Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2013, 12:58 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Quote:"human customs" - who says it is bad to violate human customs or that we must keep them?
No one says so - it's just *custom*. There *is* no absolute moral framework. My original statement was "Right and wrong are codifications of human customs". i.e. Right is *defined* to be that which is in line with custom.

Quote:"all 'wrong' means is 'you should feel bad if you do X' " - Who says it is wrong to do something against your own feelings?
No one.

Now come on, we played fair with you, submit your answer to your own question, or admit that you're just trolling.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
29-10-2013, 05:12 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Step 1: Set up unresonable moral expectation, eg that any moral system must be in some sense "infinitely moral" as opposed to simply being "objectively as moral as or more moral than comparable systems given particular value statements"
Step 2: Claim that divine command theory is an infinitely moral system
Step 3: Defend genocide, child rape, and other biblical atrocities
Step 4: Plug ears. Na na na na na na.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
29-10-2013, 05:32 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
^^ You left out the

???

Prophet

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
29-10-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Every thread has a focus, and the focus on this one is about right/wrong & why on a desert isle. The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already). Attempts to turn the subject to what a theist personally thinks is merely attempts to divert attention away from the focus of the question, and its results.

The results are this: The answers all varied per person, and even each answer had no foundation other than personal "taste". Like the taste of milk, there is no disputing taste. One atheist says it is circular argument, another chooses the golden rule, another reason, and another says it doesn't matter, etc.

It is essentially anarchy.

Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, regardless of the acceptable "a la carte" personal morality of another atheist, he is a friend, because he knows the other opposes religion that has a supreme being. The anti-religion is the bond of the comraderie.

Morals is essentially the "should" and "should not" of human action. Although atheists often try to argue this concept, they really have no basis at all for doing so. But, hey, who says inconsistency and contradiction are wrong, right?

So, for the atheist, his own personal free-will and pleasure, for the moment, is his god. Yet, if an atheist uses his own free-will and good pleasure to choose a supreme being, that is the atheist heresy; all things acceptable by free choice except for freely choosing the supreme being, the Creator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 07:41 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 07:30 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, regardless of the acceptable "a la carte" personal morality of another atheist, he is a friend, because he knows the other opposes religion that has a supreme being. The anti-religion is the bond of the comraderie.

This coming from someone whose holy scribble contains this gem: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." is the epitome of irony. Or is it stupidity?

Also, if you're just gonna be regurgitating what your kind seems to be ingesting daily, lest you actually start thinking and have to face the fact that scares your brainless (that you're an insignificant speck of dust that is only here for an even more insignificant period of time and will then disappear FOREVER AND EVER, completely and irrevocably, never to exist again), you might just as well not do it here - have heard it countless times and it's still as pathetically funny as it was the first time someone spat it as us.

Now shoo.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
29-10-2013, 07:53 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 07:30 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Every thread has a focus, and the focus on this one is about right/wrong & why on a desert isle. The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already). Attempts to turn the subject to what a theist personally thinks is merely attempts to divert attention away from the focus of the question, and its results.

The results are this: The answers all varied per person, and even each answer had no foundation other than personal "taste". Like the taste of milk, there is no disputing taste. One atheist says it is circular argument, another chooses the golden rule, another reason, and another says it doesn't matter, etc.

It is essentially anarchy.

Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, regardless of the acceptable "a la carte" personal morality of another atheist, he is a friend, because he knows the other opposes religion that has a supreme being. The anti-religion is the bond of the comraderie.

Morals is essentially the "should" and "should not" of human action. Although atheists often try to argue this concept, they really have no basis at all for doing so. But, hey, who says inconsistency and contradiction are wrong, right?

So, for the atheist, his own personal free-will and pleasure, for the moment, is his god. Yet, if an atheist uses his own free-will and good pleasure to choose a supreme being, that is the atheist heresy; all things acceptable by free choice except for freely choosing the supreme being, the Creator.

You obviously had that conclusion in your head from the start because the responses do not support it.

You are dishonest. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-10-2013, 08:05 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
[Image: stfu-and-gtfo-because-my-time-is-too-pre...er-640.jpg]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 08:14 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 07:30 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  The results are this: The answers all varied per person, and even each answer had no foundation other than personal "taste". Like the taste of milk, there is no disputing taste. One atheist says it is circular argument, another chooses the golden rule, another reason, and another says it doesn't matter, etc.

Most of the people on this forum have never studied moral philosophy so that is to be expected. Moral philosophy is a big and contentious topic so I have no facile solution to the problems of moral philosophy but I will say that good arguments have been made for certain types of utilitarianism and for virtue-based systems and that these systems are consistent with atheism.

Quote:Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, regardless of the acceptable "a la carte" personal morality of another atheist, he is a friend, because he knows the other opposes religion that has a supreme being. The anti-religion is the bond of the comraderie.

Read my posts.

Quote:Morals is essentially the "should" and "should not" of human action. Although atheists often try to argue this concept, they really have no basis at all for doing so.

Divine command based morality is not without problems either. For starters, there are different sets of divine commands emanating from different gods.

Quote:But, hey, who says inconsistency and contradiction are wrong, right?

Divine command morality is inconsistent and sometimes contradictory because it is predicated on the will of a person--a godly person but a person nevertheless.

Quote:So, for the atheist, his own personal free-will and pleasure, for the moment, is his god.

Not quite. Most atheists--like most people in general, including theists--rely on their moral intuitions that are based largely in their capacity to empathise. For the most part that is sufficient. It will breakdown in the case of moral dilemmas but moral dilemmas--thankfully--are rare. The other source of moral guidance for most people--atheist and theist alike--is the prevailing political ideology in the West, namely classical liberalism. Much of the ideas concerning human rights stem from this zeitgeist. Many of the people here are unable to defend classical liberalism even though they implicitly rely upon it--and that is a major deficiency in the context of a discussion forum--but in terms of their citizenhood it isn't a problem. With their moral intuitions and the principles that they have assimilated from living in a liberal democracy most people are morally sound and solid citizens.

The unbridled pursuit of self-interest that you describe is a feature of certain personality disorder such as antisocial personality disorder (APD) and psychopathy. Most people--including most atheists--don't have APD or psychopathy.

Quote:Yet, if an atheist uses his own free-will and good pleasure to choose a supreme being, that is the atheist heresy; all things acceptable by free choice except for freely choosing the supreme being, the Creator.

It is doubtful that humans possess free-will. There are theistic (e.g. Calvinism) as well as atheistic (e.g. compatibilism and nomological determinism) schools of thought that deny that contra-causal free-will exists.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
29-10-2013, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2013 08:35 AM by Losty.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 07:30 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  1:The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already).

2:Atheists will overlook their differences, not wanting to argue too heatedly with their own kind (particularly in the presence of a theist). This comraderie of atheists, I see, is based on the principle of "common ground", expressed specifially as, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

1: That is a load of shit! There are religious people out there who are honestly kind and good people. There are also religious people out there who are horrible cruel people with no morals, who use their religion as an excuse to oppress, abuse, and even kill other people. Being a theist tells nothing of your morality. It just tells your flavor of kool aid.

2: These people are my friends because they were kind to me when I really just needed some support and they are great for a laugh. I have many friends who are theists as well. Not you of course, but that is just because you are an ass.

Take your little results to someone who gives a damn what you think. Shoo fly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Losty's post
29-10-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Dammit, Chippy, why you validating this guy's noise? Tongue

Here's the flaws in the OP: on a desert isle, there ain't no "right & wrong," there's nature being natural. With me on it, there's still just nature being natural. With me and the OP on it, there's murder - cause I'm already thinking of sticking a sharpened stake into the side of his neck. Big Grin

Which wouldn't be moral, it'd just be natural. IRL, I'd just walk away. Since this fool already demonstrated the tendency of invading the private space of others to preach his inane gospel, someone would have to be selected against. Thumbsup

And all his hooting answered his own question. The community decides morality; always has and always will.

Guy's just a fucking tool.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: