I just need to vent
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 05:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 10:16 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Hmm... relating eating pizza with raping inocent young women - you need to seek some help there buddy. Damn man, you would at least gain a shred of respect if you fundies just admit to what it says and avoid the denial and mental dancing. To brush it away as it is only wrong in your opinion and not mine or Gods is plain friggin sick. You are a disgusting and ignorant human being.
You cannot make that statement and deny the existence of God at the same time.

Are you implying that god is the moral law giver and source of objective moral truth? If so, how do you know? Can you prove it?

We have spent some time now telling you all of our positions. Where do you believe morals come from? Lets hear your argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 09:06 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Part of being atheist is learning to come to terms with the fact that no man in the sky is going to tell how things aught to be, we have to decide for ourselves. There is no reason to believe we more significant, or special then we are. In light of this it it becomes even more important to look to one another and try to help each other in this life. I take a humanistic moral position because I think it provides the greatest freedom and the most rights to the most people, but I don't delude myself with believing that my moral view has any kind of divine providence.

I will start a new thread on this issue. Please give me some time to compile my post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 05:19 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 05:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You cannot make that statement and deny the existence of God at the same time.

Are you implying that god is the moral law giver and source of objective moral truth? If so, how do you know? Can you prove it?

We have spent some time now telling you all of our positions. Where do you believe morals come from? Lets hear your argument.

I am simply agreeing with something ethicist Richard Taylor once wrote. He writes:

"The idea of moral…obligation is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher…than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations…can be understood as those imposed by God... But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of moral obligation…still make sense?… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone."

He then goes on to state:

"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.

Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.

Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion."

He concludes,

"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning."


Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1985)

Now since this man was an atheist and an American philosopher renowned for his dry wit and his contributions to metaphysics who took his PhD at Brown University, where his supervisor was Roderick Chisholm and who taught at Brown University, Columbia and the University of Rochester, and had visiting appointments at about a dozen other institutions who wrote books including: Metaphysics (1963), Action and Purpose (1966), Good and Evil (1970) and Virtue Ethics (1991) then he has some of the qualifications you might look for in someone who you would expect to know a little bit about what he was talking about.

He was intelligent, learned, well respected in his field, known for his dry wit, had a PhD from Brown University and had visiting appointments at numerous other institutions and was a published contemporary atheist philosopher.

In other words, this is not some young teenage atheist posting stuff he has read on infidel websites.

Take a good look at what he says and you will notice it is essentially what I have been saying all along.

This is not a Christian speaking, but an atheistic philosopher.

Just ponder what he has written for a while and think on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 08:19 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 05:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 10:16 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Hmm... relating eating pizza with raping inocent young women - you need to seek some help there buddy. Damn man, you would at least gain a shred of respect if you fundies just admit to what it says and avoid the denial and mental dancing. To brush it away as it is only wrong in your opinion and not mine or Gods is plain friggin sick. You are a disgusting and ignorant human being.
You cannot make that statement and deny the existence of God at the same time.

You are an outright idiot! I refuse to entertain the ramblings of a delusional fucking jackass. Peace out!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
06-05-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 12:13 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 11:58 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  I have no interests. My life fucking sucks.

Interest 1 - Bitching on the internet.


Drinking Beverage

Attention seeking on the internet.

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
06-05-2014, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2014 08:46 PM by djhall.)
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 05:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "In other words, our moral obligations…can be understood as those imposed by God... But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of moral obligation…still make sense?… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone."
....
Just ponder what he has written for a while and think on it.

Thinking on it is one of the most common shared experiences among atheists.

Here is the problem. We are born into a pluralistic and uncertain world. A veritable "tower of babel" of beliefs and ideas and values and morals exist. "Everyone knows..." no longer serves as any form of guide as NOTHING is agreed upon by more than a sizable minority. "It is obvious...." no longer serves as a reliable guide. "But the book says..." Uh, which holy text would that be, since there are multiple contenders to chose from? "Science has proven..." conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs about things which are outside the realm of scientific understanding. "But logic tells us..." conflicts with god working in mysterious ways we can't fully judge. "If we pray and search with an open heart and mind..." then on average you are just as likely to decide on Islam or Judaism or Hinduism, as Christianity, except that astonishingly enough (<-- sarcasm), people tend to overwhelmingly find proof to believe whatever their parents and culture do.

This is a highly simplified representation of the moral landscape of the world we live in as it pertains to claims of moral truth:

1) 20% - Assorted Variations of God A, but not Gods B or C.
2) 20% - Assorted Variations of God B, but not Gods A or C.
3) 20% - Assorted Variations of God C, but not Gods A or B.
4) 20% - Assorted Variations on Not God A, B, or C
5) 20% - Individual mixes of beliefs from multiple sources and alternative beliefs.

Each group subjectively believes they know moral truths and desires to live their lives in accordance. These beliefs often conflict with one another. As these conflicting beliefs cannot all be objectively true, all groups face the objective reality that their fervently held objective moral truths are, most likely, not actually objectively true.

What can we do from here? The most common response has been insist all the louder that ours is the one group that is right, try to convince those who don't agree, and try to force those who won't be convinced. The less common response has been to abandon objective morality all together and insist right and wrong are merely the subjective preferences of individuals and cultures.

However, I propose there is a third option for objective standards of morality:

IF the most objective truth we can prove about moral claims is that most people's claims to objective moral truths are uncertain,
THEN no point of view, including one's own, should be presumed by its adherents to be right for others who disagree with it, or should be imposed on others who disagree with it against their wills,
AND we should allow them to pursue their purposes, desires, and happiness without interference and without imposing our own purposes, wills, or desires upon them or forcing them to do what we want against their wills.
THEREFORE, competing moral claims, principles, and standards can be objectively evaluated according to the degree to which they sustain this ideal to the greatest extent possible, even when it is impossible to not violate this ideal no matter what we do.

If you think about the kinds of moral positions that would be supported from this objective principle, we actually can argue that things like rape are objectively wrong. We can objectively demonstrate that moral claims are uncertain and unlikely to be objective moral truths. The most objectively neutral course of action is therefore to resist imposing our wills on others to the greatest extent possible. We can use that principle to objectively compare the claims that raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard or refraining from raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard. The woman who claims the "right" to go about her day without being raped is not attempting to impose her will on a rapist, and a rapist need not even exist for her to carry out that plan of action. The rapist, however, requires the existence of the woman to be raped, and the imposition of his will over her objection, in order to carry out his plan of action. Therefore, we can fairly clearly determine that the woman is objectively right, and the rapist is objectively wrong, in adhering to objective principles in a world where objective truths are uncertain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
06-05-2014, 09:29 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 08:43 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 05:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "In other words, our moral obligations…can be understood as those imposed by God... But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of moral obligation…still make sense?… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone."
....
Just ponder what he has written for a while and think on it.

Thinking on it is one of the most common shared experiences among atheists.

Here is the problem. We are born into a pluralistic and uncertain world. A veritable "tower of babel" of beliefs and ideas and values and morals exist. "Everyone knows..." no longer serves as any form of guide as NOTHING is agreed upon by more than a sizable minority. "It is obvious...." no longer serves as a reliable guide. "But the book says..." Uh, which holy text would that be, since there are multiple contenders to chose from? "Science has proven..." conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs about things which are outside the realm of scientific understanding. "But logic tells us..." conflicts with god working in mysterious ways we can't fully judge. "If we pray and search with an open heart and mind..." then on average you are just as likely to decide on Islam or Judaism or Hinduism, as Christianity, except that astonishingly enough (<-- sarcasm), people tend to overwhelmingly find proof to believe whatever their parents and culture do.

This is a highly simplified representation of the moral landscape of the world we live in as it pertains to claims of moral truth:

1) 20% - Assorted Variations of God A, but not Gods B or C.
2) 20% - Assorted Variations of God B, but not Gods A or C.
3) 20% - Assorted Variations of God C, but not Gods A or B.
4) 20% - Assorted Variations on Not God A, B, or C
5) 20% - Individual mixes of beliefs from multiple sources and alternative beliefs.

Each group subjectively believes they know moral truths and desires to live their lives in accordance. These beliefs often conflict with one another. As these conflicting beliefs cannot all be objectively true, all groups face the objective reality that their fervently held objective moral truths are, most likely, not actually objectively true.

What can we do from here? The most common response has been insist all the louder that ours is the one group that is right, try to convince those who don't agree, and try to force those who won't be convinced. The less common response has been to abandon objective morality all together and insist right and wrong are merely the subjective preferences of individuals and cultures.

However, I propose there is a third option for objective standards of morality:

IF the most objective truth we can prove about moral claims is that most people's claims to objective moral truths are uncertain,
THEN no point of view, including one's own, should be presumed by its adherents to be right for others who disagree with it, or should be imposed on others who disagree with it against their wills,
AND we should allow them to pursue their purposes, desires, and happiness without interference and without imposing our own purposes, wills, or desires upon them or forcing them to do what we want against their wills.
THEREFORE, competing moral claims, principles, and standards can be objectively evaluated according to the degree to which they sustain this ideal to the greatest extent possible, even when it is impossible to not violate this ideal no matter what we do.

If you think about the kinds of moral positions that would be supported from this objective principle, we actually can argue that things like rape are objectively wrong. We can objectively demonstrate that moral claims are uncertain and unlikely to be objective moral truths. The most objectively neutral course of action is therefore to resist imposing our wills on others to the greatest extent possible. We can use that principle to objectively compare the claims that raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard or refraining from raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard. The woman who claims the "right" to go about her day without being raped is not attempting to impose her will on a rapist, and a rapist need not even exist for her to carry out that plan of action. The rapist, however, requires the existence of the woman to be raped, and the imposition of his will over her objection, in order to carry out his plan of action. Therefore, we can fairly clearly determine that the woman is objectively right, and the rapist is objectively wrong, in adhering to objective principles in a world where objective truths are uncertain.


Selecting the 'imposition of will' as your criteria of morality is a subjective decision... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-05-2014, 09:31 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 12:21 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 12:13 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Interest 1 - Bitching on the internet.


Drinking Beverage

Because you guys are so fucking arrogant and optimistic, and I'm curious as to how you rationalize it with our society going to hell.

WOLF-PAC.com

I'm trying to fix society. What's your excuse? If you think society is going to hell, do something about it more substantive than bitching on the internet. Unless of course all you're really interested in is the attention, because you're nothing more than a shallow and vapid attention whore.

I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2014 09:54 PM by djhall.)
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 09:29 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Selecting the 'imposition of will' as your criteria of morality is a subjective decision... Drinking Beverage

Objectivity, objectiveness, and proof are ideal standards that human beings can aspire to and strive to achieve, but which we can never be certain of fully realizing. Unless we become omniscient ourselves, there will always be the possibility of new knowledge, new information, and new reasoning that causes us to question, revise, and re-evaluate our prior judgements.

That is simply the nature of being human, and as such it is true regardless of whether we are trying to determine the most objective criteria for moral judgements or evaluating the merits of the competing claims of competing gods with competing standards of objective morality.

The human condition is such that we cannot eliminate all subjectivity. We just have to settle for "as objective-ish" as we can get with what we have to work with and always continue striving to improve toward the ideals of objectivity and proof. Should someone claim to have a better criteria for objective fairness in arbitrating between competing and uncertain standards of morality, we can test that claim, evaluate the merits, and accept or reject that claim as being more objectively useful and fair.

When your two kids have to share one piece of pizza, an objectively fair principle might be to split it in half, or we could argue that we should apportion it by relative size, with the larger kid getting a proportionately bigger piece. We can argue the objective merits of the claims. But giving it to your favorite because you like them better is clearly less objective and more subjective. We don't need 100% certainty before we can make any comparisons about the relative objectivity of one standard versus another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: I just need to vent
(06-05-2014 08:43 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 05:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "In other words, our moral obligations…can be understood as those imposed by God... But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of moral obligation…still make sense?… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone."
....
Just ponder what he has written for a while and think on it.

Thinking on it is one of the most common shared experiences among atheists.

Here is the problem. We are born into a pluralistic and uncertain world. A veritable "tower of babel" of beliefs and ideas and values and morals exist. "Everyone knows..." no longer serves as any form of guide as NOTHING is agreed upon by more than a sizable minority. "It is obvious...." no longer serves as a reliable guide. "But the book says..." Uh, which holy text would that be, since there are multiple contenders to chose from? "Science has proven..." conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs about things which are outside the realm of scientific understanding. "But logic tells us..." conflicts with god working in mysterious ways we can't fully judge. "If we pray and search with an open heart and mind..." then on average you are just as likely to decide on Islam or Judaism or Hinduism, as Christianity, except that astonishingly enough (<-- sarcasm), people tend to overwhelmingly find proof to believe whatever their parents and culture do.

This is a highly simplified representation of the moral landscape of the world we live in as it pertains to claims of moral truth:

1) 20% - Assorted Variations of God A, but not Gods B or C.
2) 20% - Assorted Variations of God B, but not Gods A or C.
3) 20% - Assorted Variations of God C, but not Gods A or B.
4) 20% - Assorted Variations on Not God A, B, or C
5) 20% - Individual mixes of beliefs from multiple sources and alternative beliefs.

Each group subjectively believes they know moral truths and desires to live their lives in accordance. These beliefs often conflict with one another. As these conflicting beliefs cannot all be objectively true, all groups face the objective reality that their fervently held objective moral truths are, most likely, not actually objectively true.

What can we do from here? The most common response has been insist all the louder that ours is the one group that is right, try to convince those who don't agree, and try to force those who won't be convinced. The less common response has been to abandon objective morality all together and insist right and wrong are merely the subjective preferences of individuals and cultures.

However, I propose there is a third option for objective standards of morality:

IF the most objective truth we can prove about moral claims is that most people's claims to objective moral truths are uncertain,
THEN no point of view, including one's own, should be presumed by its adherents to be right for others who disagree with it, or should be imposed on others who disagree with it against their wills,
AND we should allow them to pursue their purposes, desires, and happiness without interference and without imposing our own purposes, wills, or desires upon them or forcing them to do what we want against their wills.
THEREFORE, competing moral claims, principles, and standards can be objectively evaluated according to the degree to which they sustain this ideal to the greatest extent possible, even when it is impossible to not violate this ideal no matter what we do.

If you think about the kinds of moral positions that would be supported from this objective principle, we actually can argue that things like rape are objectively wrong. We can objectively demonstrate that moral claims are uncertain and unlikely to be objective moral truths. The most objectively neutral course of action is therefore to resist imposing our wills on others to the greatest extent possible. We can use that principle to objectively compare the claims that raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard or refraining from raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard. The woman who claims the "right" to go about her day without being raped is not attempting to impose her will on a rapist, and a rapist need not even exist for her to carry out that plan of action. The rapist, however, requires the existence of the woman to be raped, and the imposition of his will over her objection, in order to carry out his plan of action. Therefore, we can fairly clearly determine that the woman is objectively right, and the rapist is objectively wrong, in adhering to objective principles in a world where objective truths are uncertain.

All of our morality pretty much stems from the gold rule. Its even in the bible, that is how good it is Tongue. Because people have empathy and in general want to be safe and be left alone all cultures all over have come up with very similar moral rules. This is a great thing, because for the most part debating whether or not rape is wrong is a hypothetical argument. We all pretty much agree its wrong, because we all know we wouldn't want to get raped ourselves.

If you are being really super philosophical about it though, you would realize that even terms like "good" and "bad" or "best" and "ideal" are based on values and not on principles. We like good outcomes, but as far as the universe is concerned it doesn't care either way. Space and time and gravity behave the same regardless of what moral dilemma is taking place somewhere. It takes a person to decide if something is good or bad, which is why it is subjective. You must have a subject, aka an individual like you and me, in order to pass moral judgement. Moral judgement doesn't exist without a moral actor; you can't have morality independent of the person who holds that moral view and so in that way it is not objective.

That doesn't make our human value judgement any less important and valid. We have to except some thing as true in order to get anywhere. If you debating morality with someone, and you hold a common set of moral principles to be true, recognizing that there is nothing about the universe that mandates they be true, then you can absolutely objectively arrive at moral truths based logic, reasoning, and what falls out of those agreed upon moral principles. That is how morality generally works in the actual world. This is why humans have a pretty consistent and similar moral code. It may not be as satisfying or as righteous as believing in god, but it is still functional, reasonable, and perfectly consistent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: