[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:35 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  No one said you're objectively an obtuse asshole. You're an obtuse asshole, but it's subjective. Just like the Nazi's "moral" decision to exterminate Jews, just like your hypothetical's decision to persecute atheists and gays. They may claim they're acting out of objective morality (their standard for objective morality, the Bible, would certainly support them in this regard), but subjectively, when one considers more than the outdated opinions of a barbaric and superstitious ancient people who didn't know that the sun was in outer space, we can determine subjectively that they, like you, are full of self-important, self-justified, self-righteous bullshit.

Riiiight....

Like I said, you believe genocide is right relative to the culture.

And since you believe this then, EVEN IF it were shown that the Israelites committed genocide, it was because it was right for them to do so.

So what is your point again? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:35 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  No one said you're objectively an obtuse asshole. You're an obtuse asshole, but it's subjective. Just like the Nazi's "moral" decision to exterminate Jews, just like your hypothetical's decision to persecute atheists and gays. They may claim they're acting out of objective morality (their standard for objective morality, the Bible, would certainly support them in this regard), but subjectively, when one considers more than the outdated opinions of a barbaric and superstitious ancient people who didn't know that the sun was in outer space, we can determine subjectively that they, like you, are full of self-important, self-justified, self-righteous bullshit.

Riiiight....

Like I said, you believe genocide is right relative to the culture.

And since you believe this then, EVEN IF it were shown that the Israelites committed genocide, it was because it was right for them to do so.

So what is your point again? Consider

My point is you have mischaracterized my position and drawn a false conclusion from it. Since I cannot conclude that you did so by accident, I have to conclude you have done so on purpose. That makes you, objectively speaking, a fucking liar, on top of being, subjectively speaking, an obtuse asshole.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
09-05-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:42 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:28 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Right!

Just like the Nazis established that genocide was good.

Now you've got it ! ThumbsupThumbsup

You've never had it and are seemingly incapable of getting it. The Nazis are a subset of humanity that the rest of humanity disagreed with, which is why WWII happened. The Jews at the time of the Bible's writing were also a subset of humanity and their version of morality has also been partially or mostly rejected by the rest of today's humanity. The Bible also condones genocide, just with different people as the targets (specific groups like the Amalekites, who no longer exist). One could say that the Germans did to the Jews what the Jews did to the Amalekites, to an extent. Either way, all of this ridiculous example of Godwin's Law is getting obnoxious...

A subset of humanity doesn't define what morality is for the entirety of humanity, humanity as a whole determines morality. You're not proving anything with your idiotic notion that one small subset's genocidal views mean that humanity as a whole has ruled genocide "moral". That's the tail wagging the dog, human morality is determined by human society, which consists of ALL of us. Consensus morality is all that can really be achieved, there is no external source of "objective" morality. There is simply no legitimate evidence of any so-called "objective" morality, at least none that's ever been presented that I'm aware of (and I'm well-read in that area). If humanity as a whole came to a consensus that genocide was moral, society as a whole would crumble, which I don't see happening.

Fail....


You fail because it is still in your view a matter of consensus. I.e. that genocide or rape is right relative to the majority. So in the event that the majority of the people in the world (who are religious by the way) decided to round up the irreligious and burn them at the stake, then this would be right.

You fail....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
Alright Jeremy seems like you need a lesson about morality and why it is important to all.


Evolution effects animals in many ways, even behavior. So some animals become solitary or social. Both have benefits. Humans and many other apes have evolved to be a social species. In a social species the animal in question needs to work together. If they don't the species will die. It is because of this that humans care for each other and well being. It is so the species will not die out. 1 human vs a hippo would be a easy win for a hippo, but 12 humans vs a hippo would be an easy win for the humans. It is more then just hunting. Humans form bonds in which they can clean and help each other out in things like learning, caring for young, mating, and even keeping the area clean. Over the years of the human existence the morality of humans have changed. This of course means over time humans began to understand each other more. Eventually race became less and less important. Human communities can now reach the 100s! The reason why we are so successful as a species is because we have morality and we do care about one another, that's why we don't approve of genocide, because it hinders the human species. This is why we humans have morality. It is not because of some pathetic imagination called a deity, it is because we are powerful, and know that our power is in numbers.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 02:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You do not like for your views to be challenged.

So here is a riddle....

You live in America and there comes a time when atheists and homosexuals are seen as a threat to the growth and security of our society. It has been determined that they should be dealt with speedily and thoroughly by the vast majority of the theists that make up the consensus who have determined that this is the best thing to do to deal with the atheist situation. The majority agree and deem it to be morally obligatory and anyone who does not is thrown in with the atheists.

The government institutes martial law and the atheists and homosexuals are rounded up and sent to concentration camps where they are gassed and their hair is used to stuff sofa cushions. Their belongings are distributed among the theists.

There is no escaping this fate.

You sit in your house with your spouse/partner if you have one and if they have not already been shipped off and you muse...

Just the other day I was telling Jeremy that there are no objective moral values and duties and that each culture determines what is right and wrong, what is good, and what is evil....

Now...

What do you say?

Well gosh! I guess it is right for me to be gassed and have what little hair I have be used for stuffing in sofa cushions!

Or do you say....

Right and wrong are not determined by my society. I renounce my cultural relativism!

Do you know what you don't account for? Human conviction. There may not be any objective way of measuring right or wrong, but that doesn't stop me myself from subjectively having my own morals and thinking that mine are better than anyone else's (call it arrogance if you want).

Let's flip the situation. You are in bed one night and God appears to you. He tells you that in his eyes it would be moral for you to find an axe tomorrow and kill as many children as you can find with it, indiscriminately. That is what he calls moral.

Do you instantly see that as moral? Or do you think to yourself "that would be an evil thing to do"?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
09-05-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:42 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  You've never had it and are seemingly incapable of getting it. The Nazis are a subset of humanity that the rest of humanity disagreed with, which is why WWII happened. The Jews at the time of the Bible's writing were also a subset of humanity and their version of morality has also been partially or mostly rejected by the rest of today's humanity. The Bible also condones genocide, just with different people as the targets (specific groups like the Amalekites, who no longer exist). One could say that the Germans did to the Jews what the Jews did to the Amalekites, to an extent. Either way, all of this ridiculous example of Godwin's Law is getting obnoxious...

A subset of humanity doesn't define what morality is for the entirety of humanity, humanity as a whole determines morality. You're not proving anything with your idiotic notion that one small subset's genocidal views mean that humanity as a whole has ruled genocide "moral". That's the tail wagging the dog, human morality is determined by human society, which consists of ALL of us. Consensus morality is all that can really be achieved, there is no external source of "objective" morality. There is simply no legitimate evidence of any so-called "objective" morality, at least none that's ever been presented that I'm aware of (and I'm well-read in that area). If humanity as a whole came to a consensus that genocide was moral, society as a whole would crumble, which I don't see happening.

Fail....


You fail because it is still in your view a matter of consensus. I.e. that genocide or rape is right relative to the majority. So in the event that the majority of the people in the world (who are religious by the way) decided to round up the irreligious and burn them at the stake, then this would be right.

You fail....

Yes but that does not make it right. You said you agreed with me so wouldn't you agree that this is not right. Killing people just because they lack your belief or have a different one from yours is not right, correct?

You still haven't answered the bulk of what I have written to you but if you knew from human history yes we actually did kill people who had different religious views, were of a different race, had a different background or had a different political system.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Death for being an Atheist today actually still exists and is with Muslim majority countries. Don't worry though those same places would discriminate and threaten you as well and totally make you feel homely.

That is not right I don't care what religion it is its not right. So yes a society can adopt things which are not good and deem them moral but often times it is due to the very thing you say morality comes from.

Religion divides humans even further and that can lead to some great conflicts especially when people begin thinking they are superior and treating others unfairly it begins to create stressed relationships which often times end with violence.

Would you think it would be right if a Muslim majority oppressed Christians like in Syria? Or is it fine if its only Christian's who oppress others?

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShirubaDangan's post
09-05-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
I'm still waiting for an articulation of this so-called "objective morality."

It's clearly not the Bible, which orders the death sentence for people who choose the wrong day to gather firewood, people who choose the wrong time to lament the burning of their homes, and married women who don't scream loud enough when they're being raped in the city (yet somehow does not order death for those who rape virgins or, you know, fucking OWN people).

So does "God" plant this morality in our "hearts"? If He does, then why did He not share this morality with the writers of any of his holy books?

Isn't it amazing that God hid "objective morality" in precisely the same place it would have arisen as a matter of course if man developed the concept and refined it over time in the absence of any God?

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
09-05-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 03:28 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Right!

Just like the Nazis established that genocide was good.

Now you've got it ! ThumbsupThumbsup

Incorrect. The Nazis received 'negative feedback,' if you will, from the rest of the world. Thus genocide is bad. The minority does not speak for the majority when it comes to morality.

You make a lot of errors trying to assert your point. For one, you claimed the Nazi's successfully established genocide as good. I can only assume you haven't taken a history class. An intelligent person would take a mistake of this magnitude as a sign they need to reassess their position. Are you an intelligent person, Jeremy?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
09-05-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:03 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Alright Jeremy seems like you need a lesson about morality and why it is important to all.


Evolution effects animals in many ways, even behavior. So some animals become solitary or social. Both have benefits. Humans and many other apes have evolved to be a social species. In a social species the animal in question needs to work together. If they don't the species will die. It is because of this that humans care for each other and well being. It is so the species will not die out. 1 human vs a hippo would be a easy win for a hippo, but 12 humans vs a hippo would be an easy win for the humans. It is more then just hunting. Humans form bonds in which they can clean and help each other out in things like learning, caring for young, mating, and even keeping the area clean. Over the years of the human existence the morality of humans have changed. This of course means over time humans began to understand each other more. Eventually race became less and less important. Human communities can now reach the 100s! The reason why we are so successful as a species is because we have morality and we do care about one another, that's why we don't approve of genocide, because it hinders the human species. This is why we humans have morality. It is not because of some pathetic imagination called a deity, it is because we are powerful, and know that our power is in numbers.

all you have stated is that genocide hinders the human species from surviving and because this has been engrained into every homo sapien via socio-biological processes, this makes it objectively true, i.e. that we all recognize that an act that maximizes conscious creatures well being is good and an act that does not is bad (to use Sam Harris' terminology) and if we fail to recognize it we are sociopathic or messed up.

You affirm that maximizing conscious creatures well being is good and we are obligated to live in such a way as to accomplish this because we have evolved to believe this so you affirm premise two of the moral argument.

What you have failed to do is explain why this evolved moral sense OBLIGATES us to obey it.

On naturalism nothing OBLIGATES us to act in such a way as to maximize a conscious creatures well being. And where there is no moral obligation, no moral blame can be assigned for there was nothing to do that we failed to do!

The concept of moral obligation apart from God is unintelligible. The words remain but the meaning is gone.

This is something an atheistic ethicist admitted to. Not a theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:06 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 02:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You do not like for your views to be challenged.

So here is a riddle....

You live in America and there comes a time when atheists and homosexuals are seen as a threat to the growth and security of our society. It has been determined that they should be dealt with speedily and thoroughly by the vast majority of the theists that make up the consensus who have determined that this is the best thing to do to deal with the atheist situation. The majority agree and deem it to be morally obligatory and anyone who does not is thrown in with the atheists.

The government institutes martial law and the atheists and homosexuals are rounded up and sent to concentration camps where they are gassed and their hair is used to stuff sofa cushions. Their belongings are distributed among the theists.

There is no escaping this fate.

You sit in your house with your spouse/partner if you have one and if they have not already been shipped off and you muse...

Just the other day I was telling Jeremy that there are no objective moral values and duties and that each culture determines what is right and wrong, what is good, and what is evil....

Now...

What do you say?

Well gosh! I guess it is right for me to be gassed and have what little hair I have be used for stuffing in sofa cushions!

Or do you say....

Right and wrong are not determined by my society. I renounce my cultural relativism!

Do you know what you don't account for? Human conviction. There may not be any objective way of measuring right or wrong, but that doesn't stop me myself from subjectively having my own morals and thinking that mine are better than anyone else's (call it arrogance if you want).

Let's flip the situation. You are in bed one night and God appears to you. He tells you that in his eyes it would be moral for you to find an axe tomorrow and kill as many children as you can find with it, indiscriminately. That is what he calls moral.

Do you instantly see that as moral? Or do you think to yourself "that would be an evil thing to do"?

Throwing up human conviction that things like killing people because they are atheists is wrong is simply serving to prove premise two of the moral argument.

I happily agree with you!

Our moral intuition and convictions as moral creatures TELLS us that rape is objectively wrong. We do not need an argument to prove to us that rape is wrong. We are not waiting for some evidence to be brought forth to convince us that killing atheists because they are atheists is just flat wrong regardless of what people think.

I do not need someone to prove to me that raping children is wrong. I intuitively know it is wrong. Everything that I am as a human being cries out to me to fight against it.

To hell with the few sick people that think it is ok! They are wrong and I am right. They are just as wrong as if the had said two and two were five.

I know, you know it, and everyone here knows it. That is my whole point. And if we know it and moral relativism says that we are wrong then we need to ABANDON moral relativism in favor of a view that is more in agreement with our moral experiences.

Moral relativism is indefensible except for the person who does not like the idea of being morally obligated.

That is where the resistance lies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: