Frank Turek
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 07:04 AM
RE: Frank Turek
(29-05-2016 08:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-05-2016 09:27 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Then there is the question of morality, there are natural causes and reasons for us to be moral and for animals to feel empathy but we're not even that moral.
If you consider that we are social animals and hence we tend to flock together, we naturally form some rules to enable cohabitation. Don't kill each other, seems logical and sensible if you want to live. Allowing killing means that others might try to kill you. Or even being the aggressor means that the "victim" might defend themself and kill you in the process.

So there you have it, a version of defining "allowable behaviour" without it being written in our heart or having a godly being tell us to behave this way.

I thought you believe that morality doesn't exist? Shouldn't your response to someone like Turek, be that you lack a belief in morality all together?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: Frank Turek
(29-05-2016 09:15 PM)Dracomalice Wrote:  As for his argument about moral ontology i argue he fails to make a case the morals made of chemicals cannot lead to contracts or obligations with bite or how having something like a god make them obligatory morals or laws

That's an easy case to make, you can't derive an ought from an is. Perhaps I get a fuzzy feeling at the thought of having to kill an animal for dinner, that doesn't mean I ought not to kill the animal for dinner, in fact I may be perfectly fine eating the animal, provided someone else kill them for me, because of my particular chemical repulsion about doing so myself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Frank Turek
Whether it was gods given moral or chemically then socially produced, why a difference is shelled up by debaters like this still eludes me.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"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
01-06-2016, 08:08 AM
RE: Frank Turek
(01-06-2016 07:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Whether it was gods given moral or chemically then socially produced, why a difference is shelled up by debaters like this still eludes me.

Did you ever notice that their deity-inspired objective morality always coincides exactly with their own personal ideas of morality?

Almost like they were grasping at justification for their own pettiness and bigotry. "It's ok because god said it was ok"...

In any case, until someone proves the existence of a deity, then divine morality is a moot point.

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
01-06-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Frank Turek
(01-06-2016 08:08 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 07:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Whether it was gods given moral or chemically then socially produced, why a difference is shelled up by debaters like this still eludes me.

Did you ever notice that their deity-inspired objective morality always coincides exactly with their own personal ideas of morality?

Almost like they were grasping at justification for their own pettiness and bigotry. "It's ok because god said it was ok"...

In any case, until someone proves the existence of a deity, then divine morality is a moot point.

It reminded me of a William Lame Craig speech (I'm pretty sure it was him, or Ken Ham) where he said it was moral of the soldiers of the bible to kill children. Because the children now get a free pass into heaven. Wasn't that nice of the soldiers?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: Frank Turek
(01-06-2016 08:30 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  It reminded me of a William Lame Craig speech (I'm pretty sure it was him, or Ken Ham) where he said it was moral of the soldiers of the bible to kill children. Because the children now get a free pass into heaven. Wasn't that nice of the soldiers?

Quite admirable.

I suppose they would say something similar in regards to all the raped virgins. Once they got to heaven, they wouldn't have to worry about being one of the 72 virgins given to each terrorist...

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
01-06-2016, 11:38 AM
RE: Frank Turek
(01-06-2016 08:30 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 08:08 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Did you ever notice that their deity-inspired objective morality always coincides exactly with their own personal ideas of morality?

Almost like they were grasping at justification for their own pettiness and bigotry. "It's ok because god said it was ok"...

In any case, until someone proves the existence of a deity, then divine morality is a moot point.

It reminded me of a William Lame Craig speech (I'm pretty sure it was him, or Ken Ham) where he said it was moral of the soldiers of the bible to kill children. Because the children now get a free pass into heaven. Wasn't that nice of the soldiers?

Yeah, that was Craig. I think that is when he "debated" Dawkins.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: