Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,169
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
How can both standards be moral if they conflict?
First off, the standard is the very thing you are using to judge actions against, so claiming a standard is itself moral is incoherent. If it’s being judged against anything else then it is not your standard.

Second, I never said conflicting standards could both be moral. I’m pointing out that each system is moral to the individual using it, which is what a disagreement is. This is why morality will always be subjective, because no matter what your standard is you still had to choose that standard and anyone else can simply choose a different one. There is no resolution to this. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
How can both standards be moral if they conflict?
First off, the standard is the very thing you are using to judge actions against, so claiming a standard is itself moral is incoherent. If it’s being judged against anything else then it is not your standard.

Second, I never said conflicting standards could both be moral. I’m pointing out that each system is moral to the individual using it, which is what a disagreement is. This is why morality will always be subjective, because no matter what your standard is you still had to choose that standard and anyone else can simply choose a different one. There is no resolution to this. 
ok, some countries have 20 year copyright protections

some countries have 100 year copyright protections

how do we tell which one is "moral" and which one is "immoral" ?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
immoral people still have regrets and can feel sorry and remorseful
Well if God forgave them then what separates them from anyone you call moral? Nobody’s perfect.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
immoral people still have regrets and can feel sorry and remorseful
Well if God forgave them then what separates them from anyone you call moral? Nobody’s perfect.
if remorseful immoral people can get into heaven

then people can do whatever they want

and kill whoever they feel like killing

just as long as they feel bad about it

that doesn't seem like a very good (and definitely NOT "objective") measure of "morality"
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
Right and wrong is actually quite consistent across the board.
what does jesus teach us about copyright law ?
Jesus demanded his name be mentioned.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
does this mean that the jesus was an advocate for 20 year patent and copyright protections ?
Jesus did not think he would need a 20 year patent or copyright protections because he was already granted eternity.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Jesus did not think he would need a 20 year patent or copyright protections because he was already granted eternity.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
that doesn't tell us if he expects royalties

and is this a special case just for the jesus ?

or does everyone deserve copyright protections ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
Jesus did not think he would need a 20 year patent or copyright protections because he was already granted eternity.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
that doesn't tell us if he expects royalties
Jesus got royalties in advance.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

and is this a special case just for the jesus ?
1 Cor 4:16 Therefore I entreat you-Follow my example.

or does everyone deserve copyright protections ?
Matthew 10:32 Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.


Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
First off, the standard is the very thing you are using to judge actions against, so claiming a standard is itself moral is incoherent.
You literally used the phrase “moral standard” that literally means the standard is moral, so if you want to call yourself incoherent then by all means.

Second, I never said conflicting standards could both be moral.
Actually you did, you claimed conflicting standards as the basis as to why morality is subjective, so that literally means the same as saying conflicting standards are moral.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
how do we tell which one is "moral" and which one is "immoral" ?
Why are you asking me?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
how do we tell which one is "moral" and which one is "immoral" ?
Why are you asking me?
because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
that doesn't seem like a very good (and definitely NOT "objective") measure of "morality"
I’m not going to argue your mentality but I would say nobody’s perfect and if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
because it is compared to theft
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
that doesn't seem like a very good (and definitely NOT "objective") measure of "morality"
I’m not going to argue your mentality but I would say nobody’s perfect and if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you.
i thought you said "moral people get to go to heaven" and "immoral people get to go to hell" or something like that
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @3RU7AL
because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
Above is a sample of the confusion raging on the subject of morality.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Above is a sample of the confusion raging on the subject of morality.
how do you personally determine what is a "moral issue" and what is not a "moral issue" ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
—> @Shila
Above is a sample of the confusion raging on the subject of morality.
how do you personally determine what is a "moral issue" and what is not a "moral issue" ?
It all depends on how much of the subject you expose. That is why it is called the forbidden fruit.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you.
Imperfection is the unavoidable crime of humanity and punishment is a given. This is thought to be man's natural state sans Jesus per Christianity. Jesus wouldn't make someone perfect, only forgiven. So it stands to reason, your moral standard allows immoral people to be considered righteous. Ie. Wrong can be right.

Add in to that, we can never see who meets your standard while we are alive (or ever) - it's pretty useless as a standard. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @3RU7AL
because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
Copying someone else’s material is the same as stealing intellectual property and any form of stealing is a issue of morality.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
Copying someone else’s material is the same as stealing intellectual property and any form of stealing is a issue of morality.
is is moral or immoral for copyright protection to expire after 20 years ?

is is moral or immoral for copyright protection to expire after 100 years ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
Copying someone else’s material is the same as stealing intellectual property and any form of stealing is a issue of morality.
is is moral or immoral for copyright protection to expire after 20 years ?

is is moral or immoral for copyright protection to expire after 100 years ?
It is practical to have an expiry date on copyright material. 
Generic drug makes have to wait 10 years before producing a generic copy of the original drug to allow the company to recover research and other costs.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,169
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
You literally used the phrase “moral standard” that literally means the standard is moral
In the sense you are interpreting the term within this sentence, it’s a tautology. The standard is moral according to its own self, because it is the very thing it is being judged against. 

That’s not what we’re talking about.

You were appealing to a standard outside of it, which by definition means it is no longer the standard.

If A is my standard and B is your standard, and we want to resolve which standard is more moral, we need to invoke something else, standard C, so that A and B can be compared to it to see which one comes closer.

Without a third standard all we’re doing is saying A is closer to A, which makes A more moral. And you would no doubt claim that B is closer to B, making B more moral. This is not a means to a resolution, it’s just two individuals planting their feet on what they consider moral.

But if we do invoke C to judge A and B against, then C becomes our new moral standard. So A and B are useless.

And then of course someone can come along and claim D is the standard for morality. And on it goes…

This is why morality will always be subjective. There is no resolving this.

you claimed conflicting standards as the basis as to why morality is subjective, so that literally means the same as saying conflicting standards are moral.
To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.

If there is no right or wrong answer then the statement A and B are both moral cannot follow, because you have to accept that there is a right answer as to whether either is moral to even assert it.

So no, that’s not literally what that means.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
This is why morality will always be subjective. There is no resolving this.

To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.

If there is no right or wrong answer then the statement A and B are both moral cannot follow, because you have to accept that there is a right answer as to whether either is moral to even assert it.

So no, that’s not literally what that means.
If you subjectively believe something is moral and that something happens to be moral. Then you are proving even something subjective can be morally right.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,169
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
If one’s belief as to whether an action is moral is subjective, then it cannot by definition “turn out to be moral”.

For it to turn out to be moral implies that there is an objective right or wrong answer.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
-> @Shila
If one’s belief as to whether an action is moral is subjective, then it cannot by definition “turn out to be moral”.

For it to turn out to be moral implies that there is an objective right or wrong answer.
One might subjectively believe something is right and therefore moral.

And it can turn out to be moral because it also aligns with an objective right.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,169
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
There’s no such thing as an objective right.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
-> @Shila
There’s no such thing as an objective right

What is an objective right?

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,169
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
What is an objective right?
Why are you asking me? You’re the one who asserted it…

Post 265
And it can turn out to be moral because it also aligns with an objective right.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
because it is compared to theft
And what is the timeline compared to?

i thought you said "moral people get to go to heaven" and "immoral people get to go to hell" or something like that
Imperfect is not synonymous with immoral.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
So it stands to reason, your moral standard allows immoral people to be considered righteous. Ie. Wrong can be right.
Wrong, please don’t speak for me.