-->
@Mopac
Well, without a fixed standard of the best possible ice-cream flavor, how can anyone say that one flavor is "better" than another??
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@3RU7AL
Which flavor of ice cream one prefers is not a moral issue.
Temperance in eating ice cream is a moral issue.
-->
@Mopac
Which flavor of ice cream one prefers is not a moral issue.
What flavor of ice-cream one chooses to eat is 100% a moral issue.
Where was that chocolate grown?
Where was that vanilla processed?
How much child labor was utilized?
-->
@3RU7AL
Those could be moral issues, but that isn't really what you were asking.
-->
@Mopac
Those could be moral issues, but that isn't really what you were asking.
Every choice you make has an implicit moral component.
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know which flavor of ice cream is the most ethical.
Maybe you should play it safe and eat snow. I'd shy away from the yellow stuff.
-->
@PGA2.0
It takes faith to be an atheist[19], a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality?[20] Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?[21] There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?[22]Amoranemix 798[19] Is there any belief that does not require faith ?PGA2.0 881No. You start somewhere and build upon that starting or core belief - e.g., God/Chance. Core beliefs are the building blocks that all our other beliefs rest upon, except when we are inconsistent with that system and borrow from other core belief systems. Our worldviews are made up of beliefs, things we place our trust in, but are those beliefs warranted? Can we justify them?[218] Some dichotomize religious beliefs. They are not put on the same scale as other beliefs to naturalists who think they work purely from the empirical, scientific method, which they do not.
[218] Thus, it takes a lot of faith to be a Christian, given the size of your set of presuppositions.
You are describing presuppositions, who do not require justification or warrant.
Amoranemix 798[20] People don't arrive at morality that way. Individual moralities are determined mostly by genotype and fenotype.PGA2.0 881From an atheistic perspective, genotypes and phenotypes are blind agents, for there is no intent behind them. Intent is reasoning. Intent requires thinking being. Evolution does not. Somehow particular genetic makeup combines at the root causal level to create a specific kind. That information is then inherited or passed down and governed somewhat by the environment (mutations). On the phenotype level, somehow, the environment influences our behaviours, moulds us into group herd beings. The question is why we have these genotypes that operate by biological laws in the first place.[219] We inherit 23 three chromosomes from each parent to make up our genetic structure. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, which differ from other beings.Christians have a reasonable explanation -Genesis 1:20-28 (NASB)[ . . . ] [220]So what we would expect to find we do actually find, as Christians.[221] [ . . . ]To the atheist in his/her speculation, these information systems happen for no reason, for there is no mind behind them.[222] He/she spends countless hours and ages explaining, in a reasoning manner, how everything comes about by Chance. They bow down and worship this concept called chance that is unable to do anything.[223] Things just happen for no reason, and then we derive sense and meaning from the things, sense and meaning we should not find from the senseless and meaningless. Go figure?[224]So, once again, is atheism more reasonable than theism???[225]
You are confusing the causes of the existence of morality with the mental reasoning people use to arrive at their moral standard or opinions.
[219] That that is the question, is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[220] I am not going to challenge all that. If you think it is on topic and true, prove God's existence and provide mechanisms for the claims made. For example explain, among other things, how God created the great sea creatures.
If you manage to do that and it is on topic, then that could warrant to ask for more detailed mechanism for [10] in post 798.
[221] Any lunatic can dream up a magical story that produces the world we see. However, the author of Genesis did not know the scientific discoveries that would follow. According to my worldview, dreamt up magical stories and science tend to disagree. Hence I expect to see differences between the two and ô, what a surprise, that is what we see.
I'm not going into the rest of your paragraph as it is off topic.
[222] You are mistaken. They have a reason, but most atheist do not believe they have a purpose.
[223] Can you prove your assertion that atheists worship chance ?
[224] What meaningless things do atheists derive meaning from ?
[225] Yes.
Amoranemix 798[21] Unlike the laws of nature, moral standards, like any standard, are not open to be (dis)proven. They are not floating out there to be discovered.PGA2.0 881But they are open to the same abstract, intangible, non-physical logic used in discovering nature's laws. [223] [ . . . ]Listen to yourself - "not open to be[ing] (dis)proven." Thus, your worldview cannot say for certain that torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you do not like it.[224] Well, what about those who do? They can be no more right than you can in your atheistic system of thought. The 'right' requires a fixed identity, or it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief. That is logically inconsistent and the logical inconsistency of atheism. Does it make sense to say a thing is not what it is? No, it does not, yet you continually argue for such silly premises. Atheism is a rude joke.
[223] So, we were able to establish a difference between the laws of nature and the moral standards. The former are open to (dis)proof, while the latter are not, just like opinions and preferences. That has the inconvenient consequence that one can not establish what moral standards are true, what you again complain about in the rest of your paragraph.
The above describes reality and that is therefore what I and most skeptics believe. Since you keep complaining about it, you must believe something else and that makes your worldview fictional.
[224] Obviously, my worldview, like yours, is incapable of communication, but, in so far as these belong to a worldview, it contains standards informing about right and wrong, just like yours. Obviously, contrary to what you claim, I can say other things than that I do not like it.
I have already addressed the rest of your paragraph numerous times. It is based on equivocation, assuming that if the meaning of words or the reference standards change, that constitutes a contradiction.
In the next (not quoted) paragraph you again claim a necessary being is required to make sense of moral laws. That is rubbish, for I have already made sense of them. The problems is yours : you have jetissonned from your worldview what is required to understand morality, which makes room for God to fill the gap with his magical powers.
PGA2.0 881[22] Atheism doesn't of course. Science attempts to.Amoranemix 798You are right there.[*] Your system of thought, as an atheist, can't make sense of itself.
[*] I Usually am.
Dude, systems of thought aren't supposed to make sense of themselves.
That again illustrates how you try to deceive people into God-belief. There are no good reasons to believe in God, but there are people desperate enough to be willing to reduce their intelligence enough to accept bad reasons, like the one you just gave. The goal justifies the means.
PGA2.0 OPHuman beings are subjective relative beings in that we do not know all things and constantly revise and change our moral views. Once, not long ago, abortion was considered a moral wrong in America, except when the life of the mother was threatened with certain death, such as with a tubal pregnancy. Now, some even condone the abortion of the unborn right up to the time of birth and beyond by choice, by preference, and they pass laws to accommodate their preferences. Who is right?[23] And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine?[24] Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing.[25] What is good about that?[26] SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint?[27] How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity? An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.[28]Amoranemix 798 to OP[23] Right according to who or what ?You again forgot to mention the reference standard and your question is stupid if using God's morality as reference standard.[*]I have already explained to you before that your question is ambiguous. The problem is that God has nothing to do with it, while your worldview requires God to be in there somewhere.[**] Hence, that part of reality you refuse to learn about. Hence skeptics can learn about parts of reality that are off limits to you.[***]PGA2.0 882Right or correct in the society's evaluation of the moral good?[225] You can have two opposite moral standards (as per the example of abortion) thought of in the same society or culture and hotly contested about the right or correct assessment by subgroups in the culture (pro-choice vs. pro-life). You can have different societies or cultures with opposite views of morality (In some Middle East countries, it is considered wrong to abort, whereas, in the West, anything goes). Logically, can both be right or correct?[226] You imply they can, which defies logic.[*] The reference standard would be an atheistic one because this is a discussion pitting atheism against Christianity to see which is more reasonable. I am asking you to account for morality once you jettison God, as atheism does, in making sense of morality.[227] Please show me your thoughts, as an atheist, can justify morality as good. Take a specific example of dispute (abortion was the example I used) to show me why your position is justifiable.[228]Again, asserting God's standard is stupid does nothing to further your argument.[229][**] And your worldview does not require God, or so you think.[230] Again, that is an ASSUMPTION coming from your atheistic point of view, that God has nothing to do with morality.[231] Without God, you do not have a morality system but a system of preferences (and I have explained my reasons previously).[232] What makes a preference morally good?[233]I keep asking the atheist what is necessary for morality? Can you answer that question?[234][***] You are begging of how we know something such as morality is real.[235] Because I do not adopt from your system of thought, I feel accused of refusing to learn. Learn what? Learn how to think like a drone?[236]What about the parts of reality that are off limited to you?[237]
[225] Stop being evasive. In your abortion example, there are two societies with different moral standards evaluating the morality of abortions. Which society are you asking about ?
[226] Can they both be correct ? That depends about what, which you are ambigous about. In your next paragraph you suggest you mean the atheistic one, hence probably the one in favour of abortion. If society A says : “Abortion is good according to society A's moral standard.” and society B says “Abortion is bad according to society A's moral standard.”, then society A is correct and society B is incorrect. Of course society B is more likely to say : “Abortion is bad according to society B's moral standard.”
Since usually societies don't mention the referenced moral standard, their claims appear contradictory, to the delight of people in need of God-belief.
[227] I don't jettison God and I already have acounted in [10] in post 798. I have provided more detail for human morality in post 1076.
[228] I am pro abortion and pro choice. The problem is that both interests are competing and I have not studied the problem. I am more or less an utilitarianist, so the principled goal IMO should be to maximise well-being.
[229] Again, I have not asserted God's standard is stupid.
In our debate on debate.org you also systematically 'forgot' to mention reference standards. When I accused you of that you denied it and claimed you had said to use God's morality as a reference standard. After you continued 'forgetting' reference standards, I tried assuming you were referring to God's morality. The problem was that that made many of your claims and questions stupid, like you asking my beliefs about God's morality.
[230] That depends for what. My worldview does not allow me to explain everything and I suspect adding God to it would also make some things harder to explain (like the evil in the world), but my worldview is less dependent on God because I don't avoid knowledge to make room for him.
[231] You are mistaken, as you so often are. That God has nothing to do with morality, is not an assumption, but a conclusion. After investigation I can make sense of morality and see that Christians are unable to provide good evidence for God related to morality.
[232] You are mistaken, as usual. You have explained why certain opinions are preferences. You have however not demonstrated they do not constite morality. You have merely CLAIMED they don't.
[233] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question, for you have so far been unable to demonstrate a preferene makes something morally good.
[234] Has no one told you yet ? You should be able to distill the answer from my explanation in post 1076, but the short answer is that moral agents, beings that care about the interests of other beings are required for morality.
[235] You are mistaken, as you so often are, as I am not begging of that.
[236] No, learn about those parts of reality your god needs you to remain ignorant of.
[237] I don't know. What about them ?
-->
@Mopac
I don't know which flavor of ice cream is the most ethical.
Do you think perhaps that sorbet is somewhat more moral than ice-cream because it does not require animal-cruelty?
-->
@3RU7AL
If this is such a moral dilemna for you, perhaps the best thing for your conscience is to simply avoid luxury of frozen treats all together.
-->
@Mopac
If this is such a moral dilemna for you, perhaps the best thing for your conscience is to simply avoid luxury of frozen treats all together.
Don't you think that morality is "universal"?
Shouldn't I destroy all frozen treats in order to save everyone from the temptation to do evil stuff and to end this horrifying moral scourge once and for all?
-->
@3RU7AL
People who wish to have control over others very rarely have control of themselves. We have control over what we do, and what we say.
The way of love is to excercise control over yourself.
-->
@Mopac
The way of love is to excercise control over yourself.
This sounds perfectly reasonable.
Amoranemix 798[24] Better according to who or what ?PGA2.0 882You push qualitative terms around all day. So, your "good" is not the same as what I perceive as good. Who is right/correct/true to what is the real identity of the good?[238]Is the identity of "the good" fixed in your worldview system? If morality is subjective, the question is who is correct and what is morality based upon?
[238] That there is a real identity or meaning of the good is just an ASSUMPTION of your worldview.
If you didn't switch off your brain all the time you would long know that skeptics do not believe there is a real identity for the good and that arguing as if there is, is a good way for going nowhere fast.
In reality the meaning of the word good is not fixed.
Amoranemix 798[25] If I understand correctly, such things don't happen in your fictional worldview. Alas, in the real world they do.PGA2.0 882They happen because people do not look to God or an objective necessary standard as the standard.[240] And again, you paint my worldview as the fictional one (hah). Saying so does not necessarily make it so.[241]They happen in the real world because people reject the absolute and the objective necessary standard and invent their own subjective standards more in line with what they like or are willing to accept. These systems of thought do not work, as I have shown in my abortion debates and in the examples of tyrants.[242]
[240] That is again another ASSUMPTION of yours that stems from your desire to keep God free of any blame. It could well be that people force their views on others because God does not prevent them doing that. Or it could be that these things happen because people do not look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The problem for you is that these other explanations don't suit your goal, God-belief, so you dismiss them out of hand.
[241] You made your worldview fictional.
[242] Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization. You assume without justification that because there are some systems of thought different from yours that do not work – meaning most people, including us, dislike them – that all systems of thought different of yours don't work.
Amoranemix 798[26] Presumably there are people benefitting from that. That is good to those people. Personally, I dislike it.PGA2.0 882Sure, those in control of the masses, like is apparently we are about to be witnessed in the USA under Biden and the Demagogues, I mean Democrats.
Ignoring your stab at the Democrats, we agree that reality sucks. Yet you keep bringing up reality's problems as if that is supposed to demonstrate that atheism is false, somehow.
Amoranemix 798[28] You are mistaken. Have you forgotten how in 2006 Pluto ceased being a Planet because the IAU dislike Pluto being a planet ? Contrary to what you believe, subjective beings can create objective standards.PGA2.0 882I haven't looked into the reason or the standard used. Still, if it was later discovered Pluto did not conform to that (presumed objective) standard after more information was collected, I have nothing critical to say about the determination. But if planets have to meet a particular physical standard and Pluto does not meet that standard, then the scientists were wrong and had to adjust their assessment. The objective is what is the case.
You are mistaken. Pluto did conform to the defintion of a planet, which was a vague standard prior to 2006. Basically, a planet was every celestial body that was agreed to be a planet. (But what if someone disagreed ?) To make it less arbitrary in the face of the discovery of new 'planets', thd the IAU changed the definition of planet, creating a new objective standard, which would result in there being only 8 planets, a number that suited them (i.e. not too high). That objective standard was created by humans.
So, when were the astronomers right ? Before 2006, when they claimed Pluto is a planet or after 2006, when they claim Pluto is a dwarf planet. Pluto has not changed in the mean time.
Amoranemix 798Interesting. Artificial Intelligence professionals ponder morality for their work and they don't see it as something to be discovered, but as something derived from choices, choices Robert Miles calls terminal goals. It is what I call values.PGA2.0 882AI is a program programmed by these professionals. They create this artificial being. Thus, it reflects on their subjective knowledge. Morality requires input by moral beings into these systems.
These goals do not need to be input by a moral being (other than for technical reasons programmers being human). They can in principle be anything, like random or immoral.
Amoranemix 798[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.PGA2.0 878Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with.[215] What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard?[216][Kim Jong-Un's, Adolf Hitler's and Jack the Ripper's alleged standards]Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism: Whatever promotes happiness and well-being for most by avoiding harm is good, depending on how you define well-being, good, and harm.Jesus Christ: THE standard of good is to love others as yourselves and love God.In the first four, the standard is based on personal opinion. Each "good" can mean something different for the person holding the belief. The fourth could be argued as having what is necessary for good: an ultimate, objective, unchanging, omniscient reference point. Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.Facts have an objective identity, a fixed measure; opinions lack an objective that fixed identity since they mean different things to different people.[217]
[215] That is word salad. You probably mean the same bald assertions you made too often already.
[216] I am not comparing good with anything.
In the set of people consisting of the first three and the last, the standard is based on personal opinion. Each "good" can mean something different for the person holding the belief. The fourth can be argued as having what is necessary for good: an ultimate, objective, unchanging, real reference point. Every one of these first three + the last standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.
The last one also has a unique problem : its existence cannot be demonstrated.
[217] If your brain were on you would realize how important it therefore is to demonstrate that your moral views are facts. It must be uncomfortable to have to turn one's brain off repeatedly.
Amoranemix 808I wanted to read past past 125, butthen I was overwhelmed by laziness.PGA2.0 883Please fix your compute program glitch that keeps running words together. I have corrected the errors below (as I did in your last post), but I left the one above as an example.
That is what the forum's parser does with text copied from OpenOffice. Have been correcting manually, which is tedious. The problem does not occur with Notepad, but that text lacks formatting. Wordpad is less bad.
Amoranemix 808PGA deciding what others believe again. Beliefs come with degrees of certainty. That I believe the supermarket to be open today, does not imply I exclude the possibility of it being closed.PGA2.0 883[ . . . ]I'm not excluding reasonable deductions like the supermarket example.[243]If you think by rejecting God/gods, there are other explanations,[244] then present one, and we will take it apart with a closer examination. A closed system looks within itself for the explanation - the naturalistic framework.
[243] That was not a deduction but the denial of a deduction.
[244] A frequent problem with your requests for explanations is that it is not clear what needs to be explained. With a definition of morality provided in post 906, morality could be easily set up by humans. All the objections you have repeated so far are either irrelevant or unsupported.
Amoranemix 808Giving a complete, detailed explanation for most things would be a gargantuan task. Also, assuming atheism, no one can be expected to have the required knowledge.PGA2.0 883I'm after a brief outline that I can work on critiquing how morality emerges from it.[245] I'm looking for a justification of atheism as reasonable. I have explained why theism is reasonable.[246]
[245] If you are presented such an outline, you will exploit to ask how (sometimes disguised as why) questions until you can catch your opponent with an inacurracy or an admission he does not know, which you will then wave as a trophy. What you do not do is validly draw a relevant conclusion from it. For that comparison would be required, e.g. what 'God speaking' exactly entails (the mechanism) and how that generates (the mechanism) kinds of animals.
In the mean time I have presented such an outline in [10] in post 798 and have provided more detail in post 1076.
[246] I must have missed that explanation. Could you point me to it ?
Amoranemix 808We more or less did the same. Your strawman of my worldview was terrible, but less bad than your worldview. So presumably SkepticalOne's worldview is also less bad.PGA2.0 883Describe how it is terrible. I have no idea what you are referencing. Be specific. More assertions without proof.[247] I am questioning how morality makes sense of itself by getting to its origins, the root causes. Take the causal tree back to what is necessary.
I don't remember all the reasons why your straw man of my worldview was terrible. One of the problems was that according to it two things could both right and wrong at the same time and in the same sense.
[247] The whole thread is the evidence, but one post with a pertinent fraction is #895 in www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/57072/30/.
BTW, you are the king of bald assertions : you keep repeating them after having been asked and been unable to demonstrate them.
PGA2.0 883Is your thought system, atheism, one in which naturalism and materialism are used as the explanation? [248]Do atheists deny God either by stating there is no evidence He exists or excluding Him from any plausible explanation? [249]How do conscious moral beings arise from non-conscious non-beings, the organic from the inorganic? [250]How do you counter the is/ought dilemma as proposed by Hume? [251]How is your subjective framework objective in determining the good? [252]What is fixed about your system of morality? [253]Does it have what is necessary for morality,[254] and how do you describe objective - true to what is the case, or some framework that people say is objective because they like it?[255]
[248] Atheism is not my system of thought and nature is the explanation for most things.
[249] That varies from atheist to atheist. For me it is lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary.
[250] Organic molecules are prevalent in the galaxy. I am confident you can look up what chemical processes could have produced them. For example, learn how tholins are formed on Titan : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholin#Formation
Consciousness arises from neural networks, which are useful for decision-making, i.e. answer the question “what should I do next ?” The better the decision an organism makes, the better its chances of passing on its genes.
[251] I don't.
[252] Is it objective in determining the good ?
[253] It will always be dependent on me.
[254] That is an ambiguous question, but I suspect the answser is no. The universe on the other hand, does.
[ . . . ]
-->
@ethang5
@PGA2.0
[255] Neither of what you propose. According to dictionary.com it means : 'not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased'
FLRW 822As you can see from above, morality is a product of evolution.PGA2.0 886I did not read the article. I responded to your comments. My time is limited at the moment.Again, a particular response is generated by the environment and human or animal conditioning. So what?[256] What is good or bad about that?[257] Cooperation is only desirable when food is in abundant supply or a mutual hunt will benefit all parties concerned.[258] When there is just enough (negative response) for one particular member to survive, then what?[259] The other thing is that human "experimenters" rig a system for a particular outcome. The animal learns quickly what is required for it to eat or survive.[260]
[256] So we have a practical explanation for morality, based on reality. Some people actually post on topic stuff. Not everyone is embarrassed about their worldview.
[257] You forgot to mention the reference standard, as usual. Coöperation can be good by allowing the survival more individuals than would be otherwise possible.
[258] You are mistaken. Coöperation may make available resources that otherwise would not be. That is typical for group predators, who can tackle different (usually larger) prey than they could alone.
[259] Then the species is in danger of extinction. Probably selfishness will dominate, usually favouring the strongest.
[260] That is SPECULATION of your part. In such experiments the animals are rarely endangered or starved.
Notice again that it someone with a reality-based worldview who is teaching someone with a god-based wordview, not the other way round.
Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0A problem is not all theists believe in the same god. So God changes depending on who your are talking to. Can one really know a fictional being that keeps changing ?Do those who reject Hulk really know him ? Is he green or grey ?Do those who reject Tarzan really know him ? When was Tarzan born ?[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.
Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0Why do you keep claiming the only alternative to a personal deity is blind random chance happenstance ?[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0Atheism is not a worldview, so why would it need to pass a test for worldviews ?I must have asked you a dozen times whether you could prove that atheists keep borrowing from the the Christian framework. As many times you have admitted that you can't. My worldview allows me to explain why you can't prove that claim. How about yours ?[no response]
Maybe you can answer life's fundamental questions with speculation, but you can't explain your own inabilties, while my worldview allows me to explain those.
PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7ALA preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing?[31] They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right?[32] That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.Amoranemix 844[31] That would depend on the preference. For example, a preference of icecream over horse manure could be a survival necessity.PGA2.0 895You are again equivocating, confusing two different things.One is a logical statement about survival (or what will kill you), the other about what you like to eat."'A' is right" is a moral statement. It makes a statement about an intrinsic moral value, about something that ought to be done."'A' tastes good" is subjective like and feelings. It makes a statement about what someone likes to eat.[more explanation]
You are mistaken, for I did not equivocate these things. I also was already aware of a difference between morality and tastes before your explanation and I have not mentioned the former, as a survival necessity is neither.
Your paraphrase of Greg Koulke says : “The [objective moral value statement] truth depends on you discovering it, not making it.”
So far the only way to discovering that truth has been by making it. How ? Create an objective moral standard and then discover what it says.
So, I have answered your question. Then what ? Then nothing apparently. It was just another distraction.
Amoranemix 844[32] Personally, I don't think it does. Do you think otherwise ?PGA2.0 895Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.Personally? Don't think? Please notice again; you are making it subjective to your opinion (a preference). Why should I value it if it is not objectively so, universally applying to all, the actual case? Are your thoughts so valuable that I SHOULD believe them?[261][more paraphrising Greg Koulke, criticising relativsm and accusing me of relativism]Very well said by him, and I encourage you to check out the entire article!
[261] Dude, you are the one claiming your opinion is the truth and is without justification for doing so. That others try to impose their personal opinions on you, specifically the one you asked about, is an unsupported ASSUMPTION of yours.
If you believe that tasting ice-cream is morally right, then we can debate that somewhere else, although I admit it does not seem to be an exciting topic.
In our society, we have a name for these people; they are a homicide detective's worst nightmare. The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience. This is what relativism produces.
If that is true, then few people are nor would consider themselves relativists. That is odd, as you have been calling posters moral relativists, even me. That seems to be another inconsistency in your worldview.
If what Grek Koulke wrote is true (and I am not claiming it is), then your promotion of his article can be considered an ad hominem attack.
PGA2.0 287I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place. Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children.Amoranemix 897Why would God need to restore the children to a better place ? Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.ethang5 898This is an incorrect statement in that God will NOT do "whatever". The statement implies,Anything God does is good and just according to his own standard.This statement is untrue, and not the position of the bible. The bible's position is, because all of God's actions are morally good, there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.Citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard."
First, claiming actions that God cannot do seems at odds with God's alleged omnipotence.
Second, God's actions being morally good does not a priori place a limitation on God's actions, since we lack an objective measure for what actions are morally good. If morally good actions are those actions done by God, then he could still do anything he wants, as the only action he could not do would those he does not do. Hence, if morally good is some aspect of his nature, then he could still not restore killed children if it is not in his nature to do so.
So from a Christian perspective, assuming the latter definition, whatever the Bible says on the topic, it should not be a problem, as God would merely be acting in according with his nature, which by definition would be good.
PGA2.0 80In Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33] All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34] So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society.[35] It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.Amoranemix 844[33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis. Your god also didn't do anything to prevent it.PGA2.0 905So, what you are saying with "according to you or me" is a big fat maybe. Maybe it is wrong for us, but it is not wrong for the Nazis.[262]You: The killing of Jews by the Nazis is wrong [according to my moral standard].Nazis: The killing of the Jews is right [according to Nazi moral standard].Your relativism says there is no true moral identity.[263] (A=A) You say for some A=B, C, D..., but never A=A.[264] So, it is perfectly permissible for the Nazis to torture and to kill innocent human beings (the Jews) — each to their own.[265] Thus, you can never say torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you don't like it.[266] I would be preventing you from accessing my loved ones if you could not tell the difference between a moral right and a moral preference. All you display in your conversations is a preference.You are a moral relativist, totally uncommitted to the truth. You make up the truth. It ain't true until you say it is true. The problem is your system of thought is unlivable. It not only does not pass the logical, consistent test, but it also fails the experiential and practical test.[267] As soon as someone turns the tables on you and makes you and your family the innocent scapegoat, the ones about to be killed, then you know it is wrong.[280]
[262] Actually, the maybe is not fat, but slim. I was being euphemistic.
'Wrong for' is ambiguous. It could refer to the agent being evaluated rather than the agent's morality, making all your 'wrong for' claims and questions ambiguous, thereby promoting confusion (the skeptic's enemy).
[263] Not really, since according to you I am not a relativist and I am not clear on what a true moral identity is supposed to be, but I suspect you mean with it something that does not exist. You are of course free to prove its existence.
[264] That seems incorrect. I probably have once said that A=A. In case I haven't : A = A.
[265] Assuming what you say is true (and I am not claiming it is), then you must be referring to the Nazis' moral standard.
[266] That is easy to refute : Torturing little children for fun is wrong.
Why is it that you cannot present a coherent argument, one not plagued with problems ?
[267] Which of those 7 preceding claims can your prove ?
[280] Claim 8 is ambiguous, but it could be correct.
-->
@Amoranemix
Notice again that it someone with a reality-based worldview who is teaching someone with a god-based wordview, not the other way round.
Would you be that person teaching others?
So God changes depending on who your are talking to.
You think the reality of God changes by peoples opinion? I bet you don't say the same thing for evolution or the constitution. So at least you're half logical.
Atheism is not a worldview, so why would it need to pass a test for worldviews ?
Atheism CAN BE a worldview, and often is. It needs to be justified by those who hold it as a worldview.
So far the only way to discovering that truth has been by making it. How ? Create an objective moral standard and then discover what it says.
So far in the insane world. This is utter gibberish.
First, claiming actions that God cannot do seems at odds with God's alleged omnipotence.
And citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard." Please stay on topic.
Second, God's actions being morally good does not a priori place a limitation on God's actions, since we lack an objective measure for what actions are morally good.
It is God Himself who places limits on His actions. Your incorrect statement assumes God sets no limits. And Christians do have an objective standard for what is morally good, you don't.
If morally good actions are those actions done by God, then he could still do anything he wants, as the only action he could not do would those he does not do. Hence, if morally good is some aspect of his nature, then he could still not restore killed children if it is not in his nature to do so.
This comment did not stay long enough in your oven and came out half-baked.
So from a Christian perspective, assuming the latter definition, whatever the Bible says on the topic, it should not be a problem, as God would merely be acting in according with his nature, which by definition would be good.
Which means something definite, not what you want it to mean, that ANY action can be included. Logic is required here.
That is easy to refute : Torturing little children for fun is wrong.
Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong? I don't think you do. Torturing little children for fun cannot be wrong simply because YOU think it is.
You have not presented a coherent argument, one not plagued with problems. I want logic, not opinions.
-->
@ethang5
Atheism CAN BE a worldview, and often is.
ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "NOT-Hinduism" is a "worldview".
-->
@ethang5
And Christians do have an objective standard for what is morally good,
Can you please share this "objective standard" with the public?
-->
@ethang5
Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong?
Yes, it's written in a book.
79 posts behind. Help. This is going to take a while.
-->
@PGA2.0
Amoranemix 844[34] So, if society A claims that strawberry icecream is the tastiest, while society B claims chocolate icecream is the tastiest, then who is right ? They can't both be right. At least one belief has to be wrong. In order to determine who is right, which icecream really is the tastiest, a personal being who has revealed himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable and eternal would be necessary to determine what is tasty because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the tasty' (since there is a best). Correct ?Then we could ask that being and if it were to grace us with an answer we would know which icecream really is the tastiest. Otherwise the Nazis could come to power and decide that mokka icecream is the tastiest.[*]PGA2.0 905You confuse and conflate categories. You make a categorical error in thinking.[281] You confuse something that tastes good (ice-cream) with something that is morally evil (killing innocent human beings). You are switching what a quality is (the moral good/evil) with what a quantity is (taste of the ice-cream). One set of values are physical, tangible objects (how many, what shape, what do they feel like); the other, intangible mental objects or concepts of the mind. One set, the tangible, describes. The other set prescribes what should be.[Wikipedia about category error]You are using your five senses in 'tasting' the ice-cream, the sense of taste.You can't use the five senses in determining 'good,' for it is not a physical object like ice-cream.[282] You cannot taste, hear, see, feel, or smell 'good."[283] It is an abstract, intangible, non-concrete, non-physical concept. Thus, the comparison between taste and morality does not work in the examples given.[284][*] [ . . . ]Morality is of the mind, but without an objective, an absolute, universal, omniscient, unchanging reference point - God - answer me why your moral pronouncements are any BETTER than my opposing views.
[281] You are mistaken, as you so often are. I was only talking about one category, namely the category of tastyness. In my reasoning (yours applied to taste), contrary to what you suggest, I have not even mentioned or implied something morally or depended on something being morally evil. So I could not be confusing with it. For clarity, with 'right', I did not mean 'morally right', but 'correct'.
So in stead of finding real problems in the reasoning (which exist), you invent a problem and explain something I already know.
[282] Tastyness is not purely physical either. It is a sensory perception (taste) + the appreciation.
[283] I can. If were to see raping children for fun, I would see something morally wrong.
[284] Why is that ? What does tangibility, concreteness or physicality have to do with that ? The reasoning does not appear to rely on or assume tastyness to be abstract, intangible, non-concrete or non-physical. Clearly and concretely explain how that is a problem in your reasoning applied to tastyness.
[*] Tastyness is of the mind, but without an objective, an absolute, universal, omniscient, unchanging reference point - God - answer me why your tastyness pronouncements are any BETTER than my opposing views.
To be honest, tastyness is not the ideal qualitative property for parodying. Fortunately, we have other parodies running as well.
Amoranemix 844[35] You are mistaken. Language is conventional. Societies decide the meaning of words, including the words good and tasty. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion surrounding the meanings of the word good. Some people grab the opportunity to claim that that confusion can only be removed with God.PGA2.0 905Different conventions have equivalencies. Those equivalencies do not mean the opposite. The words used have the same or very similar meanings. Yes, sometimes cultures have additional nuances built into the word.While a particular culture can provide a meaning different from the overall understood meaning and have more elaborate additional interpretations, it would be impossible to communicate if the language barriers did not have equivalencies. Similarly, I know that in some parts of the world, the French word 'oui' can take slightly different pronunciations. However, the word still means the same thing (yes), and it is understood that when you are in Mauritius, the sound is not quite the same as in Paris, but the meaning is the same.
There are three flaws in your argumentation :
1) With equivalency you appear to mean that a concept has a term in different languages, be it with slightly different meanings. However, that does not prevent a culture within a language from choosing whatever meaning they want.
2) You complained that without God good could mean anything and that would defy the law of identity. I agree that could happen, but that it would not defy the law of identity when different conventions are being used. You object that words do not change much from culture to culture. So what ? They could, which is what you keep complaining about, but in practice indeed, moralities of societies are similar.
3) You are missing that the meaning of words can be strongly dependent on context. For example, the meaning of the word 'I' varies strongly with who is using it. The example of 'sun' is also being discussed. What the correct side of the road is to drive on, depends on where one is. Whether Barbara Streisand is beautiful, depends on the referenced beauty standard. Hence, a different circumstance, even merely a different speaker, can make a word mean something drastically different.
PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7ALWell bring up your objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I am wiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you have avoided yet another question I posted.Amoranemix 844That reminds me of someone I have debated on DDO. ;)PGA2.0 906Your posts got tedious because you showed a particular closed mindset, and you never corrected your run together words. I have to edit every post of yours. There must be something wrong with your copy and paste feature. I would consider a formal debate with you on some of these topics.
I expected your excuses would be lame, but not that lame.
I am closed to fictional worldviews, but that is not particular at all. Most people are closed to most fictional worldviews, even you, but some make an exception for one in particular.
That spaces have vanished without me correcting that in this thread is supposed to pass as an excuse for having ignored hundreds of questions long before in a different thread on another forum ?
I understand the real reason is too embarrassing to admit.
3RU7AL should have an easy task coming up with less lame excuses for having ignored far fewer of your questions.
On top of that, I also had lame excuses for forgetting to answer your questions, and yet I did not forget to do so.
On debate.org I invited you a few times to honour your burden of proof in a formal debate, but you systematically declined for some reason.
PGA2.0 80I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference.[36] Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37] Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38]Amoranemix 844You assume that something can be actually good without being a preference. Can you prove that is even possible ?PGA2.0 906I have already given you a reasonable proof. You keep glossing over it. The laws of logic, the law of contradiction, identity, and middle exclusion. They are necessary, or else the value loses its meaning. It can mean anything, the opposite thing to different people.
You, prove a claim ? That is extraordinary! I didn't know that was possible. I have apparently missed that proof, so could you please point me to it ?
Amoranemix 844[37] In other words, it's a preference.PGA2.0 906A preference is a personal, subjective like or want.[285] Because I like something does not mean you have to like it too. Moral good is something that, whether you like it or not, that does not change its value. You should do what is good regardless of whether you want to or like doing so or not.[286]You should like ice-cream. There is no moral compulsion or obligation to like ice-cream.You should like killing innocent human beings. There are moral compulsion and obligation not to kill innocent human beings.What you do is blur the line between the two.[287]
[285] You are mistaken, for a preference can also be held by a society or organisation. For example, the state can decree what should and should not be done in legislation. That represents the state's preference, often taking into account other preferences, like those of the population or pressure groups.
Can you imagine something good that is no one's preference ?
[286] What is good according to you, i.e. your preference, should be done, i.e. you prefer it to be done, according you. It may not be morally good to someone else.
[287] I am sure you would like that. Alas, it is not m duty to cater to your desires. So I will keep the line between the two as sharp as it needs to be.
It boils dawn to the proof you allegedly have hidden somewhere, that something can be good without being anyone's preference. So far, we only have your assertion that it has been proven.
PGA2.0 906What does 'iso' mean?[288] A moral standard identifies the difference between right and wrong.[289] If there are two different moral standards, it begs, which is the correct one.[290] If a person lived on the border between two countries and was a citizen of both, and each had an opposing moral standard, how would they determine the right?[291]Country A: Abortion is wrong and punishable by death.Country B: Abortion is right. Feel free to have one.Which is the correct standard? In Country A, the person will lose their life by having one. In Country B, the person takes the life of an innocent human being with no consequences. Are you saying it is okay for them to do either or both?[292] You see, abortion has lost its moral identity.[293] It can mean two opposite things, thus how can they both be right?[294] Once the line is blurred on right and wrong, anything can pass. The question is, can you live consistently in such a world?[295]Not only that but within a particular society, say Country A, subgroups and individuals are holding contrary views to the "law of the land." Why are they wrong if a preference is the order of the day?[296] No, you say. Then how can they be punished if they believe the opposite?[297] (Goodbye justice)Is the majority always in the right?[298]Is it the minority who holds power? Are they right?[299] If so, then how could anyone outside Nazi Germany condemn what the Nazis did?[300] It would be good to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political opposition in Nazi Germany. How can you say otherwise?[301] To each (preference) his/her own
[288] My mistake. That should be i.s.o. which stands for in stead of.
[289] Actually, in conjunction with language, it defines moral, immoral and derivative words.
[290] No, it does not beg that question. Not everyone shares your ignorance. Nonetheless luxolfx3 has answered it in post 797.
[291] It is your hypothetical situation, so it is up to you to fill in the details to make the question answerable. The question would remain irrelevant though, as however one would do that (and you disapproving of it) would not constitute evidence for God.
The rest of your rebuttal ASSUMES that a moral standard is either correct or incorrect.
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "NOT-Hinduism" is a "worldview".
ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "Hinduism" is a "worldview".
Can you please share this "objective standard" with the public?
I have before. If you wish to discuss it, make a thread.
Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong?
Yes, it's written in a book.
I doubt Amoranemix, who that question was for, would have answered that stupidly.
-->
@ethang5
Yes, it's written in a book.I doubt Amoranemix, who that question was for, would have answered that stupidly.
Isn't your "objective" perfect moral standard perfect and moral and "objective" because it just happens to be written in a book?
-->
@ethang5
ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "Hinduism" is a "worldview".
Hinduism is not defined by a LACK-of-belief in "YHWH" (even though it does not include a belief in "YHWH").
-->
@ethang5
Can you please share this "objective standard" with the public?I have before. If you wish to discuss it, make a thread.Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong?
Bold enough to make a claim.
Not bold enough to validate that claim.
Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simple.
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't your "objective" perfect moral standard perfect and moral and "objective" because it just happens to be written in a book?
No. I can't take you seriously when you say such inane things.
Hinduism is not defined by a LACK-of-belief in "YHWH" (even though it does not include a belief in "YHWH").
However it is defined, "Hinduism" is a "worldview" in exactly the same way ATHEISM is a "worldview".
Bold enough to make a claim. Not bold enough to validate that claim.
Did you really think this clumsy gradeschool taunt would goad me into doing what you want?
Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simple
I know. I did not say it did.
-->
@ethang5
However it is defined, "Hinduism" is a "worldview" in exactly the same way ATHEISM is a "worldview".
There is no ATHEIST handbook.
There is no ATHEIST tradition.
There is no ATHEIST clergy.
And by the technical definition, if you lack-belief in ANY "god($)" you can be described as an ATHIEST.
If you don't happen to believe in ZEUS for example, you could technically be described as an ATHEIST.
Of course, nobody is under any OBLIGATION to describe themselves as an ATHEIST, regardless of what they might or might not happen to believe.
-->
@ethang5
Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simpleI know. I did not say it did.
Well, case closed.
-->
@3RU7AL
However it is defined, "Hinduism" is a "worldview" in exactly the same way ATHEISM is a "worldview".
There is no ATHEIST handbook.
So? Worldviews don't have handbooks.
There is no ATHEIST tradition.
Yet every atheist here will quote atheist comments of our founding fathers if you tell them that America's tradition is Christian.
There is no ATHEIST clergy.
Sure there are. You guys quote them all the time. Is not your holy book "The God Delusion"?
And by the technical definition, if you lack-belief in ANY "god($)" you can be described as an ATHIEST.
Lol. Route 66 is an atheist.
If you don't happen to believe in ZEUS for example, you could technically be described as an ATHEIST.
Or a westward highway.
Of course, nobody is under any OBLIGATION to describe themselves as an ATHEIST, regardless of what they might or might not happen to believe.
Just like Hindus!
Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simple
I know. I did not say it did.
Well, case closed.
Lol! It's been closed a lot longer than you know.
-->
@ethang5
There is no ATHEIST clergy.Sure there are. You guys quote them all the time. Is not your holy book "The God Delusion"?
I've never heard of it.