do you have any objective moral standard, or are all your morals subjective?

How do you prove objective morals?

Do any actions automatically have moral value, such as rape being wrong, or is the moral value assigned by people?

A particular action is moral or right when it promotes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow minimizes harm or suffering or it does both.

A particular action is immoral or wrong when it diminishes happiness, wellbeing or health, or it increases harm or suffering or it does both.


Why ought a person not steal?

The Law of Reciprocity.

Was the atheist Joseph Stalin wrong for killing over 42 million people in the 1900s? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you believe the Exodus fable, was god wrong for killing millions of innocents in the flood?

From the perspective of an atheist, is the action of rape wrong even if it furthers the species?

Unlike fictional biblical characters like Moses, I personally believe rape is wrong.

In atheism, if you say rape is wrong because it harms someone, why is harm the standard of morality?

The Law of Reciprocity.

A particular action is moral or right when it promotes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow minimizes harm or suffering or it does both.

A particular action is immoral or wrong when it diminishes happiness, wellbeing or health, or it increases harm or suffering or it does both.


If you believe something is morally wrong (like rape), "ought" you do something about it and impose your value on others?

Yes.

If you "ought" to impose your moral value on others (like stoping a rape), what gives you the moral right to do that?

A particular action is moral or right when it promotes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow minimizes harm or suffering or it does both.

A particular action is immoral or wrong when it diminishes happiness, wellbeing or health, or it increases harm or suffering or it does both.


Do you believe that the subjective opinions of a society offer proper basis for morality?

It depends on the opinions and the society. Conservative christians have furthered the spread of AIDS in Africa, spread hatred based on religious belief, sexual orientation, and gender. Radical Islamists have committed acts of terrorism.

How do you know if a society is improving morally?

When religion declines, society often improves morally.

How do atheists define harm and what justifies their definition as being the right one?

How do theists define harm and what justifies their definition as being the right one?
How do theists justify the harm ordered by their god in their religious texts?


How is appealing to the majority desire not committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum to determine morals?

Majority desire foes not determine morality. Who claimed that it does?

If it is a logical fallacy, then why do atheists appeal to it?

We don’t.

Why "ought" atheists work to reduce harm?

The Law of Reciprocity.

A particular action is moral or right when it promotes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow minimizes harm or suffering or it does both.

A particular action is immoral or wrong when it diminishes happiness, wellbeing or health, or it increases harm or suffering or it does both.


How is it not a double standard when defining good as that which reduces harm, and that which reduces harm as good, yet atheists complain when Christians say that God is by nature good and what is good is what reflects God's nature?

Because according to the Christian bible, god commits genocide, orders rapes, theft, invasion, slaughters babies and commits too many atrocities to count.
No god that condones slavery is good.


If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists work to stop abortion since it causes the greatest harm to a life by killing unborn babies?

If reducing harm is morally good then should theists support contraceptives and sex education as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies?
Shouldn’t theists stop shaming the pregnant girls? Or at least shame the fathers equally?
Shouldn't theists stop preaching hatred and prejudice against homosexuals, atheists and other faiths?


If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists be morally obligated to join the military and go to war with radical Islam so as to stop its spread and thereby reduce harm to millions of people?

I thought christians believed that jeebus said “love thy neighbor” and god said “thou shalt not kill”?
Are you going to follow the Amalekite doctrine?
Do the Christian soldiers of god have to slaughter the men, women and children? Except for the virgins that they get to keep.


If reducing harm is morally good, then does it imply that the ends justify the means as long as harm is reduced?

No.

If the ends justify the means, then are lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, etc., all okay if they reduce overall harm?

The end does not justify the means.

If an atheist believes that religion causes harm, then shouldn't he use lies with religious people in order to undermine their religious presence and expansion and reduce harm?

The end does not justify the means. Religion uses lies, fear and extortion to coerce belief and enforce behavior. As an atheist all I can do is point out those crimes.

If reducing harm is morally good, then how many hospitals have atheists built, or wells have they dug, or cultures have they taught agriculture, and provided electricity to, etc.?

How much good have the religions suppressed by demonizing atheists? Atheists have been ostracized, tortured, incarcerated and murdered by religions for centuries. Secular charities are growing and will likely continue to do so.

Since Christians build hospitals, dig wells, visit 3rd world nations and upgrade their technology, thereby reducing harm, then why are atheists increasing their attacks on Christianity?

Demanding civil rights like marriage and protection from discrimination are not attacks. Additionally, using charity to force theology is reprehensible at best.

Why do atheists work to get the 10 commandments removed from public areas since those same 10 commandments reduce harm when followed?

The Constitution protects from religious abuses.
Will it be acceptable to have the Sharia law code next to the Ten Commandments?


If atheists are routinely getting the 10 commandments removed from public places, then are they advocating lying, stealing, adultery, and theft since they don't want those prohibitions posted publically?

No.

Since lying, stealing, adultery and theft are all advocated in the bible, how do you reconcile the contradiction?


What is it about not lying, stealing, murdering, and committing adultery that are unconstitutional? (This question only applies to the U.S.A.)

The right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” to quote the Founding Fathers. I realize that lying, stealing, murdering and adultery are all condoned in the bible. Along with genocide, incest, rape, slavery, etc…

If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists appreciate Christians who seek to reduce the greatest suffering of people by trying to get them saved in order to avoid eternal damnation?

There is no eternal damnation. Selling false hope and taking money from poverty stricken believers is not relieving suffering.

Would it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn't know about it and no one ever finds out since no one is harmed but it gives the rapist pleasure?

Whoever formulated this question should be evaluated by a trained psychologist.
To put it colloquially, “That’s fucked up and you’re a sick bastard.”


* * * * *





Oh, and I thought CARM stood for:

Collection of Anti-science Religious Morons

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
[+] 15 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
12-10-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
When it comes to morality, I refer everyone to this video from Theoretical Bullshit aka Scott Clifton




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
12-10-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
"Since Christians build hospitals, dig wells, visit 3rd world nations and upgrade their technology, thereby reducing harm, then why are atheists increasing their attacks on Christianity?"

Jerk's taking a lot of credit, there. And yes, the slant of the questions is provocative. Good set of answers, FBH!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
12-10-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: CARM has more questions for us!
(12-10-2016 01:31 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Here is the first list.

Quote:What makes something moral?
Do you have any objective moral standard, or are all your morals subjective?
Do any actions automatically have moral value, such as rape being wrong, or is the moral value assigned by people?
Why ought a person not steal?
Was the atheist Joseph Stalin wrong for killing over 42 million people in the 1900s? If so, why? If not, why not?
From the perspective of an atheist, is the action of rape wrong even if it furthers the species?
In atheism, if you say rape is wrong because it harms someone, why is harm the standard of morality?
If you believe something is morally wrong (like rape), "ought" you do something about it and impose your value on others?
If you "ought" to impose your moral value on others (like stoping a rape), what gives you the moral right to do that?
Do you believe that the subjective opinions of a society offer proper basis for morality?
How do you know if a society is improving morally?


and the second list.

Quote:How do atheists define harm and what justifies their definition as being the right one?
How is appealing to the majority desire not committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum to determine morals?
If it is a logical fallacy, then why do atheists appeal to it?
Why "ought" atheists work to reduce harm?
How is it not a double standard when defining good as that which reduces harm, and that which reduces harm as good, yet atheists complain when Christians say that God is by nature good and what is good is what reflects God's nature?
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists work to stop abortion since it causes the greatest harm to a life by killing unborn babies?
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists be morally obligated to join the military and go to war with radical Islam so as to stop its spread and thereby reduce harm to millions of people?
If reducing harm is morally good, then does it imply that the ends justify the means as long as harm is reduced?
If the ends justify the means, then are lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, etc., all okay if they reduce overall harm?
If an atheist believes that religion causes harm, then shouldn't he use lies with religious people in order to undermine their religious presence and expansion and reduce harm?
If reducing harm is morally good, then how many hospitals have atheists built, or wells have they dug, or cultures have they taught agriculture, and provided electricity to, etc.?
Since Christians build hospitals, dig wells, visit 3rd world nations and upgrade their technology, thereby reducing harm, then why are atheists increasing their attacks on Christianity?
Why do atheists work to get the 10 commandments removed from public areas since those same 10 commandments reduce harm when followed?
If atheists are routinely getting the 10 commandments removed from public places, then are they advocating lying, stealing, adultery, and theft since they don't want those prohibitions posted publically?
What is it about not lying, stealing, murdering, and committing adultery that are unconstitutional? (This question only applies to the U.S.A.)
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn't atheists appreciate Christians who seek to reduce the greatest suffering of people by trying to get them saved in order to avoid eternal damnation?
Would it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn't know about it and no one ever finds out since no one is harmed but it gives the rapist pleasure?


I will probably answer these in a video sometime soon but I thought I would share them with you guys since hearing answers from others helps shape the "how" I would go about answering these myself, although I would have an answer to them I would want to think of the best way to go about answering it to make the most sense.

Even though these questions are riddled with errors , unargued premises, and I don't believe that Matt Slick is genuinely interested in the answers (He's already presupposed that the atheist is wrong) , I enjoy answering these types of questions. Unlike many theists I've dealt with, I enjoy answering questions about my worldview's principles. Hopefully I can find time today or tomorrow to answer in detail.

But, to answer just the first question for now: Something is moral if it promotes life and the enjoyment of life and is in accordance with man's nature as a rational being.

clearly on this definition of moral, Christianity and theism in general is immoral because it is irrational and therefore is not proper to the life of a rational being.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: