My views on Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 11:28 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(21-01-2014 11:19 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  A group of people talking about blowing up a building, or inciting others to do so, cant claim to be innocent simply on the grounds that they didnt actually DO anything.

Ah, thought crime. Where's Tom Cruise and the halo?

If Christopher Hitchens were here he'd be pulling off his reading glasses right about now and Hitchslapping you. Smile

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:45 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(21-01-2014 11:19 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  As a biblical theist the answer to that question is God.
Unless you think that the existence of your God can be demonstrated objectively, in which case you should feel free to do so in order to settle this age-old debate, I don't see how that can be your answer.

(21-01-2014 11:19 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Note in the quoted bible verse that God can even detect the most carefully hidden crime - conspiracy to commit a crime.

A moral law giver - with objective true morality as the goal - would and should make a distinction between the guilty act and the guilty mind.
I don't know whether or not he would do it, but I definitely agree with you that he should.

(21-01-2014 11:19 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  A group of people talking about blowing up a building, or inciting others to do so, cant claim to be innocent simply on the grounds that they didnt actually DO anything.
They can claim to be innocent of the guilty act, to use your terminology, though not of the guilty mind, yes.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-01-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: My views on Morality
(21-01-2014 11:19 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I was making a distinction between two competing claimants to the title of law giver. One can enforce their law and the other cannot.

It is a well-established result from operant conditioning research that to be effective punishment and reward should temporally follow the target behaviour as closely as possible, i.e. punishment should follow the bad behaviour as soon as is practically possible.

That being the case, a system in which people do bad things and they don't get feedback until they reach an afterlife at the end of their lives is unhelpful. If Yahweh actually reliably inflicted some sort of punishment on, for example, child molesters there would soon be no child molesters. Yahweh's current regime actually encourages bad behaviour. A child molester can go on indulging his perversion his entire life and then in his old age repent and accept Jesus as saviour and all of his molesting will be forgiven.

The redemptive aspect of Christianity and the absence of punishment in this life vitiates the notion that Christian worldview has an objective system of morality. There is no sense in which Christian morality is objective.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chippy's post
22-01-2014, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 05:24 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: My views on Morality
(22-01-2014 12:11 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It is a well-established result from operant conditioning research that to be effective punishment and reward should temporally follow the target behaviour as closely as possible, i.e. punishment should follow the bad behaviour as soon as is practically possible...

That's a great point. Justice delayed is justice denied.
But.....

Which is worse, justice delayed or justice which never arrives at all?
With divine moral law, the day of reckoning is inescapable and universally applicable to creatures under the law.

As you rightly say, punishment should follow the bad behaviour and to the extent that it doesnt, the law is not applied fairly. Objectively.

(21-01-2014 11:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 11:19 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  As a biblical theist the answer to that question is God.
Unless you think that the existence of your God can be demonstrated objectively, in which case you should feel free to do so in order to settle this age-old debate, I don't see how that can be your answer.

So you would agree that an objectively real supreme authority/adjudicator would settle the matter and serve as the objective umpire in disputes over whether the ball was in or out? Or should the players argue all day over the question?

[Image: image-12-for-gallery-10-tennis-most-shoc...135952.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(22-01-2014 05:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Which is worse, justice delayed or justice which never arrives at all?
With divine moral law, the day of reckoning is inescapable and universally applicable to creatures under the law.

The redemptive aspect of Christianity (and Islam) dilutes the significance of the day of reckoning in that it enables you to, as it were, clear your slate. This means that it becomes possible to avoid punishment altogether.

To this extent divine moral law is not objective or at least not objective in the way that a "law of nature" (e.g. Boyle's Law of gases) is objective, i.e. it admits exceptions and thus becomes indeterminate.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
22-01-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(22-01-2014 05:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Which is worse, justice delayed or justice which never arrives at all?
With divine moral law, the day of reckoning is inescapable and universally applicable to creatures under the law.

All you've demonstrated here is special pleading and wishful thinking, most likely because you want to be rewarded for your behavior and can rest at night thinking those who "sin" upon you will suffer someday. But with a Get Out of Jail Free card how can you ever know?

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
22-01-2014, 06:47 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(22-01-2014 05:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  So you would agree that an objectively real supreme authority/adjudicator would settle the matter and serve as the objective umpire in disputes over whether the ball was in or out? Or should the players argue all day over the question?
I'm sorry, but that question is quite convoluted. Do you care to rephrase it?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-01-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(22-01-2014 06:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 05:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  So you would agree that an objectively real supreme authority/adjudicator would settle the matter and serve as the objective umpire in disputes over whether the ball was in or out? Or should the players argue all day over the question?
I'm sorry, but that question is quite convoluted. Do you care to rephrase it?

You said that my answer of "God" depended on whether the existence of God could be demonstrated.

Suppose a real supreme authority/adjudicator could be demonstrated. Would I then be justified in my reference to Him as an objective arbiter of morality.

Think of it another way. Suppose you and I are arguing about whether preaching "ought" to be allowed here at TTA?
I say yes. (My subjective opinion.)You say no. (Your subjective opinion.) All things being equal, we are at an impasse.
It's a nil-all-draw. How else can we settle the matter?

Enter the Creator of the Forum. He who gave us this place. He who ultimately decides to rules. The law giver.

He says you are right and I am wrong. Sadcryface2

But I still insist that both of you are wrong and that you have no objective means of demonstrating that I "ought" not to preach, so I continue to do so.

If nothing happens, I am right to assume that theres no punishment and that the so-called rules are just irrelevant window dressing and subjective opinion.
Even if a majority of folk all agree that preaching "ought" to be banned, it is still just popular opinon rather than a law.

...UNLESS I get punished and the law giver demonstrates that objective moral laws are more than just popular opinion.

God says, My Forum. My Rules. (Thats fair isnt it?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 09:31 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(21-01-2014 10:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  God might make laws

No, I do not.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 09:35 PM
RE: My views on Morality
(22-01-2014 05:14 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  With divine moral law, the day of reckoning is inescapable and universally applicable to creatures under the law.

You haven't shown such a thing to exist. All you have done is pander question-begging made-up bullshit. As usual.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: