Atheists can't do good as Atheists.

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#61
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, good and evil are subjective and change over time. Sorry, that's just the way life is. It was at one time viewed as moral to sell your duaghter into se slavery, in the Old TEstament. Now it isn't. If morality didn't change, then that would still be going on all over the world. Why exactly do I need an absolute morality, again? Is it impossible to understand morality through the lens of the society and time in which I live? Yes, I understand that it changes this way, but that's good. At one point, it was moral to shun gay people, for example. Are we not glad that changed?
so true. they change over time. So why would you make a judgment statement about me saying I am not good?  What is good today won't be good tomorrow.  Gay people might have been shunned in the past - and they might well be shunned in the future.  Is that good or bad?  

Absolute morality means that some things are evil no matter what. It will always be evil to have sex with a 1 month old baby.  This is an absolute truth of morality. It will always be wrong to rape someone.  Absolute morality.  It will always be wrong for states to legislate unconditional abortion.  It will always be wrong to be an atheist.  Moral absolutes.  They exist. It is not relative. It is not an opinion. 

When morality becomes arbitrary - Hitler takes over the world and thinks it is right to kill Jews.   And if good is subjective - why not?   This is the dilemma for moral relativists. For Atheists in general.  They want their cake and they want to eat it as well.   
#62
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@ludofl3x


.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,


YOUR MEANINGLESS QUOTE TO HIDE FROM YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY AS SHOWN BY LUDOFL3X: "That is quite ironic - Brother, given you are the most arbitrary and irrational person on this site and have no understanding of basic logic or reason. "

Your little girly boy platitude quote above is duly noted, but you were still easily "schooled" by ludofl3x on the topics you were discussing, just like when I easily "school you" ad infinitum upon your complete Bible ignorance and stupidity, where they are on- in-the-same at your expense!

Can you tell the forum if there are any updates upon you getting rid of your SEXUAL DEVIANCY that you actually admit too, and that Jesus despises 100 percent, and yet you still want to call yourself a Christian? ROFLOL!!!!!

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE TRADESECRET THAT WANTS TO REMOVE ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER WILL BE ... ?

.
Topic's author
#63
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sorry Brother,

I was not schooled. I simply revealed the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the atheist. When the Atheist says they can be good - it is not because they are an atheist - it is because they hold to a worldview which is NOT atheism.  Not one person disagreed with that premise.  

Ludo tried to trip me up by saying that if I suddenly realised God did not exist - would I still do good. I said - If I knew irrefutably that God did not exist then I would do things differently.  I indicated that I would live life according to things that would make me personally happy in a universe where I was god. This would remove such things as having rules control me.  For me there would no final arbitrator of the things I do on earth - except me.  That changes everything.  

I also demonstrated that when Ludo says he would do good because it was the right thing to do - was nonsense.  It is as arbitrary a thought process as many others.  To do good - is subjective.  And "because it is the right thing" is subjective.  Who determines what is the right thing? Who determines what good is? Unless there are absolutes, then these things ARE arbitrary by definition. That is the meaning of subjective.  

Hitler thought he was doing good - by exterminating the Jews.  And why did he do this good? Because he thought it was the right thing to do.  Subjective good and right is ARBITRARY. Nobody on this site actually attempted to refute that. 

Atheists are by DEFINITION arbitrary and irrational.  They don't actually comprehend the nature of this because it is too difficult to actually think about.  I don't think you actually have the capacity to 1. either understand this - and 2. refute it. 
#64
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,


YOUR REVEALING QUOTE, NO PUN INTENDED:  "I indicated that I would live life according to things that would make me personally happy in a universe where I was god."

Would your quote stating; "that would make me personally happy" shown above include your continued and admitted  SEXUAL DEVIANCY that goes directly against Jesus' true words within the scriptures as shown in this link herein:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316-the-meaning-of-death?page=8&post_number=188

TRADESECRET, YOU ARE BEYOND ANY DOUBT, THAT YOU ARE THE MOST DESPICABLE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN UPON THIS RELIGION FORUM, BAR NONE!

.



Topic's author
#65
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Would your quote stating; "that would make me personally happy" shown above include SEXUAL DEVIANCY 
I deleted your lies and continued fake stupidity about any such alleged confessions.  You are the sexual deviant - not me and you do confess it on your profile page. 

As for the hypothetical situation that God does not exist - why would there be any rules or cares about what anyone does in that situation? You still have not answered that.  You have not produced any valid reason why it would matter to me.  Are you even going to try or do I take this ANOTHER concession that you are irrational and arbitrary?  That seems to be about a dozen by now. 

A social contact is nonsense. Social Contracts exist only to ensure the protection of the individual who is not the strongest has an opportunity to negotiate to live together. Again it only works - if people agree to it - and it can be enforced. But it does not prevent people doing what they like so far as they don't get caught. The rule of the majority is nonsense.  Why should the majority of people in any society determine what is right and what is good? Especially when we know they can get it wrong.  The French for hundreds of years refused to think the people could get it wrong - but finally had to change their tune in the early 2000s because others were introducing irrefutable evidence they were wrong. The natural law of Plato is nonsense. There are no absolutes - just whatever makes me happy, is important. 

When our world  becomes totally subjective. And that is logical conclusion and the inescapable position of there being no god.   I am still waiting for someone - anyone to refute this.     Saying there are humanist worldviews - does not produce a standard and agreed definition of good. Saying it changes over time does not assist either.  Arbitrary understandings of good or "the right thing" simply don't cut it.  

Hey Brother - surely it is time you manned up - and tried to address the question. I think you continue to avoid - because you don't have an answer.  

So sexual deviancy in a world where God does not exist - also does not exist.   People can do whatever they want - to whomever they want - and so far as they don't get caught or there are no laws preventing them to do that - it if makes them feel happy, why not? 

This is the consistent and logical and inevitable and inescapable problem that atheists have. In a world where there is no final accountability except for death, what else would be expected?  People don't do good things for the sake of doing the right thing - unless they borrow from a worldview which insists that they should.   Atheism - it seems is a doctrine.  Perhaps it is a doctrine of humanism.  Perhaps it is not. It is a standalone doctrine which is not related to anything in life - because ultimately it is a doctrine of death.   It's ultimate intent is no law.  The existence of God is about rules. It is about law. It is about principles. It is about logic. It is about justice. It is about righteousness. It is about goodness.   It is about life.  

You have nothing. 


#66
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I also demonstrated that when Ludo says he would do good because it was the right thing to do - was nonsense.  It is as arbitrary a thought process as many others.  To do good - is subjective.  And "because it is the right thing" is subjective.  Who determines what is the right thing? Who determines what good is? Unless there are absolutes, then these things ARE arbitrary by definition. That is the meaning of subjective.  

Uh, I never disagreed that these things are subjective. I determine it, for me, in the moment. I determine what I think good is, then I act accordingly. Sometimes I'm wrong, most times I'm right. It's arbitrary but many, many, many people agree that it's 'good' to hold a door for an old woman. I don't need to check with Jesus. 

When our world  becomes totally subjective. And that is logical conclusion and the inescapable position of there being no god.   I am still waiting for someone - anyone to refute this.     Saying there are humanist worldviews - does not produce a standard and agreed definition of good. Saying it changes over time does not assist either.  Arbitrary understandings of good or "the right thing" simply don't cut it.  
What exactly is your objection to an entirely subjective view of morality or good? Saying "doesn't cut it" doesn't explain why. On the other hand, if 'objective good' is just code for god, then something is either ALWAYS good or NEVER good. Of course you're going to say it's never good to have sex with a one month old baby (about the straw-iest straw man there ever was), but was it ever "good" to have sex with your dad? Is it ever good to stone a woman in the streets? 
#67
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
What exactly is your objection to an entirely subjective view of morality or good?
The fact that the concept of it makes no sense at all.
#68
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
How so? Is this the "because your good and my good will never match, therefore what HItler did was fine because he thought it was" straw man?
#69
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
How so? Is this the "because your good and my good will never match, therefore what HItler did was fine because he thought it was" straw man?
How is it a straw man? Unless you and I have different views pertaining to subjective morality, care to explain yours?
#70
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Sure. My view is that morality is indeed subjective, and what's moral and immoral is actually determined by the society in which you live, and the time in which you're living. For example, it was one time considered moral to own slaves. It was at one time considered moral to raze your enemy's villages or cities to the ground.  It's sometimes considered moral to kill an unarmed person, sometimes it isn't. It's subjective. Who determines it? Society. When you run afoul of it, you're cast out or punished either socially or legally or both. In almost all cases, people disagree on what's moral, and you're free to make your case to change minds in most civilized nations (MLK, for example) and majority rules. Why is an "objective" morality, i.e. one that is not subject to interpretation, required?

It's a straw man because normally this is the argument, "you don't know what moral is for certain therefore you cannot say it was immoral for Hitler to kill so many jews, and if you do, you admit my god's real be default." No one on my side (subjective morality) makes the argument you guys knock down. 
#71
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
It's sometimes considered moral to kill an unarmed person, sometimes it isn't.
That inconsistency is exactly why I said the concept makes no sense.
#72
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,577
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Is morality is subjective or objective?

The first thing to understand is that there is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is necessarily subjective. Here's why: All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand.

#73
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand.
And what are those individual value judgements based on?
#74
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,577
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tarik
I propose that the moral evaluation of actions emerges from human rationality, or, in Darwin’s terms, from our highly developed intellectual powers. Our high intelligence allows us to anticipate the consequences of our actions with respect to other people and, thus, to judge these actions as good or evil in terms of their consequences for others. But I also propose that the norms according to which we decide which actions are good and which actions are evil are largely culturally determined, although conditioned by biological predispositions.
The first proposition advanced, fully consistent with Darwin’s ideas, is that humans, because of their high intellectual powers, are necessarily inclined to make moral judgments and to accept ethical values, that is, to evaluate certain kinds of actions as either right or wrong. The claim made is that moral behavior is a necessary outcome of the biological makeup of humans, a product of their evolution. It is the exalted degree of rationality that we humans have achieved that makes us moral beings. Humans are Homo moralis because they are Homo rationalis.
#75
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand.
But individuals have different value judgements and if that’s what your idea of morality is then it’s inconsistent and doesn’t make sense.
#76
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Can you explain why it doesn't make sense, and how an 'objective' and single definition of 'good' solves this problem?
#77
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
I already told you, because it’s inconsistent.
#78
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Inconsistent WITH WHAT, according to whom? And how does objective morality solve the problem? How is it applied?
#79
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Inconsistent WITH WHAT, according to whom?
Society
#80
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Just say "I don't know what I'm arguing at all, I've heard this from others and never bothered to put any thought into it on my own" then.  How lazy can you be? 

Is subjective morality inconsistent with SOCIETY, according to SOCIETY? 

What problem does objective morality SOLVE in practical terms? What moral questions does it answer? 

Here's another way to try it. Is it ever moral to kill someone? Christians refer to the Ten COmmandments often, and the commandment says plainly thou shalt not kill. This commandment was given, according to the legend, directly by what many Christians point to as the font of morality, god himself. There's no interpretation to it. So is it ever moral to kill another person?
#81
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
So is it ever moral to kill another person?
No, but there are instances one can argue that it’s justified.
#82
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
What's the difference between justified (right thing to do under the circumstances) and moral?

A man mercilessly beats his wife until she's finally had enough and defends herself by killing him. Is her action immoral? 
#83
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
defends herself by killing him.
There’s other ways to defend yourself without killing so although I wouldn’t call her action immoral I wouldn’t call it moral either, it’s more indifferent.
#84
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Talk about wishy washy. You just don't like that you now demonstrate subjective morality is the only actual version of morality that makes any sense. 
#85
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
What are you talking about?
#86
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
But what is a conscience?
It is that little voice inside that makes you feel like shit when you've made someone else feel like shit. Disharmony.

Is it material or immaterial? 
Everything is immaterial.

Is it part of the soul or part of the brain?
I am not sure what a soul is. I suspect it must have something to do with consciousness and how that is heirarchichally set up. 

Is the brain the mind? 
Maybe. I think the brain is a limiter of consciousness. It's what breaks off a seperate consciuosness from a larger one (ultimately, God).

Do Atheist's have a conscience?
Yes of course. They are human.

How did it evolve? 
I don't know. I am not sure that things evolve. They might. I am open minded about it.
Topic's author
#87
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@janesix
But what is a conscience?
It is that little voice inside that makes you feel like shit when you've made someone else feel like shit. Disharmony.
What is this little voice?  And why does it make you feel so bad? 


Is it material or immaterial? 
Everything is immaterial.
I am not immaterial. I exist in the here and now. 


Is it part of the soul or part of the brain?
I am not sure what a soul is. I suspect it must have something to do with consciousness and how that is heirarchichally set up. 
Ok,  Are you suggesting the soul has something to do with the consciousness? What do you mean hierarchically set up?  

Is the brain the mind? 
Maybe. I think the brain is a limiter of consciousness. It's what breaks off a seperate consciuosness from a larger one (ultimately, God).
How does the brain limit the consciousness?  I don't understand. Are you hindu? 


Do Atheist's have a conscience?
Yes of course. They are human.
I reckon many would dispute that they are human. I think they are just apes in human skin. 


How did it evolve? 
I don't know. I am not sure that things evolve. They might. I am open minded about it.
Do you believe in special creation then?
#88
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
If something is justifiable by circumstance, as in the example I gave, then you are applying the moral prohibition against killing another person SUBJECTIVELY. Objectively, killing is either moral or immoral and no justification is possible. 
#89
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Objectively, killing is either moral or immoral and no justification is possible.
There is if there’s an afterlife that justifies according to circumstance.
#90
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,577
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tarik
General anesthesia is a combination of medications that put you in a sleep-like state before a surgery or other medical procedure. Under general anesthesia, you don't feel pain because you're completely unconscious. This proves that there is no afterlife as the anesthesia should not be able to affect a soul.