Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
lol I might reply later.

[Image: 4a5c519396c22eef4722df1c81c2d589854e5bfe...2650fd.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 01:09 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 08:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It can get nasty and aggressive real quick, a sewage almost. It's my cup of tea; my idea of a good time.


You wasn't kiddin', was ya? Big Grin

Who's turn was it to bring the sewage?
It wasn't me, I had last week. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 04:17 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 01:09 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You wasn't kiddin', was ya? Big Grin

Who's turn was it to bring the sewage?
It wasn't me, I had last week. Tongue

Mine, I think.

Since I took the last few months off.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
11-12-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 04:32 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 04:17 PM)pablo Wrote:  Who's turn was it to bring the sewage?
It wasn't me, I had last week. Tongue

Mine, I think.

Since I took the last few months off.

Wade in nice and deep, that's where the good stuff is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...or masterabate to Lee Strobel...

[Image: LeeStrobel_medium.jpg]
Unsurpising.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 06:07 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 06:43 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 09:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That the moral proclamations of believers, are truth claims, they are not merely expressing an individual preference.
I agree with what you are saying Tomasia.

That many believers have a belief that morality is unchangeable and is based on moral truths which are perceived as facts rather than the whim of their own personal opinions.

I think the evidence for this is that many believers go to church or synagog or temple or whatever to listen to their spiritual advisers and to learn what is moral and what is immoral.

So in someways they are in search of moral facts as if they exist.

Of course most atheists (myself included) don't think that facts can be attained by asking an authority or interpreting a book of alegory, parables, anecdotes, assertions, poetry, etc...
The scientific method seems to me to be an objective method which strives to discover facts about the our universe. No person is called upon as an authority. Even the "experts" have the daunting task of having to present their evidence, show how they went from the evidence to the conclusions, show how the evidence was obtained and account for anything that may taint the evidence. They then need to address any critiques and challenges presented to them by again referring back to the evidence, perhaps even re-running the test under slightly different conditions.
Even then their conclusions aren't held in too high esteem until others have reproduced the tests and resulted in the same consistent evidences.

Merely asking an authority figure for the answers only gives you the opinions of that authority figure. But I do understand that many believers think that they can choose to believe that those answers are are universal facts. Those believers then pass on those believed facts to whomever they choose to tell them to.

Personally I would like to see believers challenge their religious authorities and ask them to present evidence in support of the assertions made. By evidence I mean more than pointing to a psalm or phrase in their book and offering an Interpretation of that. But I also understand that in the matters of "love", "kindness", "natural" etc that there are really no objective evidences so you guys lower your bar with regards to "evidence" in support of claims. Most claims that the religious authorities make they keep it at the conceptual level, because they don't ever want to be proven wrong.
For example, if you question a Catholic regarding the transubstantiation of bread into flesh. You ask does it really turn into Jesus flesh, they say yes. You say well we could test for that, they say, no, it would test as if it is bread. You say huh? they say it is the essence of Jesus flesh but in the form of physical bread.
Similar goes for prayer and all other religious claims. Everything untestable. So as a believer you have to make a choice as to whether to believe what you are told. You believe it to be a fact, although you have no way of working out whether it is actually a fact or merely an opinion of your spiritual leader.



(11-12-2014 10:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 07:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, that's kind of the point isn't it. The view that man is required to do as God desires, and God's desire for man is found in the bible. Is not a question of opinion. It's not a subjective claim, but rather a question of fact.

Fact is something that can be proved via empirical evidence. Fact can be tested and retested.
I agree with KC here.
There is a difference between something that is a fact and something that is believed to be a fact.
One is objectively evidentially supported, the other is a belief.

You believe that something is a fact but that does not make it a fact.
Facts cannot contradict. If you belief that god's existence is a fact and a hard atheist believe's that god's non existence is a fact. Well you both have beliefs in facts, but god cannot both exist and not exist. It would not be a fact until all contradictory propositions have been evidential discounted and also until the "fact" claim has been supported by much evidence and also offers falsifiable definition that cannot be proven falsifiable.

EDIT: and of course the statement you have made have reference "fact claims" rather than "facts".
I presume the difference between a fact claim and an opinion is that an opinion can be subjective e.g. "I like ice cream" vs a claim that something is a fact "e.g. There is life on other planets".
Life on other planets might be an undiscovered fact because it might be true, our lack of knowledge doesn't make it not true. But from our perspective a claim that there is life on other planets is mere speculation rather than a fact claim.

(11-12-2014 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m not a Christian by choice, rather because I can’t deny the truth of it, anymore so than I can deny I have two hands.
I think this is a poor analogy. Quite clearly you have two hands, you can see them, you can feel them, you can manipulate your environment with them. You can see the direct link between you wanting something to happen e.g. the flicking of a switch and then see your own hands move to the switch, apply force and then the switch change position. It takes no level of ignoring the alternative "that you don't have two hands".

With regards to your religion, you can't see this.
Let's say you pray for something i.e. rain.
Sometimes it rains, sometimes it doesn't.
When it doesn't rain, how do you account for it? "It wasn't god's plan"
When it rains how do you account for it? "It was because god answered my prayer". How do you know god answered your prayer? Maybe it was already in god's plan. Maybe there is no god and it was destined to rain anyways.
With regards to your religious belief you are consciously choosing to ignore the alternative, that god doesn't exit, that the universe is autonomous and requires no intelligent intervention.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  //Yes, it is necessary. It's buffoons like you that perpetuate the stereotype that Christians are disingenuous assholes. …….

It's your type that perpetuate the retardedness of Christians thinking that men have one less rib... or that the US was founded as a Christian nation.

Whatever fucking chip you have on your shoulder you need to lose it.

I don’t want to be a dick to you, but you do it make it pretty tempting. But let’s just clear a few misconceptions up. I’m not some fucking white dude from the south, walking around with a rifle, pissed off at Obama, and making plans to visit the creationist museum. I don’t have a poster of William Lane Craig on my wall, or masterabate to Lee Strobel books. I’m not a conservative, nor am I an evangelical. I'm not your father, or whatever other fundie in you life you can't stand.

I don’t believe there was a historical Adam whose rib God used to make a chick, or that there was a talking snake. Or that the Bible was dictated by God, or even that morals are derived from it. It’s a book written by men, with all the problems associated with any other human form of literature, with all the fragility and contradictions.

I’m not here to defend Christianity, or to be anyone's fucking model Christian.

I’m not a Christian by choice, rather because I can’t deny the truth of it, anymore so than I can deny I have two hands. If I can cease believing in it, I’d likely say good riddance. Because then I can be an asshole without any accompanying pang of guilt. I can finally crucify the voice in my head, that tries and tells me I should know better, that I should be behaving with far more grace that I’m capable of mustering.

If I could start over again, I would probably kept the fact that I’m theist to myself, and presented myself as a person whose beliefs are unknown, or one lacking them. I’m a participant who happens to believe in God, but would like to engage in discussions as if this were irrelevant, so I don’t have to deal with your sanctimonious horse-shit.

Nothing I’ve argued is for the superiority of religious views of morality over secular ones, I’ve only made claims about how they differ in form. They are points that I would be making even if I didn’t believe in God.

But if you pulled that stick out your ass, and lost the butt hurt, and quit sucking the dick of every atheists that walks in the room, you’d probably have know this already.

I’ve ignored anything substantial you may have said about subjectivity and morality, until you clean off the sheets of the bed you wet.

When you want to come back correctly, you let me know and I’ll stop being a dick.

Oh Martha.
Jesus Mary and Joseph.
My virgin ears.

Psssst ....
You sound like an angry old man.

Oh wait. You are one.
Never mind.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-12-2014, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 09:07 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
This ain't no boxing match. This is a free-for-all.

Thread moved.

Carry on.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
11-12-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Genuine question: How would the existence of a god make morals objective? Or make moral "laws" a thing?

Even if those things are a part of that gods makeup then that still wouldn't make them "objective" or fundamentally different than the values that we, near universally, hold. (Baby in pain = Bad. Me in pain = Bad. Food = Good.)

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 07:13 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 07:49 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When you want to come back correctly, you let me know and I’ll stop being a dick.

Said the idiot who can't write a sentence correctly spelled to the man who used to be the Administrator of TTA. What a fucking arrogant buffoon, telling KC how to come to TTA "correctly". Facepalm

It makes not a whit of difference whether ALL THE DIFFERENT "truth claims" of ALL THE DIFFERENT various beliebers are *called* truth claims" or not. There is NOTHING to support ANY OF THEM, no matter what they're called, and every single one of all the different ones, are ALL passed through HUMAN neurological systems, thus are "interpreted" no matter what they are. Every moral injunction in the OT came from the human culture which produced them. They changed vastly over the centuries, and continue to change and be cherry-picked. Being a "truth claim" in no way elevates bullshit from a pile of bullshit.

I see Tomasina likes to be the one doing the judging. He would rather talk about "most atheists" bla bla bla, so he can feel all self-righteous and superior. In my experience when people need to do that, it's because they have very low self-esteem. In this case, I can see why. Thumbsup

Sounds from what he wrote to KC, that Tomasina is actually an "angry believer". Sounds like he would rather NOT believe, and can't make the jump as he's a wuss, and can't make the break, and is pissed off about that. Consider Now that's different.

We could take up a collection and get this for Tomasina :

[Image: 514KJG2764L._SX60_CR,0,0,60,60_.jpg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: