Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2015, 04:51 PM
Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
A Facebook friend shared this picture on her page

[Image: 0f63c768be48a5381fbac5d19fc4a83b.jpg]

So far, so good. I really appreciate a relationship where we can have a debate or disagreement and still be friends, or at a minimum, be civil.

But...another one of her friends writes:

"Kindness wouldn't be objectively good without God, yet it is."

I respond

"Kindness isn't objective. It's entirely subjective to the human experience. We share a basic desire to pursue happiness and avoid pain an suffering, and kindness makes it easier to fulfill that desire even though "pursuing happiness" means different things to different people. It only requires empathy - not a divine command."

They respond with a wall of text rant about "atheist Dogma" and how if morality isn't objective it inevitably leads to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I wish I could copy and paste it, but they blocked me, and I can't see it anymore. It was good stuff.

I follow up with

"1) There is no "atheist Dogma." No atheist holy book, liturgy, hymns, class of priests, or absolute authority figures telling them what to think or do. Consequently, only knowing that someone is an atheist is to know next to nothing about them other than that they have consigned one more god to the graveyard of mythology than you have.*

2) I'm surprised the Hitler card got played so quickly. It usually takes longer for Godwin's Law to take effect. Wink Besides...

3) The argument I'm making has nothing to do with atheism or theism. I'm simply saying that we don't need to appeal to an eternal system of rewards and punishments or divine commands to find good reasons to be kind to each other. Recognizing our shared humanity is enough."

They respond "Everything you just typed is atheist Dogma. You're blocked. Bye."

Me: "LOL...so much for objective kindness in spite of disagreement. Big Grin"

Apparently kindness is objectively good unless your talking to an atheist, then in that case, fuck 'em. Laugh out load



*I borrowed that "graveyard of mythology" bit from Sam Harris

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
11-10-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
They're throwing that "atheist dogma" bullshit at you because they already shot their wad with the Hitler crap.
Better to block you now that they've got no argument left.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
11-10-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 04:51 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  "Kindness wouldn't be objectively good without God, yet it is."

She contradicted herself, right there. That sentence means "Kindness is objectively good without god". Is she a moron ?

Germany was a Christian nation. He couldn't have done anything without the consent of the nation. How did that work out for them ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-10-2015, 05:43 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2015 03:19 AM by Can_of_Beans.)
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 05:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 04:51 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  "Kindness wouldn't be objectively good without God, yet it is."

She contradicted herself, right there. That sentence means "Kindness is objectively good without god". Is she a moron ?

Germany was a Christian nation. He couldn't have done anything without the consent of the nation. How did that work out for them ?

Good point. I have to admit that I didn't catch that and just went with what I assumed she meant to say:

If God does not exist, kindness is not objectively good
Kindness is objectively good
Therefore, God exists

I thought about asking why she'd blame atheists for a Christian nation attempting to commit genocide after centuries of church sanctioned antisemitism, but I wasn't in the mood for a Hitler debate.

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
11-10-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 04:51 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  They respond with a wall of text rant about "atheist Dogma" and how if morality isn't objective it inevitably leads to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

Well... yes. It isn't. And it did.

That's rather the point.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-10-2015, 07:44 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 06:10 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 04:51 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  They respond with a wall of text rant about "atheist Dogma" and how if morality isn't objective it inevitably leads to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

Well... yes. It isn't. And it did.

That's rather the point.

The problem with debating most theists on objective morality is that they don't know what objectivity means or have any kind of theory of concepts. They are clueless about the hierarchical nature of knowledge and their worldview is premised on metaphysical subjectivism. The very idea of objective morality is nonsensical on their worldview's premises. They literally claim that objective morality has its source in pure subjectivism, which is irrevocably self contradictory. They must be educated on all this before you can even talk about the field of ethics.

Edit: I meant to be replying to the OP but just hit the wrong reply button.

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
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
11-10-2015, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2015 09:10 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 05:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 04:51 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  "Kindness wouldn't be objectively good without God, yet it is."

She contradicted herself, right there. That sentence means "Kindness is objectively good without god". Is she a moron ?

Germany was a Christian nation. He couldn't have done anything without the consent of the nation. How did that work out for them ?

The dirty little secret is that the Nazis were operating on the same fundamental premises as Christianity endorses: Subjectivism in metaphysics and epistemology and self sacrifice in ethics. They were explicitly anti-reason and altruistic. All one needs to do is listen to their speeches and see how often the words altruism and self sacrifice appear. Religion prepared the way intellectually as well as Kant and Hegel and the Nazis cashed in on it. They could not have done what they did had religion and philosophers of the time not prepared the people for it. The only difference, and it is a trivial difference, was they changed the beneficiary of the sacrifice to "the people" instead of a god.

The fundamental principles were the same. They could not have done what they did on the principles of objectivism and individualism and of man's right to live for his own sake.

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
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
11-10-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 04:51 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  A Facebook friend shared this picture on her page

[Image: 0f63c768be48a5381fbac5d19fc4a83b.jpg]

So far, so good. I really appreciate a relationship where we can have a debate or disagreement and still be friends, or at a minimum, be civil.

But...another one of her friends writes:

"Kindness wouldn't be objectively good without God, yet it is."

I respond

"Kindness isn't objective. It's entirely subjective to the human experience. We share a basic desire to pursue happiness and avoid pain an suffering, and kindness makes it easier to fulfill that desire even though "pursuing happiness" means different things to different people. It only requires empathy - not a divine command."

They respond with a wall of text rant about "atheist Dogma" and how if morality isn't objective it inevitably leads to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I wish I could copy and paste it, but they blocked me, and I can't see it anymore. It was good stuff.

I follow up with

"1) There is no "atheist Dogma." No atheist holy book, liturgy, hymns, class of priests, or absolute authority figures telling them what to think or do. Consequently, only knowing that someone is an atheist is to know next to nothing about them other than that they have consigned one more god to the graveyard of mythology than you have.*

2) I'm surprised the Hitler card got played so quickly. It usually takes longer for Godwin's Law to take effect. Wink Besides...

3) The argument I'm making has nothing to do with atheism or theism. I'm simply saying that we don't need to appeal to an eternal system of rewards and punishments or divine commands to find good reasons to be kind to each other. Recognizing our shared humanity is enough."

They respond "Everything you just typed is atheist Dogma. You're blocked. Bye."

Me: "LOL...so much for objective kindness in spite of disagreement. Big Grin"

Apparently kindness is objectively good unless your talking to an atheist, then in that case, fuck 'em. Laugh out load



*I borrowed that "graveyard of mythology" bit from Sam Harris
At least they didn't give you so much negative feedback as I get here from very kind atheists. Big Grin
But I agree with you on this:
"we don't need to appeal to an eternal system of rewards and punishments or divine commands to find good reasons to be kind to each other."
P.S. They shouldn't ban you. You were bringing very good arguments.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
12-10-2015, 02:16 AM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 05:43 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  I thought about asking why she'd blame atheists for a Christian nation attempting to commit genocide after centuries of church sanctioned antisemitism, but I wasn't in the mood for a Hitler debate.

It's obvious. Hitler and those who followed him killed people so they weren't true christians. If they weren't christians they were atheists and that is why she blamed nonbelievers Rolleyes

Guess "Gott mit uns" was just for lolz.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
12-10-2015, 06:55 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2015 06:58 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(11-10-2015 08:07 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
The dirty little secret is that the Nazis were operating on the same fundamental premises as Christianity endorses: Subjectivism in metaphysics and epistemology and self sacrifice in ethics.
...
They could not have done what they did on the principles of objectivism and individualism and of man's right to live for his own sake.

This probably belongs to another thread but since you mentioned it...

Just out of curiosity, is there an 'ism' for number 4.?
1. Subjectivism + Individualism
2. Subjectivism + Collectivism
3. Objectivism + Individualism
4. Objectivism + Collectivism

I ask because I was looking for a diagram for this and stumbled across this AQAL model

[Image: AQAL_holon-275x275.gif]

Which kinda makes sense (to use 'internal' and 'external' instead of 'subjective' and 'objective') because I also found this http://www.slideshare.net/finnellj/dudeist-philosophy which was amusing and contained this
[Image: dudeist-philosophy-22-728.jpg?cb=1330680564]

... which equates Objectivism with (rugged) Individualism and this confuses me because it implies there will not be a 'Objectivism + Collectivism' combination.

Anyway, I started down the path of checking out the AQAL model and quickly found myself in a steaming pile of woo... so I stopped.


(11-10-2015 08:09 PM)Alla Wrote:  ...
At least they didn't give you so much negative feedback as I get here from very kind atheists. Big Grin
...

Negative feedback is the only feedback worth having.

Are you disappointed with the quality of negative feedback you are receiving or simply (simplistically) not appreciating its value?

Perhaps you are confusing 'confront' with 'affront' or have them back to front?

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: