[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:31 PM)guitar_nut 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

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?

Actually the holocaust proved that people believe in objective moral values and duties, namely that it is wrong to kill people because they are Jews, and two, that those who could stop it had an obligation to.

The whole thing is proof that premise two of the moral argument is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
None of what you have said justifies the premise that morality is extrinsic to us as a thinking people. It is a non sequitur to insist that morality apart from God is unintelligible.

I am really tempted to go into some detail here, but I must refrain because I truly believe based on your deliberate and deceptive distortions of my posts and others' that you are not interested in a real conversation about the subject. Rather, you are interested in attention, and only further attention will satisfy you.

You will have the satisfaction of no more of mine.

I will close by repeating what I said in the thread you attempted to hijack:

I am atheist because I don't need God to tell me what's moral anymore than I need Venus to tell me who's beautiful.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
09-05-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:56 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  None of what you have said justifies the premise that morality is extrinsic to us as a thinking people. It is a non sequitur to insist that morality apart from God is unintelligible.

I am really tempted to go into some detail here, but I must refrain because I truly believe based on your deliberate and deceptive distortions of my posts and others' that you are not interested in a real conversation about the subject. Rather, you are interested in attention, and only further attention will satisfy you.

You will have the satisfaction of no more of mine.

Then stop replying to my posts.

The fact of the matter is, whether you want to admit it or not is that you think some things are really wrong and that they are wrong independently of people's perception, or feelings or opinions about them. You think rape is wrong and you could care less what the rapist thinks about it.

You DONT BELIEVE that people just make up what is right and wrong on a whim or according to their desires or according to what the majority thinks.

If you did, you could never accuse anyone of doing anything truly evil and the power of your arguments against Christianity is gone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

You know, I don't think we are too far apart here.

I agree with you that people can and do take the approach that their morals are superior, what I disagree with is what causes the view that they are superior. You think it's because there is an objective morality that makes them so, I think that they are still subjective and our view that our morals are better comes from personal conviction.

What would be your view on more ambiguous topics? Take something such as speeding tickets or anything more trivial and less clear-cut. Where does your morality on that sorta stuff come from? They're not things that are mentioned in the bible (or by any objective moral source) but you probably have opinions on them. Where do your opinions come from?

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
09-05-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

What obligates our moral sense is SURVIVAL!!!!!!!!! FUCK man read a book. And what without god no morals? Yeah because I want to stone my kids when the stay up past 10:00. and I say again READ A FUCKING BOOK!!! P.S jeff the killer has more morals than your god.

[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, 05:16 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:04 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

You know, I don't think we are too far apart here.

I agree with you that people can and do take the approach that their morals are superior, what I disagree with is what causes the view that they are superior. You think it's because there is an objective morality that makes them so, I think that they are still subjective and our view that our morals are better comes from personal conviction.

What would be your view on more ambiguous topics? Take something such as speeding tickets or anything more trivial and less clear-cut. Where does your morality on that sorta stuff come from? They're not things that are mentioned in the bible (or by any objective moral source) but you probably have opinions on them. Where do your opinions come from?

I do not think that a rapist's sincere convictions that rape is just awesome makes his view right.

I think he is still wrong even if he is persuaded that women are just objects for abusing.

He can be the most persuaded, most convinced, most sincere rapist in all of human history and can tell me that raping women is his right and that he can do it all he wants.

I still maintain that he is wrong, that he is deserving of punishment and that he has failed in his moral obligation to treat a woman with dignity and respect.

I do not care if the whole world thought rape was just cool and fine and dandy. I appeal to a Law higher than all of the opinions of man. I appeal to the Moral Standard by which all are held accountable to which says somethings are simply wrong and thats the end of the discussion.

I do not make apologies or spew out some ridiculous absurd statement like: "Well whats true for you is true for you...." or "if its right to you then its right"....

No no no.... I know that someone who rapes thinks its just fine and dandy, but he has still violated a woman who SHOULD NOT have been violated.

Laws like speed limits are in place to protect people driving on the roads. Period.

If one has a habit of speeding and has no regard for the safety of others or the law, then if he is stopped he is deserving of a ticket.

If one has a habit of trying to obey the speed limit and is concerned for the safety of those on the road with him and he happens to get caught going a couple miles over the speed limit and he gets pulled over, a cop can pull up his MVR and see if this is something habitual or not. He then can use discretion in writing a warning. The person has broken the law no doubt, but in cases like this Police are actually instructed to use their discretion and good judgment. A lot of time it depends on how honest and civil the person is. The person may get a ticket and that is just because when you get in a car and drive you are responsible for knowing the penalties for breaking the law if you break it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
Quote:How do you know rape is wrong even if the rapists thinks its just fine and dandy?

Your answer is my answer.

I am a moral absolutist and objectivist. You claim to be as well, but I question that. I think our disagreement comes down not to is there an objective standard of morality. You and I both agree there is. We just disagree on what objective means in this context.

And I'm more than willing to engage in that discussion if you wish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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....

Your position is essentially "you fail because you don't agree with me". You're not doing yourself any favors here, you've not given one iota of a reason for someone to agree with your fucktarded position, nor one iota of evidence in favor of an "objective" source of morality. Hint: you'd have to prove your god was real first, then prove that what he says is and should be considered all morality, and then prove that the Bible is what he said, and so on. You haven't and certainly can't, at least you can't because you obviously lack the intellect.

At one time, your ridiculous scenario was reality and guess what? We've moved beyond that since humanity's consensus was that it was wrong. It also didn't work, here we are to day and there are still plenty of people that don't buy your silly tales of imaginary superfriends.

Morals arrived through evolutionary means as a method to stabilizing society, they're a necessary function of society, just as eating is a necessary function of living. There is no objective source, the only reasonable explanation for the existence of morals is that moral codes that work have been passed down through successful societies and those that failed to fit in with them over time have been weeded out (murderers/rapists/thieves jailed or otherwise removed from society, etc). It's only in a sense by "consensus", it's not like something that is determined by a majority of humanity gathering and deciding what is moral, it's simply a result of various moral standards that have worked for societies throughout human history and have converged on a common set of morals that "work" because they're needed for a stable, functional social group/order. Social structures that had alternate moral codes along these core, vital issues (murder, etc) have failed, while those that had them have succeeded. We arrived at common morality the same way that we arrived at 5 fingers and 5 toes - natural processes, not our own decisions/voting.

You're going at everything in completely the wrong way - you're not even trying to support your position, you're just yelling at people "I'm right and you're wrong! Nananananana!" like a little child. If you wish to have even the slightest hint of a rational discussion, provide the following before again claiming that there is objective morality:

* Proof of a source of objective morality (presumably, your god)
* If that's indeed your god, provide proof that your god exists
* Provide proof that your god authored a set of rules (presumably, the Bible)
* Provide proof that these rules are moral and consistent
* Provide proof that these rules are objective and not subject to interpretation by followers such as yourself
* Provide proof that these rules can possibly result in a stable, healthy, equitable society

The above are my requirements if I'm going to spend any more time discussing this with you. As it is, you're seemingly a waste of my time and energy, as you lack both the intellectual capacity and willingness to argue your point without degrading into silly shouting and empty rhetoric. "Fail" is not an argument, it's a petulant teenager's reaction. What I've quoted above is essentially you just stating your position again and saying I'm wrong because I disagreed with it. You've not advanced any proof or logic backing your position, just reused the same tired argument-by-analogy that Christians such as yourself rely on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
09-05-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 05:19 PM)natachan Wrote:  
Quote:How do you know rape is wrong even if the rapists thinks its just fine and dandy?

Your answer is my answer.

I am a moral absolutist and objectivist. You claim to be as well, but I question that. I think our disagreement comes down not to is there an objective standard of morality. You and I both agree there is. We just disagree on what objective means in this context.

And I'm more than willing to engage in that discussion if you wish.

When you and I say things like: "Rape is wrong", we view these types of statements the same way we view statements like: "Two and two is four" i.e. that these moral statements purport to report facts about reality.

We do not see them as some opinion, or something that is true because a certain number of people agree they are true. We do not see these statements as true if a particular culture says they are true.

Several prominent atheists i.e. Sam Harris, Louise Anthony, Peter Cave and the majority of philosophers in the academy hold our view as well.

The fork in the road for us is that I take the path that says these moral values and duties find their ground as the expression of the will of the Highest Good or Summum Bonum.

Your path is probably a naturalistic one which I will wait for you to further expound on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 05:51 PM by djhall.)
RE: [split from] Atheist because
(09-05-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Jeremy, the resistance doesn't lie with us. There is one very simple difference that you can't seem to grasp no matter how often it is pointed out to you. I've highlighted it in bold for you in your own arguments.

Our moral intuition and convictions can't be proven to actually be objective or proven to be reliable indicators for objective morality or what is objectively right or wrong. We recognize everything you say as more than mere preference or moral / cultural relativism, but less than proven objectivity, and carry on as best we can. Where does this come from? Our biology from evolution? Maybe. Our biology from creation? Perhaps. Either way, that argument is interesting mostly theologically and philosophically speaking, as we all operate in reality off the same phenomena and only attribute the cause to different things.

You, presumably attribute the cause to god. We don't. As a result, you call it objective. We aren't willing to go quite that far. But from there, we proceed down the same path. You are the only person here that is uncomfortable with that. You are the only one that feels if we don't attribute the experience to god then we must be forced into cultural relativism. But we can, and do, manage to get along just fine not adopting cultural relativism, even if only by declaring the experience to be a moral axiom we are willing to fight to defend.

Why do you try to find defenders of moral relativism where none exist, just so you can fight against them? So what that we don't call it objective? So what if we don't attribute it to god? Why can't we attribute it to sociobiological evolution + moral axioms + objective logic and reasoning and not have it still be "objective morality" in function if not in name?

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
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: