Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2012, 07:06 AM
Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Ok Phil. I thought you might like this way because there will be absolutely no interruptions. I will be civil and I hope you extend the same curtesy. I'll even allow you to pick the subject you want to debate and discuss about with me.

Do you accept?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Hi, Atothetheist:


I'd be happy to accept the challenge.

Given that you've allowed me to pick the topic, I think I'll take a chance with your intriguing signature -- that of morality.

In your forum signature, you state the following:

Quote:My goal in life: to be as moral, as honest, as intelligent, as happy and as well liked as I can be in life. No God required.

While I think it's very much to be commended that, of the qualities of a "good" life you state, you'd like to be as "moral" as you "can be in life," my immediate thought is, based on what?

If you are to end your signature with the declaration, "[n]o God required," and assuming (also based on your bio) that you are specifically referencing the Judeo/Christian God, then why are you using the more code of said God?

To put it more finely, why don't you go make up your own moral code instead of relying upon (presumably) what the Bible says? Or, have you already done this, and have you come up with your own, original set of laws by which you live?

Furthermore, and while I don't intend to overload you with questions, perhaps you could also share how you intend to discipline/punish (there is a difference, as you may likely already know) yourself if you do not follow said invented code?

Thanks again for the debate opportunity. I'll be more than happy to await your reply.
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 05:45 PM
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Just an FYI to everyone else:

The Boxing Ring Challenge has been accepted so only Phil and A2 will be allowed to post here.


Thank you and have a nice day.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2012 07:05 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
(13-12-2012 04:48 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  Hi, Atothetheist:


I'd be happy to accept the challenge.

Given that you've allowed me to pick the topic, I think I'll take a chance with your intriguing signature -- that of morality.

In your forum signature, you state the following:

Quote:My goal in life: to be as moral, as honest, as intelligent, as happy and as well liked as I can be in life. No God required.

While I think it's very much to be commended that, of the qualities of a "good" life you state, you'd like to be as "moral" as you "can be in life," my immediate thought is, based on what?

If you are to end your signature with the declaration, "[n]o God required," and assuming (also based on your bio) that you are specifically referencing the Judeo/Christian God, then why are you using the more code of said God?

To put it more finely, why don't you go make up your own moral code instead of relying upon (presumably) what the Bible says? Or, have you already done this, and have you come up with your own, original set of laws by which you live?

Furthermore, and while I don't intend to overload you with questions, perhaps you could also share how you intend to discipline/punish (there is a difference, as you may likely already know) yourself if you do not follow said invented code?

Thanks again for the debate opportunity. I'll be more than happy to await your reply.
I do not use the bible as my standard for Morality. Morality is subjective, but has evolutionary influences. We as a social species are coded with a basic version of morality that most of us share. Do not kill is one of the strongest of the basics. One can even argue that doing things that seem to obviously benefit you, like stealing, is bad from an evolutionary standpoint because it harms the society. Stealing is dangerous and can land you in trouble. Jail time is bad and the prejudices against you once you get out is going to be even worse. By doing such a behavior, society has labelled you possibly dangerous and definitely criminal, which can ruin your life financially and emotionally.

Speaking of the Bible. You have to prove that the Bible was the first to come up with these moral laws. By the way, one can come up with the same laws independent of the Bible, but that is beside the point. Society has a huge influence on morality or your views n what it right and what is wrong. My views are influenced by my society, but they are not dependent on it.

You ask where my morality comes from? Well, I follow the "Try not to hurt others in anyway unless my life, or the life of innocents in in grave danger." Hurting doesn't just mean physical. It also means financially, emotionally, and possibly sexually. I am moral independent of God. Why does there need to be a standard? Why is God law's the standard? What evidence do you have that God's laws are the end-all-be-all in terms of morality. First, In order to determine that I am using bible, you must prove to me that the laws and codes I follow all originate from the bible, and that the Bible was the first, or the only source of this law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Genetics

P.S you asked me what I do to punish/discipline myself if I break my code. I will own up to my mistakes and try my hardest to repay the person I have trespassed against. I have no idea how else to put it, seeing as I will not hit myself. I also will strive to do better. We are human, we are entitled to SOME mistakes.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 08:06 PM
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Quote:I do not use the bible as my standard for Morality. Morality is subjective, but has evolutionary influences. We as a social species are coded with a basic version of morality that most of us share. ...

Ok, so we know that you don't claim the Bible as the source from which you draw your moral code. However, you claim that whatever basis makes up your moral code is simultaneously subjective and yet is coded within most of us.

A few points:

1. A subjective code is not objective enough to stand alone as self-evident, else it would not be subject to the whims of external influence. Therefore, it must either borrow from a pre-existing code or is completely reliant upon another code, and you're either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the more objective code. Its inherent subjectivity will eventually break itself down. Therefore, why base your life on a shifting code that changes on a moment's notice?

2. If the moral code is encoded within most of us, as you claim, but yet is also subjective, I would have to ask, how is this possible? Does the encoded code within most of us actually change?

3. To say that a moral code is encoded within most of us, are we therefore presupposing an intelligent order of something that essentially put this code in most of us? If something/one intelligent didn't do so, then how did this moral code become encoded within us?

Quote:You have to prove that the Bible was the first to come up with these moral laws.

I won't make that claim.

Quote:Society has a huge influence on morality or your views n what it right and what is wrong. My views are influenced by my society, but they are not dependent on it.

This will definitely work if your morale code is subjective, but such subjectivity has its own challenges, as previously described. But there could also be issues if your moral code is encoded within yourself. I'd like to know how a society (a collection of individuals) influences your internal moral coding. I would think that such internal coding would be much less subject to change.

Quote:You ask where my morality comes from? Well, I follow the "Try not to hurt others in anyway unless my life, or the life of innocents in in grave danger."

Yes, but that still doesn't answer the question, because this basic code is not original to you. Therefore, outside of God, it would be interesting to know which existing moral code you're pulling this from.

Quote:Why does there need to be a standard? Why is God law's the standard? What evidence do you have that God's laws are the end-all-be-all in terms of morality.

I think there needs to be a standard (that isn't subjective) because of the following:

1. To say that there are no moral absolutes must necessarily include this statement, which is self-contadictory, because it claims an absolute that there are no absolutes. Therefore, such code cannot be consistently trusted because it is subjective and only has the meaning that any given person gives it.

2. Given point 1, why were, say, the Nazis bad (if you think they were) to kill a whole ethnicity of people because they thought they were morally justified to cleanse (as they called it) their part of the world from said ethnicity? Obviously, their rationale was deeper than that, but they felt justified at the time they were doing the murdering. Why were they wrong, assuming you think they were wrong? On what basis, assuming they had a subjective standard of morality? In other words, why would your moral code be considered by you superior to yours?

Quote:We are human, we are entitled to SOME mistakes.

According to whom or what are you entitled to make mistakes (sins) against yourself, and why?

Reply at your leisure.
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 08:28 PM
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
(13-12-2012 08:06 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
Quote:I do not use the bible as my standard for Morality. Morality is subjective, but has evolutionary influences. We as a social species are coded with a basic version of morality that most of us share. ...

Ok, so we know that you don't claim the Bible as the source from which you draw your moral code. However, you claim that whatever basis makes up your moral code is simultaneously subjective and yet is coded within most of us.

A few points:

1. A subjective code is not objective enough to stand alone as self-evident, else it would not be subject to the whims of external influence. Therefore, it must either borrow from a pre-existing code or is completely reliant upon another code, and you're either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the more objective code. Its inherent subjectivity will eventually break itself down. Therefore, why base your life on a shifting code that changes on a moment's notice?

2. If the moral code is encoded within most of us, as you claim, but yet is also subjective, I would have to ask, how is this possible? Does the encoded code within most of us actually change?

3. To say that a moral code is encoded within most of us, are we therefore presupposing an intelligent order of something that essentially put this code in most of us? If something/one intelligent didn't do so, then how did this moral code become encoded within us?

Quote:You have to prove that the Bible was the first to come up with these moral laws.

I won't make that claim.

Quote:Society has a huge influence on morality or your views n what it right and what is wrong. My views are influenced by my society, but they are not dependent on it.

This will definitely work if your morale code is subjective, but such subjectivity has its own challenges, as previously described. But there could also be issues if your moral code is encoded within yourself. I'd like to know how a society (a collection of individuals) influences your internal moral coding. I would think that such internal coding would be much less subject to change.

Quote:You ask where my morality comes from? Well, I follow the "Try not to hurt others in anyway unless my life, or the life of innocents in in grave danger."

Yes, but that still doesn't answer the question, because this basic code is not original to you. Therefore, outside of God, it would be interesting to know which existing moral code you're pulling this from.

Quote:Why does there need to be a standard? Why is God law's the standard? What evidence do you have that God's laws are the end-all-be-all in terms of morality.

I think there needs to be a standard (that isn't subjective) because of the following:

1. To say that there are no moral absolutes must necessarily include this statement, which is self-contadictory, because it claims an absolute that there are no absolutes. Therefore, such code cannot be consistently trusted because it is subjective and only has the meaning that any given person gives it.

2. Given point 1, why were, say, the Nazis bad (if you think they were) to kill a whole ethnicity of people because they thought they were morally justified to cleanse (as they called it) their part of the world from said ethnicity? Obviously, their rationale was deeper than that, but they felt justified at the time they were doing the murdering. Why were they wrong, assuming you think they were wrong? On what basis, assuming they had a subjective standard of morality? In other words, why would your moral code be considered by you superior to yours?

Quote:We are human, we are entitled to SOME mistakes.

According to whom or what are you entitled to make mistakes (sins) against yourself, and why?

Reply at your leisure.
First of all. I said very there were basics that were encoded. I did NOT make the claim that we had our morals FULLY encoded. Evolution produces the basis based on the fact that in order to survive we need to cooperate and work together. Evolution is not an itelligent process.

Saying that there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean there aren't any OTHER absolutes. In order for you to convince me of such absolute you have to prove it.

The very fact that there are people who still think nazism is a good thing shows that there is such a thing as subjective morality.

Why do you feel that my moral code has to be original? I feel that it is irrelevant or not that my moral code must originate completely by myself. The point is that my moral code is independent of the bible.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 09:04 PM
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Quote:First of all. I said very there were basics that were encoded. I did NOT make the claim that we had our morals FULLY encoded. Evolution produces the basis based on the fact that in order to survive we need to cooperate and work together. Evolution is not an itelligent process.

So, which basics are encoded in some people?

You have also stated two seemingly contradictory statements that are definitely worth an explanation by you:

1. Evolution produces the basis [of a moral code (brackets represent my paraphrase)];
2. Evolution is not an intelligent process.

In other words, if evolution is not intelligent, then how can it provide a basis for morality?

Quote:Saying that there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean there aren't any OTHER absolutes. In order for you to convince me of such absolute you have to prove it.

This is comparing two different concepts. I don't argue the lack of absolutes, nor do I argue that there is only one moral code.

Quote:The very fact that there are people who still think nazism is a good thing shows that there is such a thing as subjective morality.

Hence why I'm asking you upon what or whom do you base yours. I'm sure we'll arrive at an answer before too long.

Quote:Why do you feel that my moral code has to be original? I feel that it is irrelevant or not that my moral code must originate completely by myself. The point is that my moral code is independent of the bible.

In your signature, you make the claim (and you let me choose the topic) that, among other things, you want to live as moral a life as possible but not involve God. If this is the case, then I posit that you need to come up with your own original moral code, else all you're really doing is following a previously-established moral code but denying the originator (and accountability) of it.

Therefore, if your moral code is independent of the Bible, then upon what or whom is it based? Society? That's circular logic, because a society is made up of individuals, and we're back to square one. And you've already ceded the point (via the Nazi illustration) that subjective morality does show itself to be less than optimal. But listen to me use the term, "optimal." Who decides, outside of a higher standard?
Find all posts by this user
13-12-2012, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 10:41 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
(13-12-2012 09:04 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
Quote:First of all. I said very there were basics that were encoded. I did NOT make the claim that we had our morals FULLY encoded. Evolution produces the basis based on the fact that in order to survive we need to cooperate and work together. Evolution is not an itelligent process.

So, which basics are encoded in some people?

You have also stated two seemingly contradictory statements that are definitely worth an explanation by you:

1. Evolution produces the basis [of a moral code (brackets represent my paraphrase)];
2. Evolution is not an intelligent process.

In other words, if evolution is not intelligent, then how can it provide a basis for morality?

Quote:Saying that there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean there aren't any OTHER absolutes. In order for you to convince me of such absolute you have to prove it.

This is comparing two different concepts. I don't argue the lack of absolutes, nor do I argue that there is only one moral code.

Quote:The very fact that there are people who still think nazism is a good thing shows that there is such a thing as subjective morality.

Hence why I'm asking you upon what or whom do you base yours. I'm sure we'll arrive at an answer before too long.

Quote:Why do you feel that my moral code has to be original? I feel that it is irrelevant or not that my moral code must originate completely by myself. The point is that my moral code is independent of the bible.

In your signature, you make the claim (and you let me choose the topic) that, among other things, you want to live as moral a life as possible but not involve God. If this is the case, then I posit that you need to come up with your own original moral code, else all you're really doing is following a previously-established moral code but denying the originator (and accountability) of it.

Therefore, if your moral code is independent of the Bible, then upon what or whom is it based? Society? That's circular logic, because a society is made up of individuals, and we're back to square one. And you've already ceded the point (via the Nazi illustration) that subjective morality does show itself to be less than optimal. But listen to me use the term, "optimal." Who decides, outside of a higher standard?
My question to you, why must you think that evolution needs to be an intelligent agent for it to encode altruistic behavior? I gave you a link to wiki that explains In one of its categories it has evolutionary reasons why we do good. It has possible methods of evolutionary altrustic behavior. I suggest you read it.

Not all moral codes come from the Bible. You still have yet to establish that the Bible is the original of any moral codes whatsoever. My moral codes come from other sources THAT ARE NOT THE BIBLE. Therefore, no God needed. Just because my moral codes don't come directly from the Bible doesn't mean I made them up myself. I have given you society as one of the things that influence morality.

What the hell? I never said Subjective morality is less than optimal. By the way, even if I did, that doesn't make it less true. Optimal is subjective term anyways. What may be optimal for me might not be optimal for you. I said the foundations of morality is INNATE. As in the basic stuff is coded. That's why humans can share morals and found societies that have the basic rules and such. Sympathy is a natural response. Not killing other humans is also one of those that we share. This is not to say that humans CAN'T kill others, but that most of them have an IMPULSE not to. There are exceptions such as sociopaths and psychopaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27

You still have yet to explain why I need to come up with my own code, independent of anything else. My signature states no God required, that doesn't mean, I made my own rules up.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
12-01-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Phil_GA- I challenge you!
Phil has forfeited due to a lack of response. This thread will be reopened if he returns and wished to continue.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: