Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Dancing around the bush are we? Just for argument's sake, lets say that there are socially responsible agreed upon "absolute wrongs" like rape, incest, etc....that STILL does not indicate god exists because there are basic level of humanity and common decency expected behavior by others. I am not stating "absolute wrongs" with the word ABSOLUTE truly exists as it is always subjective based on socially acceptable behavior, cultural norms etc.....which even within itself isn't an indication to what most civilized people consider to be morally acceptable...i.e....example ISIS with child rape, forced weddings, beheadings etc.

Now I will spam the thread with my assertion relating to no god needed for morals.

TL : DR = No god needed for morals

Well, we know from Anthropology 101 where human customs come from, and in general why they arise. One of the fallacies religionists claim is that without their deity, morality would not exist. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE commandment, injunction and law in the Bible existed already in ancient Near Eastern culture and was imported into the Bible. Religion took their laws from existing culture, not vice versa.

Religious people and popular culture likes to draw a correlation between morality and religion, but upon close inspection, one has nothing to do with the other. One is not needed for the other.

Lets go back to hunter-gatherer time....it didn't take long to figure out that ones odds for survival were greatly increased if we stick together in groups, hunt in packs, protect each other....it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that as we started to build bigger tribes, groups, villages, towns, etc...that the basis of self-preservation and safety is a tier one concern. It would be frowned upon to put it lightly, if you stole my food, raped my wife or children, or killed one of my family....these type of actions would be considered against everyone's self-preservation and safety...thus banned...thus SOCIETY dictates what is acceptable behavior, and this evolves with time. No made up god/s needed at all. No BS "ten commandments" which are so obviously written by a group of empowered, ignorant patriarchal men.....thou shalt not rape? ....nope, not on there, thou shalt not enslave other humans? ...nope, not on there, and surely the all knowing god knew that would be a problem...but no...the MEN that created the ten commandments were more concerned with pressing matters like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

Religion’s basis is their holy books, and their holy books are filled with horrific threats and deeds. Hardly the go-to reference for how to conduct oneself. The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This perspective is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denmark or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without God".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries (those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics) are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy. Our world IS corrupt and broken, but only parts of it. Guess what correlation exists in those broken areas? High levels of religious belief. Even within the US, there are a plethora of studies and statistics that show the Bible belt has the lowest average IQ, highest poverty levels, lowest average education levels, poor health, and….you guessed it…high levels of religious beliefs. The areas of the world that have a zealous belief in religion are usually the most violent, and enjoy being at the bottom tier of civilization ranking for quality of life.

Creationists have long been of the opinion that atheists are evil and corrupt. Well, lets take a peek at US prison statistics. US population of Christians is about 70%...and that number is reflected with entrance statistics for US prisons IAW the FBI database for religiosity and prison population. About 70% of US prisoners are of some flavor of Christian delusion. Guess what percentage are non-religious? .07%.....Contemplate on that for a moment.

One would surmise to make the world unbroken and less corrupt, a step in the right direction would be to remove religion from it. The only thing wrong with the human condition is the embracement of religion. People like to say, "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

Asking “If there is no god, what is the purpose of life?” is like asking, “If there is no master, whose slave will I be?”

Reference:

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print.

Interesting link to new info that reflects atheists are .07%, not the .2% reported from that old report that has been circulating around the web forever. (of course the accuracy of any statistical data has an error range based on multiple factors, but overall, the numbers validate the posit that atheists are a small number within the prison population, which negates the posit that those who believe in god are somehow more moral)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...-imagined/

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
20-08-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'll ask all three of you, then, since you all avoided my question:

If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

False dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to vote for conviction because of personal feelings about rape being wrong, because morality is subjective.

Even ignoring that, even assuming that it would be impossible to vote for conviction under a subjective moral framework, you would not have a compelling argument. Your entire core principle is just the appeal to consequences fallacy.

The universe is under no obligation to be nice.

"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
20-08-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 09:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'll ask all three of you, then, since you all avoided my question:

If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

False dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to vote for conviction because of personal feelings about rape being wrong, because morality is subjective.

Even ignoring that, even assuming that it would be impossible to vote for conviction under a subjective moral framework, you would not have a compelling argument. Your entire core principle is just the appeal to consequences fallacy.

The universe is under no obligation to be nice.

It would seem that he would also still have the burden of proof to demonstrate that his deity's actions would directly lead to a greater good, but since he has no proof of his deity's existence.........

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

You understand that there can be subjective qualities that still don't have global exceptions, right? It is possible for morality to be subjective without there being circumstances that would let one off the hook for a specific act within the overall framework of morality, since subjectivity does not stem from there always being exceptions to things.

However in this case I think there are exceptions. I don't happen to think that morality is purely subjective, this isn't my position I'm defending, but I get so irritated with religious types trying to maneuver atheists into this gotcha "you'd condone rape?!" zone that I do have a solution. What's particularly weird is that the solution is so obvious that I can't imagine it wouldn't also occur to you: apply the trolley problem to it.

A man is put into a situation where he has two choices: he either rapes a nearby woman, or the choice-giver will proceed to kill the woman. If he chooses the former, you now have a rapist that, I would argue, is not culpable due to the circumstances of the case. You can continue to grow the case exponentially from there, too: consider if the choice-giver threatens the man as well. Or everyone in the building they're in. Or the city. At some scale the man is performing a rape that is, unfortunately for everyone involved, the best possible choice given to him, and one for which he is certainly not legally culpable.

There. Your dichotomy has a solution. You might be thinking that all rapes are caused by your typical criminal rapist, but that's not necessarily the case when considering the wider possibility space; christians so often go to rape because they think it's easier to make moral subjectivists look bad, but that's only because you have a specific image in mind which does not apply in every possible case.

Additionally, I feel I need to point out the conflation of morality with law, here; you do understand that laws can be morally wrong, yes? Voting to convict or not is a representation of a legal standard, not a moral one: on a jury you convict based on the current legal standard, not your own moral feelings about it.

Quote:BEAR IN MIND that if you say "I think rape is wrong because it is one creature causing another to suffer," I will then ask you the following:

Is ALL suffering objectively wrong or is SOME suffering subjectively not wrong?

We know that some suffering isn't wrong: if you give a child a shot, you're causing it to suffer for a beneficial purpose. This is trivial.

Quote:But be warned that if you answer:

1. All suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that absolute values exist and that therefore, suffering must be excluded/prevented and that therefore, some absolute moral values exist--it is always wrong to rape because the causing of suffering is always wrong.

Why are you presenting this enormous binary and, moreover, why are you equivocating between "objective" and "absolute"? Those are two different terms with very different meanings.

Quote:but if you instead answer:

2. Only some suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that we should not judge God for causing/allowing suffering, since we may not know all His purposes and some suffering is essential, perhaps even beneficial.

Okay, no. At any given time we are bound to use the evidence at our disposal to come to our conclusions; even if they're incorrect that's still what we have to do, and we can hardly be blamed for coming to incorrect conclusions due to information we didn't have. We aren't precluded from judging god merely because of your weird, reverse argument from ignorance: god could easily provide evidence of the supposed good reasons for his actions, if he doesn't then that's not our fault. If we're examining god's moral nature then his actions are what we use for that purpose, and you're begging the question by presupposing that the possibility of a good reason outweighs every possible negative judgment.

Let's go back to your courtroom analogy: god's on trial. A list of all the bad shit in the bible is laid out as the charges, the prosecution lays out all the evidence, has witnesses, all of that. But when it's the defense's turn to speak, he simply gets up and makes the argument you just did: "Maybe he had good reasons for all that! You don't know he didn't! You can't judge him!"

How do you think the jury should vote, then, if all the evidence is on one side, and all the defense offers is "you don't know that he wasn't doing good there!"?

Instead of god, what if it was a man? A man who murdered someone, and despite all the evidence, the defense just asserts that maybe he had good reasons, so you can't possibly judge him. Do you acquit that man, if you were on the jury? Is "maybe he had a good reason!" sufficient legal justification to forgo judgment to you?

Lastly though, your argument is invalid because it's a shifting of the burden of proof: it's not up to us to prove that god didn't have morally sufficient reasons, it's up to you to demonstrate that he did. See, our determination of whether a specific piece of suffering was justified or not is based on the circumstances of the case and the evidence that those involved can bring to bear. If a party involved can give no justification for their actions beyond "I had one though," then we can hardly determine that the action was justified, now can we?

In your case, you utterly fail to provide that justification, and instead want to just appeal to ignorance and assume that the justification exists because that fits your presuppositions. But we're not obligated to join you in your unjustified assumptions, and so only your failure remains.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
26-08-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 08:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  I really wish you wouldn't write walls of text.

The whole concept of a jury I think is a bit ridiculous. However, since you've appointed me as a member of a jury the question is simply, does the person fulfil the legal criteria so that I should find him guilty?

The judge helps with that by deciding e.g. what is admissible as evidence.

Personal feelings should not enter into it.

What fucking stupid question did we allegedly avoid Q?

Whether a law is JUST or MORAL or BOTH. THAT is the question. If you convict a rapist because he is unlawful, you have missed the opportunity to employ justice, mercy, empathy, righteous indignation and more.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 08:53 AM)Cozzymodo Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'll ask all three of you, then, since you all avoided my question:

If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

BEAR IN MIND that if you say "I think rape is wrong because it is one creature causing another to suffer," I will then ask you the following:

Is ALL suffering objectively wrong or is SOME suffering subjectively not wrong?

But be warned that if you answer:

1. All suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that absolute values exist and that therefore, suffering must be excluded/prevented and that therefore, some absolute moral values exist--it is always wrong to rape because the causing of suffering is always wrong.

but if you instead answer:

2. Only some suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that we should not judge God for causing/allowing suffering, since we may not know all His purposes and some suffering is essential, perhaps even beneficial.

1. The rapist should be convicted every time (if there is a beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occurred) as rape is illegal per US law. That is the purpose of a criminal trial, to determine if a crime is committed.

2. This logic doesn't hold up:

Assume only some suffering is wrong.

Therefore, there exists suffering that is not wrong, and may even be beneficial.

God causes/allows all suffering due to His "mysterious ways" or divine plan.

Therefore, we cannot blame/judge God for wrong/non-beneficial suffering in the world.

God's still on the hook for allowing wrong/non-beneficial suffering.

Since that is your syllogism, I take it that you personally believe that not all suffering is wrong. Do you agree or disagree?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 09:06 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I find the rape analogy more than a little telling, as I have long compared the nature of Christianity's deity with that of a rapist:

1) I really really love you.
2) I want you to love and worship me.
3) You don't have to, but if you don't, I'll burn you alive.
4) But hey, you have Free Will, do what you like.
5) Just remember: Burnination if you don't do what I like.

How this is different from a man with a gun "requesting" sex, I can't see.

You missed something vital:

1) I really really love you.
2) I want you to love and worship me.
3) You don't have to, but if you don't, you will perish rather than have eternal life.
4) You are an atheist despite the fact that I already perished on your behalf, a king caring deeply, visibly for his subjects.
5) But hey, you have Free Will, do what you like.
5) Just remember: you will perish if you do only and always what you like.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 09:18 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Dancing around the bush are we? Just for argument's sake, lets say that there are socially responsible agreed upon "absolute wrongs" like rape, incest, etc....that STILL does not indicate god exists because there are basic level of humanity and common decency expected behavior by others. I am not stating "absolute wrongs" with the word ABSOLUTE truly exists as it is always subjective based on socially acceptable behavior, cultural norms etc.....which even within itself isn't an indication to what most civilized people consider to be morally acceptable...i.e....example ISIS with child rape, forced weddings, beheadings etc.

Now I will spam the thread with my assertion relating to no god needed for morals.

TL : DR = No god needed for morals

Well, we know from Anthropology 101 where human customs come from, and in general why they arise. One of the fallacies religionists claim is that without their deity, morality would not exist. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE commandment, injunction and law in the Bible existed already in ancient Near Eastern culture and was imported into the Bible. Religion took their laws from existing culture, not vice versa.

Religious people and popular culture likes to draw a correlation between morality and religion, but upon close inspection, one has nothing to do with the other. One is not needed for the other.

Lets go back to hunter-gatherer time....it didn't take long to figure out that ones odds for survival were greatly increased if we stick together in groups, hunt in packs, protect each other....it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that as we started to build bigger tribes, groups, villages, towns, etc...that the basis of self-preservation and safety is a tier one concern. It would be frowned upon to put it lightly, if you stole my food, raped my wife or children, or killed one of my family....these type of actions would be considered against everyone's self-preservation and safety...thus banned...thus SOCIETY dictates what is acceptable behavior, and this evolves with time. No made up god/s needed at all. No BS "ten commandments" which are so obviously written by a group of empowered, ignorant patriarchal men.....thou shalt not rape? ....nope, not on there, thou shalt not enslave other humans? ...nope, not on there, and surely the all knowing god knew that would be a problem...but no...the MEN that created the ten commandments were more concerned with pressing matters like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

Religion’s basis is their holy books, and their holy books are filled with horrific threats and deeds. Hardly the go-to reference for how to conduct oneself. The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This perspective is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denmark or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without God".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries (those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics) are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy. Our world IS corrupt and broken, but only parts of it. Guess what correlation exists in those broken areas? High levels of religious belief. Even within the US, there are a plethora of studies and statistics that show the Bible belt has the lowest average IQ, highest poverty levels, lowest average education levels, poor health, and….you guessed it…high levels of religious beliefs. The areas of the world that have a zealous belief in religion are usually the most violent, and enjoy being at the bottom tier of civilization ranking for quality of life.

Creationists have long been of the opinion that atheists are evil and corrupt. Well, lets take a peek at US prison statistics. US population of Christians is about 70%...and that number is reflected with entrance statistics for US prisons IAW the FBI database for religiosity and prison population. About 70% of US prisoners are of some flavor of Christian delusion. Guess what percentage are non-religious? .07%.....Contemplate on that for a moment.

One would surmise to make the world unbroken and less corrupt, a step in the right direction would be to remove religion from it. The only thing wrong with the human condition is the embracement of religion. People like to say, "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

Asking “If there is no god, what is the purpose of life?” is like asking, “If there is no master, whose slave will I be?”

Reference:

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print.

Interesting link to new info that reflects atheists are .07%, not the .2% reported from that old report that has been circulating around the web forever. (of course the accuracy of any statistical data has an error range based on multiple factors, but overall, the numbers validate the posit that atheists are a small number within the prison population, which negates the posit that those who believe in god are somehow more moral)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...-imagined/

You made a sizable straw man argument here, but I hope you can recognize that you inferred God might exist if absolute moral values exist. Did I say anything remotely like "Let me prove the existence of God via the moral argument..."? I did not.

I take your epexegetical explosion as your emotional response to the reality of moral absolutes--and the guilt and concern and empathy we all should and do feel when moral laws are broken.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 09:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'll ask all three of you, then, since you all avoided my question:

If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

False dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to vote for conviction because of personal feelings about rape being wrong, because morality is subjective.

Even ignoring that, even assuming that it would be impossible to vote for conviction under a subjective moral framework, you would not have a compelling argument. Your entire core principle is just the appeal to consequences fallacy.

The universe is under no obligation to be nice.

Wow, you said a lot there. Because I asked which moral principles you would use to vote accurately, not whether you are allowed as a juror to vote capriciously. I hope YOU would actually not vote for or against a person's jail time based on your feelings only. Of course, if we go down your straw man path I will ask you to empirically weigh and measure human feelings. You are right--you CAN vote subjectively, but that's not what we truth seekers do when WE vote.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 09:40 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 09:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  False dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to vote for conviction because of personal feelings about rape being wrong, because morality is subjective.

Even ignoring that, even assuming that it would be impossible to vote for conviction under a subjective moral framework, you would not have a compelling argument. Your entire core principle is just the appeal to consequences fallacy.

The universe is under no obligation to be nice.

It would seem that he would also still have the burden of proof to demonstrate that his deity's actions would directly lead to a greater good, but since he has no proof of his deity's existence.........

Why would anyone have to prove such a thing? What would be the proof for "an omniscient being who cares for us as individuals and as a society on the whole makes judgment calls less intelligent beings find perplexing..."?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: