The moral argument - Commentless
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2017, 02:25 PM
The moral argument - Commentless
I stumbled upon this video and saw that the comments were disabled, which annoyed me and made me raise an eyebrow.

So, since the comments are disabled on youtube, why don't you guys comment on it?

Beware of the ending.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jokurix's post
25-03-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(25-03-2017 02:25 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  I stumbled upon this video and saw that the comments were disabled, which annoyed me and made me raise an eyebrow.

So, since the comments are disabled on youtube, why don't you guys comment on it?

Beware of the ending.




> Of course the comments have been disabled. Since when do evangelists ever think their views are open to reasonable discussion or debate? Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gwaithmir's post
25-03-2017, 02:55 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
Video incoming in
3
2
1....



The more one asserts their own unquestioned preconceived beliefs, the more demanding I will be for empirical evidence for I will accept nothing else in place of it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
25-03-2017, 03:04 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(25-03-2017 02:25 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  I stumbled upon this video and saw that the comments were disabled, which annoyed me and made me raise an eyebrow.

So, since the comments are disabled on youtube, why don't you guys comment on it?

Beware of the ending.




So much ignorance. So many non-sequiturs. So much childish crap.
Did it say "Dr Craig Videos" ?.
Figures.
(I wonder if this is where Tomato got his schtick ?)

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2017, 03:21 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
Morality is a product of evolution.

Evolution has created animals with brains. And therefor ability to feel pain, suffering and death because of actions of other beings. This ability to fell pain and suffering is the basis of human morality.

You don't need to read a book of old fables to know how you should feel if you are robbed, beaten, enslaved or mistreating in a major way. And this fact is the basis of morality. Even animals have shown some sorts of morality based on their feelings. A rat that knows it can get a treat by pushing a button, but also knows it's fellow cage mate will receive a painful electrical shock will refuse to push the button. Morality.

Animals without brains, jelly fish, plankton, sponges, can't have morality. Morality is strictly a brain state.
Here then is the objective basis of human morality, at it's best. WLC is full of crap.

And which God and which morality? The Aztec God's with their demands of human sacrifice? The God of Christianity who decides arbitrarily who is elect and saved, and who is damned? Extremist Moslems with their cruel Allah?

Once we understand that morality stems from objective facts of suffering and pain, which come from having an advanced nervous system and a brain, and evolution, we can then try to workout a rational system of morality, based on that objective set of facts. This is the only sensible, rational way to deal with morality.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
25-03-2017, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2017 05:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(25-03-2017 03:21 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  Morality is a product of evolution.

Evolution has created animals with brains. And therefor ability to feel pain, suffering and death because of actions of other beings. This ability to fell pain and suffering is the basis of human morality.

Partly true. Moral systems promote group survival. It's only partially about empathy.
There are many moral systems and theories debated and discussed in Philosophy and Ethics. When a system is accepted as useful in certain situations, then that system can be "objectively" referenced for an ethical question. It's done ALL THE time, all over the world. Most hospitals have Ethics Committees, and they make life and death decisions every day, and never once mention a god or Jebus. The video promotes a falsehood. But we know Craig is a professional liar.

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
25-03-2017, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2017 06:23 PM by BackSlider.)
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
What basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong if there is no god??

Well I don't think it takes (any) god to establish what is good or bad, right or wrong, i.e. proper principals of socially acceptable conduct.
I believe it was once told to me as "The Golden Rule". No god is needed in that equation friend and it is pretty inclusive. One can simply use your own gut and feelings for that gauge.

You have to be odd to be #1.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BackSlider's post
25-03-2017, 03:34 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(25-03-2017 02:25 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  So, since the comments are disabled on youtube, why don't you guys comment on it?

This kind of argument always misses the obvious. Moral values can be both relative (not "subjective") and objective. It's good to give a peanut butter sandwich to a starving kid, but bad to give it to a kid with peanut allergies. So there's a false dichotomy at the heart of the argument: either absolutely objective or merely subjective.

Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thoreauvian's post
25-03-2017, 03:39 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
Ultimately, each person chooses where to get their morality from. (Or at least, they rationalize it as such.) Whether they base it on their emotions, society, or their favourite story book, it's still them making the "choice" to base it on that.

The fact that they then cement their morality as being what one character in a book says it should be just means they are being inflexible and refusing to learn anything from experience. I don't see how it's a virtue. Why not use your damn brain and think for yourself?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
25-03-2017, 04:01 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
The real problem for me is this really old, clearly flawed "argument" if you can call it that, is still being promoted by some people....

Anyone else get a sensation of Deja Vu? Almost like this argument has been made (and lost) before......

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: