From Deism to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2015, 03:38 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you believe that god was the cause of all things, of all that is right then you must believe that god created "right" hence he defined right from wrong.
Hence you try to adhere to his personal subjective whims.

Nope. The Good, even in Plato’s view is uncaused. It’s not a whim, or a product of God’s personal preferences, it’s who God is. It’s why we say God is Good, rather than God does Good.
But in terms of moral good and moral bad, people tend to classify actions performed by a moral agent (a being with knowledge of good and bad and ability to choose between). They are judging an action/choice as being good or bad. An entity such as a person or a god cannot simply be good or bad. Objects are objects. Moral judgements are made upon actions and choices not objects.
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Torturing babies is not a mathematical or scientific equation. There is no universal truth as to whether it is right or wrong. The universe doesn't care. The rightness or wrongness of it is a matter of opinion.

You mean according to you. Not according to believers, or moral realist, or anyone who rejects relativism.
In my opinion, a person claiming that something is objectively bad would have the burdon of proof upon them. They would need to show how a moral truth can be objectively discovered rather than simply believed into existence.
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So yes, for me torturing babies for the fun of it is wrong, in an objective sense, in a factual sense, and not a matter of opinion.
Because you choose to believe it to be so?
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What dead-end did you come to? I haven't found any dead ends. Maybe you could bring one to my attention or I could resolve the issue you found?
We could start with this. Most people don’t perceive the “wrongness” or torturing babies for the fun of it, as a matter of personal opinion but as a fact. Why do you think that is?
Because most people are human and have human emotions and empathse with the babies.
Another question back at you.
Most people don't consider it morally wrong for burrowing beatles to eat their own young. Why is it objectively wrong to eat human babies but not objectively wrong to eat burrowing beatle babies?
There are also many people who love to eat lamb (a.k.a. baby sheep).
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I could argue, that my theism is built on a lack of belief in ontological naturalism, a lack of belief that life is full of sound of fury signifying nothing.
But that doesn't lead to a god. You worship the Christian god therefore you believe in a god.
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or we could say if your atheism is based on there being no evidence, for God, than your atheism is a belief system, "a belief that there is no evidence for God". And that your lack of belief, is just the flip-side of this.
I am open to being presented with evidence. As with all new discoveries the skeptic starts at the point of "there is no evidence that I have seen, please present your evidence". If the evidence is compelling then the skeptic accepts the claim and if they spread the word they back that up with the evidence.
(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don’t really want to have this argument, because it’s usually boring. And I rather just stick with the questions of morality.
Fair enough
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 04:30 PM by Dom.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 08:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But to give you a brief summary. Good and God are not divisible concepts. Good is not a product of God’s will or opinion, but who God is. If you’re not sure what that means, then all you need to know is that I hold a view of God, expressed in Plato’s allegory of the cave: “in the realm of the knowable the last thing to be seen and with considerable effort, is the Good, but once seen, it must be concluded that this is indeed the cause of all things, of all that is right and beautiful.”

So god is not the creator? This makes no sense. If god is good and the cause of all things, then he is also the cause of all evil and ugly. Which is not good.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
27-04-2015, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 04:25 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(26-04-2015 01:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet many of us would claim that torturing a baby just for the fun of it, is wrong, and that the "wrongness" here is not subjective like we might say when someone puts on the "wrong" shade of lipstick, but "wrong" like we'd say of 2+2=5.

It is trivial to prove that 2+2=10 or 2+2=11. So there's that. You might want to work on your analogies.

(27-04-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don’t really want to have this argument, because it’s usually boring. And I rather just stick with the questions of morality.

Okay, let's.

"Atheist are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you’re trying to argue from a position of moral superiority."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 05:27 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 03:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But in terms of moral good and moral bad, people tend to classify actions performed by a moral agent (a being with knowledge of good and bad and ability to choose between). They are judging an action/choice as being good or bad. An entity such as a person or a god cannot simply be good or bad. Objects are objects. Moral judgements are made upon actions and choices not objects.

It depends on which people we’re talking about here. This may be true for consequentialist, for whom questions regarding character, virtue, or intent, are irrelevant. It’s not true for someone such as myself, who subscribes to virtue ethics. That when I view something as evil, I am saying something about the intention, and character of the one performing the actions, more so than anything else.

When I say my mother is a good person, I’m saying something about who she is, about her nature, more so than what she’s done, which is just a reflection of who she is.

Quote:In my opinion, a person claiming that something is objectively bad would have the burdon of proof upon them. They would need to show how a moral truth can be objectively discovered rather than simply believed into existence.

In my view, a person claiming that torturing babies for fun, is just an opinion, also has a burden of proof placed on them as well. In fact, he has an uphill battle ahead of him.

But I’m pretty sure, that you recognize the “wrongness” of torturing babies for the fun of it. That if you found a man torturing babies just for the fun of it, the last thing you would believe is that he was just someone who held a different opinion than you.

Quote:Because most people are human and have human emotions and empathse with the babies. Another question back at you.

But this doesn’t answer the question. You have human emotions and empathize with babies probably no differently, yet you believe the wrongness of torturing them for fun, is an opinion, while most people don’t see it as an opinion, but as factually wrong. Where do you believe this supposedly erroneous perception of moral facts came from?

Quote:Most people don't consider it morally wrong for burrowing beatles to eat their own young.

Well we don’t really pass moral judgements on other animals do we? We don’t put chimps on trial for engaging in genocidal wars, or claim they are not being very chimpanzesque. When a bear kills its babies, we accept it as part of it’s nature. Yet when we hear a story of a mother who killed hers, we ask where was her humanity? We recognize something terribly wrong with this, something that’s far from right here. That she violated something deep and profound.

Quote:Why is it objectively wrong to eat human babies but not objectively wrong to eat burrowing beatle babies?
There are also many people who love to eat lamb (a.k.a. baby sheep).

Yet, we pass laws all the time for the humane treatment of animals, even though they serve as our food source. We imprison people for torturing animals. But I do think something is being missed here, and that’s why I avoided speaking of these grey areas.

When we see the wrongness of torturing a child just for fun, the wrongness is not really about a child, about fun, or even the sense of pain, we could expand on why we see it as wrong a great deal, to see certain underlying principles, that we bring to the table even when discussing animals. In some way we’re seeing the same principle, and asking as to how we should apply it when it comes to other sentient creatures we see as our food source.

We are asking a question about justification, the way in which people would wonder if something they are doing is within a law. Something is already fundamentally different here when we consider moral questions, than when speaking about subjective preferences. Our basic arguments, our language, betray the very notion that we are speaking of our likes and dislikes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 05:42 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It depends on which people we’re talking about here. This may be true for consequentialist, for whom questions regarding character, virtue, or intent, are irrelevant. It’s not true for someone such as myself, who subscribes to virtue ethics. That when I view something as evil, I am saying something about the intention, and character of the one performing the actions, more so than anything else.

When I say my mother is a good person, I’m saying something about who she is, about her nature, more so than what she’s done, which is just a reflection of who she is.
Does this mean you view some people as good and some as bad?
Perhaps Luke Skywalker is good and Darth Vader is bad? Who are you to judge? Is this an objective judgement of character that you make or is it your own subjective opinion?

(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In my view, a person claiming that torturing babies for fun, is just an opinion, also has a burden of proof placed on them as well. In fact, he has an uphill battle ahead of him.
My position is that there is no method to discover if something is objectively good or objectively bad. I disbelieve in good and bad until such point that someone can prove these things exist.
(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I’m pretty sure, that you recognize the “wrongness” of torturing babies for the fun of it. That if you found a man torturing babies just for the fun of it, the last thing you would believe is that he was just someone who held a different opinion than you.
No I don't recognise the wrongness. I respect that this person may have an opinion that it is fun. I may sympathise with the babies and I may try to stop the man, but it isn't because I am right and he is wrong. I am not a crusader for good. I am not good. I don't strive to be good. I don't even know what good is.
(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Because most people are human and have human emotions and empathse with the babies. Another question back at you.
But this doesn’t answer the question. You have human emotions and empathize with babies probably no differently, yet you believe the wrongness of torturing them for fun, is an opinion,...
I don't believe that my own emotions and empaty equates to knowledge of right and wrong. I recognise that different people react differently to the same situation. Someone might have an emotional response to something and someone else might not. We aren't in tune with an objective moral truth.
(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  while most people don’t see it as an opinion, but as factually wrong. Where do you believe this supposedly erroneous perception of moral facts came from?
Firstly this is the logical fallicy of ad populum.
People can get aligned in moral opinions just merely being humans with emotions and empathy for other humans.
They can also get aligned via the influence of culture, media, movies, fairytales, etc.
It's often the case that parents simplify life down for their children. Don't throw food on the walls, its naughty. Santa only gives presents to good children etc...
(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Most people don't consider it morally wrong for burrowing beatles to eat their own young.
Well we don’t really pass moral judgements on other animals do we? We don’t put chimps on trial for engaging in genocidal wars, or claim they are not being very chimpanzesque. When a bear kills its babies, we accept it as part of it’s nature. Yet when we hear a story of a mother who killed hers, we ask where was her humanity? We recognize something terribly wrong with this, something that’s far from right here. That she violated something deep and profound.
Are you saying that the universe only cares about humans?
So when you claim an objective moral then this is subjective to humanity?
If an advance alien race flys to Earth do you think while they would be OK with their own babies being tortured they would be deeply distraught to see human babies tortured?

(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When we see the wrongness of torturing a child just for fun, the wrongness is not really about a child, about fun, or even the sense of pain, we could expand on why we see it as wrong a great deal, to see certain underlying principles, that we bring to the table even when discussing animals. In some way we’re seeing the same principle, and asking as to how we should apply it when it comes to other sentient creatures we see as our food source.

We are asking a question about justification, the way in which people would wonder if something they are doing is within a law. Something is already fundamentally different here when we consider moral questions, than when speaking subjective preferences.
I don't see it that way. I don't quite understand the concept of justification.
I don't accept that we lock up a thief due to justice. I consider that we lock them up as a disincentive for other would be thieves and to stop this thief from thieving within society. They can't steal while they are behind bars. We remove threats rather than dish out moral justice.
Many people might consider cheating on your spouse as a moral injustice, but we don't lock people up for cheating on their spouse.

I'm sure you don't consider your government as the authority of right and wrong, so I am unclear as to why you look towards laws to back up your claims as to objective morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 05:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 03:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But in terms of moral good and moral bad, people tend to classify actions performed by a moral agent (a being with knowledge of good and bad and ability to choose between). They are judging an action/choice as being good or bad. An entity such as a person or a god cannot simply be good or bad. Objects are objects. Moral judgements are made upon actions and choices not objects.

It depends on which people we’re talking about here. This may be true for consequentialist, for whom questions regarding character, virtue, or intent, are irrelevant. It’s not true for someone such as myself, who subscribes to virtue ethics. That when I view something as evil, I am saying something about the intention, and character of the one performing the actions, more so than anything else.

When I say my mother is a good person, I’m saying something about who she is, about her nature, more so than what she’s done, which is just a reflection of who she is.

I think you may have missed the point or possibly side-stepped it.

Virtue ethics does not hep you determine what is good or bad - it does not define virtuous.

Where do you get your judgment of good and bad? Because, in the end, it is always our own judgments.

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
27-04-2015, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 07:02 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  /Are you saying that the universe only cares about humans?

I don’t recall saying anything about the universe.

Quote:So when you claim an objective moral then this is subjective to humanity?
If an advance alien race flys to Earth do you think while they would be OK with their own babies being tortured they would be deeply distraught to see human babies tortured?

No, I’m saying that moral knowledge, requires beings capable of comprehending it. We don’t judge other animals the same way because we see them as not knowing any better. I don’t expect a lion to behave any differently, than to kill me, we don’t expect him to show me kindness, or mercy.

Quote:I don't see it that way. I don't quite understand the concept of justification.

It might not be easy to understand, but it should be easy to recognize it. Murder is wrong, taking innocent life is wrong, in order to make it acceptable we justify it. By saying that it’s necessary in some instances to kill others, to take innocent life, like collateral damage. To violate certain moral principles we resort to all sorts of self-justifying schemes, such as dehumanization.

"Gitta Sereny asked Franz Stangl, the former commandant of the Treblinka death camp, “If they were going to kill them anyway, what was the point of all the humiliation, why the cruelty?” He replied, “To condition those who actually had to carry out the policies. To make it possible for them to do what they did.” -Budziszewski, J (2011-02-16). What We Cant Not Know (p. 208). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

We need these justification, true, false, or even delusional, and not particularly to convince others, but often to convince ourselves, in order transgress these moral boundaries. We can't just take our equal from across the pond and make him a slave, he has to be not our equal, he has to be less than human, an animal, cursed by God himself, in order for us do so. Why do you think that is? Opinions don’t require as much effort.

You would think the folks who want to claim that morality doesn’t exist, that it’s just an opinion, would be our murders and thieves, but instead it tends to be folks who are not anything of the sort. You would think it would be the man ready to perform a series of moral transgressions, to declare that morality is nothing but a series of taboos, but instead it’s middle class responsible fathers. Even criminals know better.

Quote:I'm sure you don't consider your government as the authority of right and wrong,

No they are not, nor are legal systems. But these systems, distorted, barbaric, archaic, or not, are attempts to be rooted in the same underlying moral principles. The sort underlying concept like human rights, equality, and justice.

Quote:Firstly this is the logical fallicy of ad populum.

How so?

Quote:No I don't recognise the wrongness. I am not a crusader for good. I am not good. I don't strive to be good. I don't even know what good is.

So you don’t try and treat your children, and wife, with love and understanding, striving to be fair with them? You don’t desire to be a good father and husband? Rather than some deadbeat, or a man who skirts his responsibilities, and abandons them?

If you’re not around, and will never know, do you think it’s okay for your wife to cheat on you? Would you cheat on your wife, if you knew you wouldn’t get caught?

Do you think it’s okay if your children grow up to treat women as mere objects, to be cruel? To view the homeless, and the crippled as folks that need to be extinguished? Or do you hope that they grow up to be kind and considerate of others?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where do you get your judgment of good and bad?

From the same place everybody else does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 07:06 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 07:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where do you get your judgment of good and bad?

From the same place everybody else does.

From within.
From our evolved sense of fairness and empathy, from the society we grew up in, from our own emotions.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-04-2015, 07:10 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 07:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where do you get your judgment of good and bad?

From the same place everybody else does.

Exactly. You LEARNED it. Humans generally find taking human life that's considered "innocent'' a bad thing. There is no absolute. At the margins, people disagree all the time about taking life for various reasons (capital punishment etc). Your thinking is very muddled. "Taking innocent life is wrong" EXCEPT that it's OK for the state to require innocent yonng men to lay theirs down for what fat old generals consider a good cause, and which 50 years later they may indeed change their minds about. There are NO absolutes. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmor..._--_y.html

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: