[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 08:36 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 08:33 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  dj you and i both know that everyone here does not need proof that certain things are wrong. you know it, i know it, they know it.

Anyone who tells you that they cant say that raping women is wrong for a fact without proof is simply disingenuous or depraved and sick or all three.

Nope, they don't. In fact, they will call you on it if you try to tell them they do, and that you have the prove they need. I've seen that happening somewhere around here....

But at the end of the day, I need to know I did the best I could, I need to make sure I watch for personal bias coloring my moral judgements in my favor, I need to sleep and night and face myself in the mirror, and I need to have a damn good argument for doing the best I could if I find I am wrong and there is a higher power to answer to. So I do the best I can.

Rest assured, if you stand firm for what is right, you will be able to not only sleep at night, but have a clear conscience knowing you sought the truth and have had the courage to speak it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 08:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:30 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  So why did god rape Mary? He must have known it was objectively wrong, since he came up with the morality that says so in the first place. But that's exactly what he did.

Isn't that what you believe? Consider

Nope.

Fuck. You're right. That was easily dismissed and not worth pursuing. Even if the whole story is batshit lunacy and the fact that you believe it ever happened makes you a gullible douchebag.

I'm not nearly as good of a troll as you. I'm taking notes though, you silly bastard. I'll be back....

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
09-05-2014, 08:39 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 03:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  You know, not one person here has claimed 'cultural relativism' as a position. Not one.

That's because you present a false dichotomy.

Now fuck off.

LOL!

You are the one who has been defending moral relativism here.

Now you are beginning to see why its absurd.

Thumbsup

Please show me where I did or shut the fuck up. Your call. 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
09-05-2014, 08:54 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.

Sort of, but there really are some axioms - things that are self-evident to 99+% of humans -prohibitions against harming others.

Some societies have created elaborate rules about when and how it is permissible (or even desirable) to violate those axioms,
but that alone is sufficient to prove they are universal axioms.

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
09-05-2014, 08:56 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:08 PM)djhall Wrote:  I agree. Which is where the subjective/objective arguments get rolling. Some hold the truth of god, and further of their god, as axiomatic. I give them that... it is their right to believe so. But don't argue that my axioms are subjective and yours are objective. Your belief, no matter how certainly held, is NOT OBJECTIVELY CERTAIN, and you don't get to claim special pleading to make it so. You might be wrong, and so may I, and we can't prove we are the ones who know objective truth and right for everyone else. At the same time, we have to live together as best we can, so conflict is inevitable.

I incorporate that concept as the very heart of my own moral philosophy:

IF the most objective truth we can prove about moral claims is that most people's claims to objective moral truths are uncertain,
THEN no point of view, including one's own, should be presumed by its adherents to be right for others who disagree with it, or should be imposed on others who disagree with it against their wills,
AND we should allow them to pursue their purposes, desires, and happiness without interference and without imposing our own purposes, wills, or desires upon them or forcing them to do what we want against their wills.
THEREFORE, competing moral claims, principles, and standards can be objectively evaluated according to the degree to which they sustain this ideal to the greatest extent possible, even when it is impossible to not violate this ideal no matter what we do.

If you think about the kinds of moral positions that would be supported from this objective principle, we actually can argue that things like rape are objectively wrong. We can objectively demonstrate that moral claims are uncertain and unlikely to be objective moral truths. The most objectively neutral course of action is therefore to resist imposing our wills on others to the greatest extent possible. We can use that principle to objectively compare the claims that raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard or refraining from raping a woman most closely sustains that ideal standard. The woman who claims the "right" to go about her day without being raped is not attempting to impose her will on a rapist, and a rapist need not even exist for her to carry out that plan of action. The rapist, however, requires the existence of the woman to be raped, and the imposition of his will over her objection, in order to carry out his plan of action. Therefore, we can fairly clearly determine that the woman is objectively right, and the rapist is objectively wrong, in adhering to objective principles in a world where objective truths are uncertain.

You wrote all of that to say that objective really means "ideal".

You then appeal to this "ideal standard" as if all people should live by it.

Get with it man. Its inescapable. Morality is either totally a matter of personal taste or its a matter of fact.

Again with the false dichotomy. You don't even listen, do you. Blink

Now, fuck off and die.

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
09-05-2014, 09:02 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:59 PM)TheBear Wrote:  Then where do they get things like cooperation, empathy, sharing, and many other traits that look just like human morals?

God.

But in post #116 you said they didn't. Consider

Must be time for your medication.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-05-2014, 09:37 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 08:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  many people live quite contrary to how you think they do. many people love pain and could care less about surviving and reproducing and any of the other garbage you claim we have evolved to be concerned about.

Many are hedonistic and give thought only to pleasure and care little for length of life or passing on their dna.

(09-05-2014 08:28 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  and dj we should not let the absurd views of a few sick people to cast any doubt on what we clearly know to be true.

What I don't understand is why you think those people are here and arguing with you. Those people don't give a damn about philosophical justifications for their actions, or participating on the thinking atheist forums, or other such intellectual and philosophical pursuits. The number of atheists as a whole that claim to believe in moral relativism, behave as moral relativists, and have any enthusiasm for moral relativism is tiny. It is more a boogyman to scare wavering believers than any serious trend.

When you get right down to it, most of us don't behave as relativists. You see that yourself when you try to push people to admit to it and claim it. We don't love moral relativity... we recoil from it just like you. But we also don't play up our claims to be more than we can prove they are. Like claiming they come from an omnipotent invisible friend that prefers playing hide and seek and communicating through ancient texts and mysterious ways. If that is what we have to do to claim objective morals, we will just settle for calling them subjective until we can find proof of something better. That leads many, if not most atheists, to lay claim to little more than a base of subjective ethics with as much objectivity on top as they can.

Yeah, when you push people here they will resist. Some will claim subjective morality just to avoid trying to claim, defend, and prove something they can't prove or get goaded into being pushed to accept they need god. And, once you appear to have an agenda to push instead of something to learn, more than a few will happily adopt the morally bankrupt baby eating atheist stereotype persona just to mess with and horrify you. But try looking, and understanding, and avoiding telling people what they believe, and that they need something they think they don't, and you will find most atheists aren't really what you think they are.

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
[+] 2 users Like djhall's post
09-05-2014, 10:43 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 03:04 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:03 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  Didn't that actually happen in the middle ages? Heretics were either banned or killed?

I think the gassing and using hair for stuffing is more a Nazi thing.

.....Gott Mit Uns!

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
10-05-2014, 02:30 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2014 02:44 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Morality is either totally a matter of personal taste or its a matter of fact.

False dichotomy caused by black and white thinking.

Your phrasing is ambiguous and loaded. What exactly does 'matter of fact' mean? What decides someone's taste?

The correct answer is that as a species we have evolved instincts but these are each expressed to a greater or less degree in each individual. You could say this is a 'matter of fact' in that we can objectively test for it. There are many ways to satisfy these instincts. Individuals are also raised in different environments and this leads to mental conditioning, or what you would describe as 'personal taste'.

There's no need for God or a morality that continues to exist even without human beings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
10-05-2014, 02:35 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2014 02:46 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 07:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Science cannot tell us how we "ought" to live.

Science is not a religion, just a method. It can be used for anything. How you use it is up to you.

The scientific method can be applied to figure out rules and policies that satisfies requirements that we all want to live by, e.g. maximising freedom and potential for each individual while at the same time minimising suffering.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: