Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 11:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... or some laws written within the human heart ...

...
Facepalm

How many more centuries do we have to put up with those bullshit lines...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
19-11-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
If by moral obligations we mean "doing something because it's the right thing to do, even if it goes against your own desires", then I don't see why a deity is necessary for it.

All you need is education, common sense and good manners.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
19-11-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 11:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Easy, "We have moral obligations".

Let me translate this for the plebeians.

Claim: We have moral obligation is an ethical statement or an action that cannot be performed by a non-believer.

I stumbled a bit... but I managed to spit out that statement, right now, out loud.

Your argument hinges on the idea that god exists, and that these set of morals are divinely inspired, which you haven't proven. And if he doesn't exist at all, then (by the way you are using "obligation") your moral obligations are illusory; non existent. So you could unknowingly be using that statement in the same way that non-believers do.

And just so we don't start arguing semantics: A persons moral compass can be built on a range of things, reason, feels, etc. And yes, they "believe" ______ is morally right or wrong. However, in the original Hitch quote, "non-believers" is referring specifically to disbelief in god(s). So don't bother trying any kind of misdirection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
19-11-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 11:51 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Who says a promise is an obligation? What is the obligation to keep a promise

It's an obligation in the sense that you made an agreement with someone else to keep the terms of that promise. You owe it to this other party to keep the promise.

In essence breaking that promise, is the same as breaking your obligation to him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 12:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 11:51 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Who says a promise is an obligation? What is the obligation to keep a promise

It's an obligation in the sense that you made an agreement with someone else to keep the terms of that promise. You owe it to this other party to keep the promise.

In essence breaking that promise, is the same as breaking your obligation to him.

Why must there be another party? Can you not be obligated to do something for yourself? What if there is no other party? What if we are the cosmos? One flowing ocean... Huh

Besides, a humanist may be a non-believer, and hold moral obligation to the benefit of the species.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
19-11-2014, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2014 12:36 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 12:05 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Your argument hinges on the idea that god exists, and that these set of morals are divinely inspired, which you haven't proven. And if he doesn't exist at all, then (by the way you are using "obligation") your moral obligations are illusory; non existent.


This would all be true, if I were arguing for the existence of moral obligations, but I am not, but I am only speaking about the belief itself. This is important distinction.

In other words, for a person to believe x, he would also have to believe in yz. If he believes in yz than it makes sense as to why he believes in x. If he doesn't believe in yz, than his belief in x is incoherent.

Or in other words it's understandable why someone who believes in some sort of divine moral authority, believes that we have moral obligations. And we both can see why this is understandable without having to believe in this divine authority ourselves.

But it's not understandable why a person could believe in moral obligations (x), and not believe in some sort of transcendent order, power or forces,etc.. (yz).

Such an atheists at the end of the day will continually find himself in a predicament of believing that there's some sort of transcendent moral order, to justify the existence of moral obligations, a situation that would bring his unbelief into question, or as has been the case here, begin to recognize that these obligations do not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Has it ever occurred to you that moral obligations are defined by people? It doesn't need a ethereal deity to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kaepora Gaebora's post
19-11-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 12:34 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Has it ever occurred to you that moral obligations are defined by people? It doesn't need a ethereal deity to exist.
Moral obligations are a belief.
There are no consequences of breaking a perceived moral obligation. None at all.

Of course you can feel guilt.
But guilt is your own conscious worrying about breaking a perceived moral obligation.
Christianity and Catholicism in particular are great at setting people up to suffer from guilt.

Bu it's just a personal state of mind. If you don't believe in personal moral obligation then you don't experience the guilt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 12:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 12:05 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Your argument hinges on the idea that god exists, and that these set of morals are divinely inspired, which you haven't proven. And if he doesn't exist at all, then (by the way you are using "obligation") your moral obligations are illusory; non existent.


This would all be true, if I were arguing for the existence of moral obligations, but I am not, but I am only speaking about the belief itself. This is important distinction.

In other words, for a person to believe x, he would also have to believe in yz. If he believes in yz than it makes sense as to why he believes in x. If he doesn't believe in yz, than his belief in x is incoherent.

Or in other words it's understandable why someone who believes in some sort of divine moral authority, believes that we have moral obligations. And we both can see why this is understandable without having to believe in this divine authority ourselves.

But it's not understandable why a person could believe in moral obligations (x), and not believe in some sort of transcendent order, power or forces,etc.. (yz).

Such an atheists at the end of the day will continually find himself in a predicament of believing that there's some sort of transcendent moral order, to justify the existence of moral obligations, a situation that would bring his unbelief into question, or as has been the case here, begin to recognize that these obligations do not exist.

Do you have no understanding of ideas like the Social Contract? Which fills the only need for something of a standard..

There is also actually plenty of atheists who do believe in an objective universal moral standard based on less suffering overall. It's not my position but it's held and debated even by atheist vs atheist at public debates

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
19-11-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 11:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 11:28 AM)wazzel Wrote:  Obligation is not an absolute, it is an expectation, a promise, an agreement, etc. If you do not follow through there will be some manner of negative consequence.

The important thing here, is that expectations, are not necessarily the same as a promise or an agreement. We'll use your friends as an example.

You may have made a promise to your friends that you would not discuss your political views with them. It's by making this promise to them, that an obligation is created.

Imagine another scenario where you friends expect you to go along with them, perhaps their expectation is that your snort some coke with them, but you decline to. No obligation is broken, though you didn't live up to their expectations. In fact they may even stop being your friends, because you were such a square. But none of this matters, the point is you broke no obligation merely because you acted against their expectations of you.

You are correct, it is more than a promise, but it need not be spoken. I am a parent and by choosing to have kids I obligated myself to taking care of them until such time they can take care of themselves. Of course no one can force me to care for them, but that does not make it less of an obligation.

I really have no idea where you are coming from. It appears you are nitpicking just to argue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: