[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 07:24 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Get with it man. Its inescapable. Morality is either totally a matter or personal taste or its a matter of fact.

Why, then, it's totally a personal matter.

Gee, that was easy.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:24 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 06:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Aye, there's the rub. Axioms are generally presumed to be self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moral axiom".

Yes, dipshits love to blather on about how their personal subjective premises are "axiomatic".

That's why I prefer to speak of moral precepts. If they exhibit innate statistical variation, they sure as hell aren't axioms.

If a precept is a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought, doesn't this take us back into the why problem with Jeremy? Where does the rule come from? Why that rule and not another?

Instinct or majority seems to head back to the Jeremy trap... if instinct is a reliable indicator for morality, why not be a reliable indicator of the existence of god? Most people through history have believed in god, so why isn't that significant too?

I only fall back to axiom because I struggle to find a better word to make any sense of morality as more than preference without anything more than humans to base it off.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:25 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
I challenge anyone here to name one society where courage was seen as a vice and cowardice was seen as a virtue.

Get to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:26 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Get with it man. Its inescapable. Morality is either totally a matter or personal taste or its a matter of fact.

Why, then, it's totally a personal matter.

Gee, that was easy.

Thanks. Finally you said it.

Epic fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:32 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:24 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, dipshits love to blather on about how their personal subjective premises are "axiomatic".

That's why I prefer to speak of moral precepts. If they exhibit innate statistical variation, they sure as hell aren't axioms.

If a precept is a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought, doesn't this take us back into the why problem with Jeremy? Where does the rule come from? Why that rule and not another?

Instinct or majority seems to head back to the Jeremy trap... if instinct is a reliable indicator for morality, why not be a reliable indicator of the existence of god? Most people through history have believed in god, so why isn't that significant too?

I only fall back to axiom because I struggle to find a better word to make any sense of morality as more than preference without anything more than humans to base it off.

I use "precept" as there are biological bases for such impulses, and an explanation rooted in evolutionary development seems to account for them better than any going alternatives. We may observe those same foundational impulses - group-loyalty and reciprocity, to name the most salient - in all of our close relatives, and indeed in many other species besides.

I do not think it reasonable to declare human moral reasoning as somehow separable from our biological being, and as such one would expect just the innate statistical variation we seem to observe - as with any measurable trait.

The precepts of moral reasoning are, if innate, not amenable to reason and do not change predictably with experience - I do not say they cannot change, but that they cannot be changed by purely logical and rational argument. This is a rather significant distinction as compared to any explicitly external claim, such as the existence of a deity.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:26 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why, then, it's totally a personal matter.

Gee, that was easy.

Thanks. Finally you said it.

Epic fail

The entirety of your vacuous and pathetic response would appear to be,
"but I don't like the implications of that, therefore it can't be true".

Epic fail.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:24 PM)djhall Wrote:  If a precept is a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought, doesn't this take us back into the why problem with Jeremy? Where does the rule come from? Why that rule and not another?

Instinct or majority seems to head back to the Jeremy trap... if instinct is a reliable indicator for morality, why not be a reliable indicator of the existence of god? Most people through history have believed in god, so why isn't that significant too?

I only fall back to axiom because I struggle to find a better word to make any sense of morality as more than preference without anything more than humans to base it off.

I use "precept" as there are biological bases for such impulses, and an explanation rooted in evolutionary development seems to account for them better than any going alternatives. We may observe those same foundational impulses - group-loyalty and reciprocity, to name the most salient - in all of our close relatives, and indeed in many other species besides.

I do not think it reasonable to declare human moral reasoning as somehow separable from our biological being, and as such one would expect just the innate statistical variation we seem to observe - as with any measurable trait.

The precepts of moral reasoning are, if innate, not amenable to reason and do not change predictably with experience - I do not say they cannot change, but that they cannot be changed by purely logical and rational argument. This is a rather significant distinction as compared to any explicitly external claim, such as the existence of a deity.

Yes. Atheism implies moral nihilism. Now you get it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:35 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yes. Atheism implies moral nihilism. Now you get it.

As with virtually every other word you've incompetently parroted thus far, you appear to have no idea whatsoever what "nihilism" means.

Epic fail.

If you'd care to address or refute any of the scientifically-grounded points I raised, feel free. It's okay; I'll wait.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:35 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I use "precept" as there are biological bases for such impulses, and an explanation rooted in evolutionary development seems to account for them better than any going alternatives. We may observe those same foundational impulses - group-loyalty and reciprocity, to name the most salient - in all of our close relatives, and indeed in many other species besides.

I do not think it reasonable to declare human moral reasoning as somehow separable from our biological being, and as such one would expect just the innate statistical variation we seem to observe - as with any measurable trait.

The precepts of moral reasoning are, if innate, not amenable to reason and do not change predictably with experience - I do not say they cannot change, but that they cannot be changed by purely logical and rational argument. This is a rather significant distinction as compared to any explicitly external claim, such as the existence of a deity.

Yes. Atheism implies moral nihilism. Now you get it.

Hey Jeremy. You haven't the slightest clue about morality, nor the source of personal ethics. Shut the fuck up.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
09-05-2014, 07:38 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:37 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:35 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yes. Atheism implies moral nihilism. Now you get it.

Hey Jeremy. You haven't the slightest clue about morality, nor the source of personal ethics. Shut the fuck up.

And you do?

Muahahahahaa!

That is the funniest thing you have said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: