Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 08:19 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  Evolution is a theory.

And babble is The Truth?

Also you know what theory in science mean?

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  You're insignificant. I don't have to follow your rules just because you think they're good rules.

You also aren't significant and your fairy tale even less. And from where you get the idea of having to follow my rules?

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  Who says it was bad, you? (no I do not advocate slavery)

Who says it was bad? So do you support slavery? Well, you should, your books of myth is in favor of this.

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  absolutely, doesn't mean we created empathy.


God did it?

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  we can choose to be without empathy, prison is full of folks who have

So?

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  So, you honestly can't see a connection between 10 commandments and rule of law?

Exactly. I don't see connection between primitive, tribal list of taboos some of which are only about religious bullshit and rule of law.

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  Not an argument here, and I'm not going to prove God's existence. No one ever has.

Sure you will not prove it. Then your claims about god making use means shit.

(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  You keep saying that. I think you "must" convince me God doesn't exist. you can't.

I don't give a damn about what you think.

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
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
23-03-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 08:17 AM)ScottD Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 08:08 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ScottD, your current formatting method makes it almost impossible to read your posts. Putting your responses outside the quote tags will make your statements much more legible. As it is, it's quite confusing.

Thanks, I was wondering about that.

No problem. Welcome to the forum, and don't hesitate to ask if any of the formatting tags confuse you. It can take some getting used to if you've never used it before.

"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
23-03-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 07:23 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What about when some atheists claim that their morality is superior? Aren't they also claiming that objective morality exists? Don't they also carry the burden of proof?

I've heard many atheists say things like that on this site without even flinching.

Yes an objective code of moral principles is vastly superior to a set of moral commandments. For one thing a set of moral commandments offers you no guidance on what you *should* do to live a successful, happy and fulfilled life. A set of commandments tells you what you *shouldn't* do to avoid punishment and leaves you in the dark the rest of the time. You see one is positive and the other negative.

Theists are always asking these questions like what is love or what is truth. They do this because their morality is not values based. It's authority based. So they have no guidance on what values to pursue except to do the will of God. Who could know that even if God existed? So they are to pursue a course of action which they can't know for a purpose that they can't know. And notice that the purpose of religious morality is not life on Earth but pleasing some unknowable being somewhere that is also unknowable. No thanks. I'll stick with the morality of life. They can have their morality of death.

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
23-03-2016, 08:33 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 08:03 AM)ScottD Wrote:  So, you honestly can't see a connection between 10 commandments and rule of law?

No matter which version of the commandments you pick they are woefully inadequate as even a basis for a rule of law. You can drop the ones that define what and when to worship since those have nothing of value to offer. The best that can be said for the rest is that they may be generally good ideas but they are far too vague to be of much practical use.

Quote:Not an argument here, and I'm not going to prove God's existence. No one ever has.

Which is why it is irrational to believe the claims.

Quote:
Quote:Pathetic. It is you who must prove existence of space wizard if you want to use him in your arguments.
You keep saying that. I think you "must" convince me God doesn't exist. you can't.

That's not how the burden of proof works. Do you need proof that leprechauns, vampires, and unicorns don't exist or do you also believe in them until somebody proves they don't? Do you believe in reincarnation and astral projection or do you suspend belief until sufficient evidence accumulates? Why do you treat the god claim different than you treat other claims?

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
23-03-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
Which ten commandments? # 1 or 2???

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How about this: "Though shall not torture babies just for fun."

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality.

The OP takes a variety of moral prohibitions and argues that they're not absolute by pointing to a context in which they might be the moral thing to do.

I just made a prohibition in which the context is already defined, that doesn't give room for that objection.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
23-03-2016, 10:36 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 10:40 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 08:33 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No matter which version of the commandments you pick they are woefully inadequate as even a basis for a rule of law. You can drop the ones that define what and when to worship since those have nothing of value to offer. The best that can be said for the rest is that they may be generally good ideas but they are far too vague to be of much practical use.

Morality would have to be objective in order for you to prove any of this. Actually, it would have to be objective in order for these statements to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality.

The OP takes a variety of moral prohibitions and argues that they're not absolute by pointing to a context in which they might be the moral thing to do.

I just made a prohibition in which the context is already defined, that doesn't give room for that objection.

...And?

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality. Even if literally every person who ever has lived or will live agreed that killing babies for fun was wrong, that would be a consensus, not objective morality. It is still a value judgment. It is still not differentiable from subjective morality.

This is the problem. "Objective morality" is still so poorly and nebulously defined that there isn't any way to prove that it exists.

"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
23-03-2016, 10:52 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:48 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The OP takes a variety of moral prohibitions and argues that they're not absolute by pointing to a context in which they might be the moral thing to do.

I just made a prohibition in which the context is already defined, that doesn't give room for that objection.

...And?

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality. Even if literally every person who ever has lived or will live agreed that killing babies for fun was wrong, that would be a consensus, not objective morality. It is still a value judgment. It is still not differentiable from subjective morality.

This is the problem. "Objective morality" is still so poorly and nebulously defined that there isn't any way to prove that it exists.
Agreed. In order for it to be objectively right or wrong, it would have to be right or wrong regardless of popular consensus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
23-03-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 10:48 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The OP takes a variety of moral prohibitions and argues that they're not absolute by pointing to a context in which they might be the moral thing to do.

I just made a prohibition in which the context is already defined, that doesn't give room for that objection.

...And?

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality. Even if literally every person who ever has lived or will live agreed that killing babies for fun was wrong, that would be a consensus, not objective morality. It is still a value judgment. It is still not differentiable from subjective morality.

This is the problem. "Objective morality" is still so poorly and nebulously defined that there isn't any way to prove that it exists.

Well, even if we define it as: "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

You still have no reason to believe that it exists (at least I don't). The problem is not one of definition, but one of existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: