Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Well, I was busy yesterday, but this precious little trainwreck went exactly where I thought it would.

Ol' Tomasia here seems to base his entire, ah, "argument" on a refusal to define "obligation", in order to equivocate massively if someone else uses the word in a different sense.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
20-11-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 07:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 05:46 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ALL fathers do? Not in my experience.

So only some fathers have obligations, while others don't?

Treesap stated he cares for his kids, but doesn't believe he has a obligation to do so.

Is he an example of a father without such an obligation?

Why is it that some fathers have this obligation, but others don't?
Who is it that the father is obligated to?
What happens if they break that "obligation"?

Under law there is often a legal obligation, so that's one human fabricated obligation.
Otherwise some fathers may believe they have a moral obligation, some fathers may lack this belief.

Some mothers may believe the father has this obligation some mothers may not believe the father has the obligation.

It is quite easy for some males to have sex with a woman and never see her again, never worried about whether she is pregnant, never worried about whether they have offspring out there.

There are many males with hundreds of offspring but absolutely no obligation (hint: sperm donors)

Us humans are complex creatures, we can go down many paths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2014 01:19 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Ol' Tomasia here seems to base his entire, ah, "argument" on a refusal to define "obligation",

Uhm, I defined it almost immediately after the first request that I do so. In fact the person who I defined it for, was perfectly happy to accept my definition.

(18-11-2014 06:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Definition: A sense of duty, or course of action in which someone is bound or restricted to.

Good enough
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 12:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Otherwise some fathers may believe they have a moral obligation, some fathers may lack this belief.

So the only difference between fathers who do, who don't have a moral obligation, is merely a matter of belief? One believes he does, and the other believes he doesn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are required to meet your obligations. Drinking Beverage

So I am required to meet obligations that I don't believe exist, in an imaginary contract I never signed, or agreed to the terms of?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 07:50 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  The species who had an "obligation" to care for their newborns and do so survive, and pass these genes along to the next generation who will do the same.


So the difference between the species you have in mind, is not that one just tends to care for newborns more, but who believed this was an obligation? And this makes the obligation real, rather than something they might have fooled themselves into believing, like God?

Quote:No, there is no "ultimate" that requires individual members or parents to care for their newborns. But if we as a whole species decided not to care for our newborns, we go extinct.

Or to use this as a jump off point, there is no obligation that requires members or parents to care for their newborns. But if we as a whole species decided not to care for our newborns, we will go extinct.

And if we didn't believe that caring for them, was an obligation, we might have ended up choosing not to care for them, and we would have also gone extinct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 01:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Ol' Tomasia here seems to base his entire, ah, "argument" on a refusal to define "obligation",

Uhm, I defined it almost immediately after the first request that I do so. In fact the person who I defined it for, was perfectly happy to accept my definition.

(18-11-2014 06:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Good enough

That's sufficient for a beginning, but plainly inadequate. You and unfogged are still not using the term in the same way.

He - and I suspect that you are well aware of this - is referring to an obligation to himself, based on his own character and convictions. You are trying to pretend he has referred to something external to himself, in a theistic mode.

Your purported "gotcha" is to wait for someone to use the former sense, and then accuse them of relying on the latter.

Hell, unfogged explicitly made this point to you at the time:
(18-11-2014 06:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  But now you are adding additional conditions.
- It isn't be an obligation unless it is imposed by an outside agency
- it can't be an obligation if it can be discharged

I disagree with both of those assertions.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Definition: A sense of duty, or course of action in which someone is bound or restricted to.

That definition isn't the problem. The problem is that you then added on conditions that limit what you define as a moral obligation with assertions that you have not provided any justification for:

Quote:that obligation is to something higher than yourself, like the moral arc of the universe

Quote:A believer of some sort can believe in moral obligations, because they believe they are obligated to some transcendent power, or perhaps even the image of God within them, or some laws written within the human heart, but an unbeliever recognizing that such things don't exist, cannot hold to a belief in moral obligations.

Quote:Or in other words it's understandable why someone who believes in some sort of divine moral authority, believes that we have moral obligations.
...
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.

It is quite possible for atheists to have morals and to hold moral obligations because there is nothing about a moral obligation that requires it to have any connection with any sort of authority, divine or otherwise. I still hold that you aren't even describing anything that can be best described as 'moral' but rather only as a form of legal obligation. If I am required or forced to hold an obligation then that is divorced from any sort of moral agency.

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
20-11-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 01:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 12:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Otherwise some fathers may believe they have a moral obligation, some fathers may lack this belief.
So the only difference between fathers who do, who don't have a moral obligation, is merely a matter of belief? One believes he does, and the other believes he doesn't.
Yes, that's correct.
Of course there are other complications with regards to making your own choices.
The law for one thing, may dictate that he has a legal obligation.
Some other people in society may also deem that he has an obligation (based on their own beliefs). Those people might unfriend him, disown him, etc (these are the tools of morality). Some women, knowing this man's reputation might be weary of forming a relationship with him. These people are acting on their own individual beliefs, reacting based on their judgement of his actions and in turn their reactions may impact him.
Even though he may have no obligations (from his perspective), he may be impacted by the beliefs some other people have regarding their expectations of him fulfilling what they deem to be his obligations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
20-11-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(20-11-2014 02:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 01:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So the only difference between fathers who do, who don't have a moral obligation, is merely a matter of belief? One believes he does, and the other believes he doesn't.
Yes, that's correct.

So it as Treesap suspected, a belief in belief.

Quote:Some other people in society may also deem that he has an obligation (based on their own beliefs).

Err. So other people believing I have an obligation, makes me have an obligation? Or no, were just illustrating that some people might not like me all that much if i don't share their belief in belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: