[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2014, 05:00 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.


2. If the Great JuJu of the Mountain does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

3. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

4. If Zeus does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

5. If Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt do not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

....

why did you post those five propositions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 05:09 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 08:21 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What constitues knowledge is debated among philosophers.

And besides, we are talking about what makes moral values and duties objective. in doing so, we are providing arguments for our respective positions.

I have never argued that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God because it is my belief that they are.

it seems you are strawmanning here.

Personally, I believe morality comes from the collective subjective conscienceness-which is to say that morality is based on human consensus, rather than timeless absolutes. The CSC is ultimately based on society and thus is not truly objective.

and thus you would not take issue with premise one of the moral argument. Your view is the one held by the majority of atheists i.e. that moral values and duties are not objective.

you would take issue with premise two. you would say that when a catholic priest rapes a person and then tries to cover it up, that he has not done anything objectively wrong because there is nothing that makes the act objectively wrong. you would say that the Israelites who displaced the Canaanites at the behest of their God were actually doing what was right because the collective consensus of the nation was that they were obligated to displace the Canaanites.

So in denying premise two, you lose the right to denounce any act as truly immoral which is a favorite tactic of atheists who denounce religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 05:27 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:33 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective without appealing to God. We both agree they are.

Thus far all you have told me is that they are objective because they are independent of the subjective opinions of human beings. All you have done is define what objective means. You and I can agree on this for this is how the word "objective" is used in the particular version of the moral argument I am using.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

As it stands, you have yet to undercut the warrant we have for holding one to be more plausible than its negation, nor have you provided a rebutting defeater for it. Until you do, then the premise stands.

Morality is relative to human consensus. What one views as abhorrent, another could view as moral. Take 9/11 for example. That highlighted a clash between Western CSC and Islamic CSC.

what you say is true. no apologist would argue against this. this is termed "descriptive moral relativism".

it essentially states that there are in fact moral disagreements. westerns believe it is immoral to fly planes into buildings to kill people who do not believe what they believe. Some Islamists believe it moral to do so. so there is a disagreement here.

but does the mere fact that there are disagreements about what is moral mean that there is no true/right answer to the question?

well I say no. just because people disagree on the above, it does not follow that there is no true and right answer anymore than the fact that people disagree on whether men ever actually landed on the moon means that there is no true/right answer to the question: did men land on the moon?

so saying that descriptive moral relativism is true does not necessarily mean that meta-ethical moral relativism is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 05:30 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(14-06-2014 09:35 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All I have asked you to do is tell me what makes moral values and duties objective without appealing to God. We both agree they are.

Thus far all you have told me is that they are objective because they are independent of the subjective opinions of human beings. All you have done is define what objective means. You and I can agree on this for this is how the word "objective" is used in the particular version of the moral argument I am using.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

As it stands, you have yet to undercut the warrant we have for holding one to be more plausible than its negation, nor have you provided a rebutting defeater for it. Until you do, then the premise stands.

Why do moral values need to be objective?

i am not arguing that they "need" to be objective but that they "are".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 05:30 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  [quote='pablo628' pid='593587' dateline='1402803334']

Why do moral values need to be objective?

They need to be "reasonable", which some gods aren't. If morality is based on reason, so that people can understand why they should behave in a certain way, then god is irrelevant, because he must also act according to reason. Unless he is a) irrational or b) stupid or c) both.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
15-06-2014, 06:55 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 06:10 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  They need to be "reasonable", which some gods aren't. If morality is based on reason, so that people can understand why they should behave in a certain way, then god is irrelevant, because he must also act according to reason. Unless he is a) irrational or b) stupid or c) both.

But reason can never lead us to morality. In fact, atheistic ethicist Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary has written about the exact idea you are espousing and shows why it is untenable.

He writes in The American Philosophical Quarterly:

"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality. -Kai Nielsen, “Why Should I Be Moral?” American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984): 90.

Deltabravo, what Kai is saying is that there is no reasoned argument that can demonstrate why men should not be self-centered egoists.

In fact, at least one person here who is an atheist has argued that we SHOULD be egoists and live only out of "rational self-interest".

There is no way you can get an "ought" from an "is".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 07:16 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 05:00 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  2. If the Great JuJu of the Mountain does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

3. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

4. If Zeus does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

5. If Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt do not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

....

why did you post those five propositions?

It's called Argumentum Ad Absurdum. You couldn't be expected to know fuck about it.

And Checkmate, BTW.

Asshole.

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
15-06-2014, 07:19 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 04:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 09:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Moral values and "duties" are not objective. This has been explained in detail to you.



One can appeal to karma, Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great JuJu of the Mountain, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, etc.

All are equal to your fairy tale monster.

true scotsman believes they are objective. that is why we are discussing what grounds them or what makes them objective.

So. TS says they are objective. Irrelevant. You claim that they cannot be objective without your fairy tale monster. I say they can't be objective without Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt. There is absolutely no difference between the two claims. The fact that you are too fucking obtuse and ignorant to see this is your own problem.

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
15-06-2014, 07:21 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 07:16 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:00 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  why did you post those five propositions?

It's called Argumentum Ad Absurdum.

I know what an Argumentum Ad Absurdum is.

How does it pertain to premise one of the moral argument?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 05:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(14-06-2014 08:21 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  Personally, I believe morality comes from the collective subjective conscienceness-which is to say that morality is based on human consensus, rather than timeless absolutes. The CSC is ultimately based on society and thus is not truly objective.

and thus you would not take issue with premise one of the moral argument. Your view is the one held by the majority of atheists i.e. that moral values and duties are not objective.

you would take issue with premise two. you would say that when a catholic priest rapes a person and then tries to cover it up, that he has not done anything objectively wrong because there is nothing that makes the act objectively wrong. you would say that the Israelites who displaced the Canaanites at the behest of their God were actually doing what was right because the collective consensus of the nation was that they were obligated to displace the Canaanites.

So in denying premise two, you lose the right to denounce any act as truly immoral which is a favorite tactic of atheists who denounce religion.

I love how this fucking moron keeps coming back to the same bullshit pseudo-arguments that he has been utterly destroyed on in threads that he has fled.


How's that sport bike there, mr. vow-of-poverty-jeebus-wannabe?

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: