Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[Tassman]

basically I found my self having to repeat myself over and over to respond to his repeating himself. I was going in circles and even when I asked hom to stop or leave he kept on doing it. so I asked him to leave. It is my thread after all

Well I've been allowed back, lucky you.

What you "repeated over and over"aloneNOT by science alone. This is the point you refuse to grasp.

[JonathanL]

At the risk of being off topic, the reason I personally oppose abortion is because we as humans are created in the image of God and have immeasurable value on that basis alone, regardless of our abilities and cognitive capabilities. I actually think people like Starlight and Tassman's defense of abortion is perfectly logical from a non-theistic point of view as there is nothing about being a human being that grants you the right to life in a non-theistic worldview, but at the same time it also reveals the moral "bankruptness" of the same worldview. If your worldview allows you to make the logical conclusion that killing a human being in the womb is ok for nothing other than convenience your worldview is morally deficient.

[Tassman]

At the risk of being off topic, the reason I personally oppose abortion is because we as humans are created in the image of God and have immeasurable value on that basis alone, regardless of our abilities and cognitive capabilities. I actually think people like Starlight and Tassman's defense of abortion is perfectly logical from a non-theistic point of view as there is nothing about being a human being that grants you the right to life in a non-theistic worldview, but at the same time it also reveals the moral "bankruptness" of the same worldview. If your worldview allows you to make the logical conclusion that killing a human being in the womb is ok for nothing other than convenience your worldview is morally deficient.

I actually agree with all of that except for the judgemental moralising at the end. Abortion is instinctively a very difficult decision for women to make and very few do it without considerable soul-searching.

[JonathanL]

I actually agree with all of that except for the judgemental moralising at the end. Abortion is instinctively a very difficult decision for women to make and very few do it without considerable soul-searching.

Yes, and I suspect a lot fewer women would actually go through with it if morally bankrupt persons like you didn't tell them there's nothing wrong with it.

[Starlight]

At the risk of being off topic, the reason I personally oppose abortion is because we as humans are created in the image of God and have immeasurable value on that basis alone, regardless of our abilities and cognitive capabilities.

What do you see that "image of God" as being? An immortal soul? Some Christians would interpret the "image of God" as being the higher mental functions that humans have but which animals don't, but clearly you view it as something else.

I actually think people like Starlight and Tassman's defense of abortion is perfectly logical from a non-theistic point of view as there is nothing about being a human being that grants you the right to life in a non-theistic worldview,

Not quite - most atheists would endorse the idea of a right to life in the sense that they oppose the death penalty, for example. The motivations are subtly different in an atheistic world view than a theistic one, and so the moral outworkings are quite different. So for example, I'm anti-war to the point of almost being a complete pacifist, anti-death-penalty, but pro-choice for both abortion and euthanasia, extremely supportive of equal rights for minorities. I feel all these positions are strongly motivated by my atheist world view and morality is extremely important to me.

but at the same time it also reveals the moral "bankruptness" of the same worldview.

You seem to be judging one worldview based on another...?
I could equally say, and do, that the Christian worldview is morally bankrupt on all sorts of issues. Homosexuality, war, death-penalty, women, slavery etc.

If your worldview allows you to make the logical conclusion that killing a human being in the womb is ok for nothing other than convenience your worldview is morally deficient.

Well the idea is that if its brain hasn't turned on yet, then the things that make humans so special (consciousness and higher brain functions) don't yet exist in it, so cutting it out is no different to cutting out a cancerous tumor or cutting off my finger... in all instances I would view myself as killing a bunch of cells with human DNA but which didn't have brain function.

[Starlight]

Abortion is instinctively a very difficult decision for women to make and very few do it without considerable soul-searching.

Though I don't personally know any women who have informed me they've had abortions, I imagine that for most women it is one of the most difficult decisions they make in their lives, and they probably think about the decision for the rest of their lives. I have heard of stories of different women who deeply regretted their decisions on the issue (some regretted keeping the child, others regretted not keeping it). However, I'm pretty sure that the absolute last thing they need is strangers guilt-tripping them over their decisions or trying to force them into making different ones.

[JonathanL]

What do you see that "image of God" as being? An immortal soul? Some Christians would interpret the "image of God" as being the higher mental functions that humans have but which animals don't, but clearly you view it as something else.

I don't know if it is the fact that we have an immortal soul, but it's definitely a facet of it. At the very least it is not based on the whether or not said being is currently embued with higher mental functions.

Not quite - most atheists would endorse the idea of a right to life in the sense that they oppose the death penalty, for example. The motivations are subtly different in an atheistic world view than a theistic one, and so the moral outworkings are quite different. So for example, I'm anti-war to the point of almost being a complete pacifist, anti-death-penalty, but pro-choice for both abortion and euthanasia, extremely supportive of equal rights for minorities. I feel all these positions are strongly motivated by my atheist world view and morality is extremely important to me.

I don't think you can make a logical conclusion for being either pro-war or anti-war or pro or anti on any of the issues you listed above in any sort of moral sense. Morality only exist when you have rights and obligations, and on atheism/non-theism these rights and obligations can exist as nothing other than figments of imagination in the minds of people. Both the non-theist who staunchly opposes war for moral reasons, and the one who conscripts as a soldier because he thinks it's his moral obligation to defend his home country are as delusional as the other.

On the other hand, the person who sets up a framework of actions that are allowable/forbidden on the basis of what would allow him to live peacefully in his community is not delusional, because he's not saying "I'm doing these things because I feel morally obligated to" and "I'm keeping myself from doing these things because I have a moral obligation to", but rather "If I want to live peacefully and have a successful future in this community I better act in a way that doesn't endanger that possibility. My opinions on the morality of these actions and standpoints ultimately makes no difference what so ever."

You seem to be judging one worldview based on another...?
I could equally say, and do, that the Christian worldview is morally bankrupt on all sorts of issues. Homosexuality, war, death-penalty, women, slavery etc.

Not as much as based on as comparing them side to side and finding one of them to be inferior to the other because adopting it allows me to draw a conclusion (moral rights and obligations do not and cannot exist) which flies in the face of my experience (I do have moral rights and obligations).

Well the idea is that if it's brain hasn't turned on yet, then the things that make humans so special (consciousness and higher brain functions) don't yet exist in it, so cutting it out is no different to cutting out a cancerous tumor or cutting of my hand... in all instances I would view myself as killing a bunch of cells with human DNA but which didn't have brain function.

Yeah, as I said, nothing wrong with abortion on a non-theistic worldview.

[Tassman]

Though I don't personally know any women who have informed me they've had abortions, I imagine that for most women it is one of the most difficult decisions they make in their lives, and they probably think about the decision for the rest of their lives. I have heard of stories of different women who deeply regretted their decisions on the issue (some regretted keeping the child, others regretted not keeping it). However, I'm pretty sure that the absolute last thing they need is strangers guilt-tripping them over their decisions or trying to force them into making different ones.

Yes exactly. Let alone picketing abortion clinics, which is just disgraceful.

[Tassman]

Yes, and I suspect a lot fewer women would actually go through with it if morally bankrupt persons like you didn't tell them there's nothing wrong with it.

[JonathanL]

Yes exactly. Let alone picketing abortion clinics, which is just disgraceful.

Not as disgraceful as defending a woman's "right" to have her own child killed.

[JonathanL]

Judgemental? Yes, and rightly so. You're defending a morally reprehensible act and feeling no apprehension over it what so ever. To me what you're doing is just as reprehensible as if you'd be defending the moral appropriateness of the holocaust.

There are very few women or men, including myself, who view abortion as a serious step to be taken only after long and careful thought.

Freudian slip?

But that changes nothing. You're still defending something undefensible.

[Starlight]

I don't think you can make a logical conclusion for being either pro-war or anti-war or pro or anti on any of the issues you listed above in any sort of moral sense. Morality only exist when you have rights and obligations, and on atheism/non-theism these rights and obligations can exist as nothing other than figments of imagination in the minds of people.

Most atheists I meet in the world and most of those on this forum strongly believe in morality and consider it part and parcel of their worldview. We regularly have 30 page threads trying to explain it to seer and Sparko who act if they're super-dense and have the IQ of 4 year-olds and pretend they've forgotten everything we've just told them 5 posts later.

On the other hand, the person who sets up a framework of actions that are allowable/forbidden on the basis of what would allow him to live peacefully in his community is not delusional, because he's not saying "I'm doing these things because I feel morally obligated to" and "I'm keeping myself from doing these things because I have a moral obligation to", but rather "If I want to live peacefully and have a successful future in this community I better act in a way that doesn't endanger that possibility. My opinions on the morality of these actions and standpoints ultimately makes no difference what so ever."

And if that person describes/views "what would allow him to live peacefully in his community" as beings his "moral obligations"...?

Not as much as based on as comparing them side to side and finding one of them to be inferior to the other because adopting it allows me to draw a conclusion (moral rights and obligations do not and cannot exist) which flies in the face of my experience (I do have moral rights and obligations).

Well I think your logic is wrong on both points. Morality can and does exist in an atheist framework. And moral rights and obligations are not something anyone "experiences" the existence of.

[JonathanL]

Most atheists I meet in the world and most of those on this forum strongly believe in morality and consider it part and parcel of their worldview. We regularly have 30 page threads trying to explain it to seer and Sparko who act if they're super-dense and have the IQ of 4 year-olds and pretend they've forgetton everything we've just told them 5 posts later.

Strongly believes in =/= has any logical basis for.

And if that person describes/views "what would allow him to live peacefully in his community" as beings his "moral obligations"...?

Then I would accuse him of equivocating on the definition of "moral obligations".

Well I think your logic is wrong on both points. Morality can and does exist in an atheist framework. And moral rights and obligations are not something anyone "experiences" the existence of.

There is nothing in non-theism that provides a basis for rights and obligations, so no, it cannot exist.

You're right, you do not experience the existence of moral rights and obligations themselves. What you experience is the feeling of guilt (i.e your conscience condemning you) after acting against an one of your obligations, or acting against the rights of one of your fellow human beings. The fact that I have a bad conscience after doing something tells me that I have acted in a way that goes against my obligations, or against the rights of another person.

[Starlight]

Strongly believes in =/= has any logical basis for.

If we consider a basic situation, where only two conscious, thoughtful, rational, beings exist, and who interact. Then one of the most fundamental questions we can ask in order to understand and predict their interactions, is "how much does each being value the other?" If one of the beings highly values the other, then its interactions toward that being will be characterized by goodwill and the being will attempt to benefit the other and not hurt it. If one of the beings values the other negatively, and wishes to see it destroyed and suffer, then its actions will be characterized by ill-will and it will attempt to hurt and harm the other and see it suffer and be destroyed.

In all the infinite variety and complexity of human social situations, societies, and civilizations, time and time again we come back to that basic question when analyzing the interactions between people: How much do they value the other person? And thus are their actions driven out of goodwill or ill-will? Are they benevolent or malevolent in their intentions? These are all different ways of saying the same thing, which boil down to whether the intentions toward others are positive or negative. This is something we almost always want to know, in every social interaction, and is a key motivating factor in how people treat others.

This key concept - valuing others - generates a set of "oughts" for the being based on real-world context, eg "If I value my friend's life, I ought to step forward and pull him away from the oncoming car." "If I value my sister, then I ought to help bandage her hurt wrist and offer her some painkillers." etc Within the context of a wider social structure, this large and interlocking set of "oughts" form a series of social obligations towards all those around us whom we value. We generally call these things "moral obligations" and we generally call the concept of valuing others and acting well towards them due to valuing them "morality". A "good" person is a person who values others and has goodwill toward them as a result, an "evil" person is a person who does not value others or who negatively values others and has ill-will towards them and seeks to harm them as a result. Thus, because human interactions happen everywhere, and we all constantly want to understand the actions of others and their motivations and the values that drive them, we all constantly make these assessments of others and constantly use this "morality" regardless of whether we choose to call it "morality" or not. It is thus something that is fundamental to human interactions and which guides human interactions in all cultures in all times. For this reason, most atheist believe in 'objective morality' and can generally agree with each other to a very large extent about what type of actions are 'moral' and what are not.

Religious people, who add gods and their commands into the mix, start getting confused about morality, because they are hit with two sets of morality - that which arises naturally from beings interacting with positive or negative intentions toward each other, and that provided by their religion where their gods issues with them a set of commands which may be at odds with natural morality.

You're right, you do not experience the existence of moral rights and obligations themselves. What you experience is the feeling of guilt (i.e your conscience condemning you) after acting against an one of your obligations, or acting against the rights of one of your fellow human beings. The fact that I have a bad conscience after doing something tells me that I have acted in a way that goes against my obligations, or against the rights of another person.

Agreed.

Of course, feelings of guilt naturally arise whenever we transgress social norms. If you tell a child 50 times not to steal cookies from the jar, and the child goes ahead and does it, the child will likely feel guilty while doing so because he's disobeyed the command. He is guilty of breaking the 'law' and thus feels guilt. As we go through life we will all experience feelings of guilt any times when we feel we are doing something that we have been told is wrong - regardless of whether it was our parents, our society, or our religion that told us it was wrong. People quite often find these feelings hard to "get over" even if as adults they come to hold very different moral views to the ones they were brought up with. Human are social animals and most of us are quite sensitive to society's norms and feel guilty when we transgress them... people who lack such sensitivity and do not feel at all constrained by social norms are regarded as literally having a psychological disorder and are termed "psychopaths" by scientists. I think it's a hugely unjustified leap for you use the sense of guilt that your social conscience gives you as evidence for some sort of moral commands of God.

[JonathanL]

If we consider a basic situation, where only two conscious, thoughtful, rational, beings exist, and who interact. Then one of the most fundamental questions we can ask in order to understand and predict their interactions, is "how much does each being value the other?" If one of the beings highly values the other, then its interactions toward that being will be characterized by goodwill and the being will attempt to benefit the other and not hurt it. If one of the beings values the other negatively, and wishes to see it destroyed and suffer, then its actions will be characterized by ill-will and it will attempt to hurt and harm the other and see it suffer and be destroyed.

True, but so far there's nothing here that gives a sufficient ground for moral obligations and rights.

In all the infinite variety and complexity of human social situations, societies, and civilizations, time and time again we come back to that basic question when analyzing the interactions between people: How much do they value the other person? And thus are their actions driven out of goodwill or ill-will? Are they benevolent or malevolent in their intentions? These are all different ways of saying the same thing, which boil down to whether the intentions toward others are positive or negative. This is something we almost always want to know, in every social interaction, and is a key motivating factor in how people treat others.

Granted, but even if someone acts a certain way towards someone because he values that person, or acts in another way because he views that person in a negative light there is nothing about valuing someone positively or negatively that allows you to conclude that one set of actions are more praiseworthy or blameworthy in a non-theistic worldview.

This key concept - valuing others - generates a set of "oughts" for the being based on real-world context, eg "If I value my friend's life, I ought to step forward and pull him away from the oncoming car." "If I value my sister, then I ought to help bandage her hurt wrist and offer her some painkillers." etc Within the context of a wider social structure, this large and interlocking set of "oughts" form a series of social obligations towards all those around us whom we value. We generally call these things "moral obligations" and we generally call the concept of valuing others and acting well towards them due to valuing them "morality". A "good" person is a person who values others and has goodwill toward them as a result, an "evil" person is a person who does not value others or who negatively values others and has ill-will towards them and seeks to harm them as a result. Thus, because human interactions happen everywhere, and we all constantly want to understand the actions of others and their motivations and the values that drive them, we all constantly make these assessments of others and constantly use this "morality" regardless of whether we choose to call it "morality" or not. It is thus something that is fundamental to human interactions and which guides human interactions in all cultures in all times. For this reason, most atheist believe in 'objective morality' and can generally agree with each other to a very large extent about what type of actions are 'moral' and what are not.

And this is where you make an unjustified conclusion. Valuing another person does not in and of itself give rise to any sort of obligation or "oughts" to act in a beneficial manner towards that person. At most it makes you more inclined to act in a way that is beneficial towards said person, but it does not in any way, shape or form create some sort of obligation to do so. As far as I can see you're making an argument similar to this:

1. Valuing someone positively entails wishing for their happiness and wellbeing.

2. Wishing for someone's happiness and wellbeing entails an obligation to act in a way that is beneficial to their happiness and wellbeing.

3. Therefore if I attribute a positive value to a person I ought to act in a way that is beneficial to their happiness and wellbeing.

Of course, you've completely failed to give any sort of rational support for premise number 2, but discounting that your argument fails for another reason altogether, which is that it does not adequately explain why we have any obligation to value another person positively, rather than negatively, in the first place. In short, your moral framework fails to address one of the most fundamental facets of morality.

Religious people, who add gods and their commands into the mix, start getting confused about morality, because they are hit with two sets of morality - that which arises naturally from beings interacting with positive or negative intentions toward each other, and that provided by their religion where their gods issues with them a set of commands which may be at odds with natural morality.

This "natural morality", atleast as you describe it, exists nowhere else but your own imagination.

Agreed.

Of course, feelings of guilt naturally arise whenever we transgress social norms. If you tell a child 50 times not to steal cookies from the jar, and the child goes ahead and does it, the child will likely feel guilty while doing so because he's disobeyed the command. He is guilty of breaking the 'law' and thus feels guilt. As we go through life we will all experience feelings of guilt any times when we feel we are doing something that we have been told is wrong - regardless of whether it was our parents, our society, or our religion that told us it was wrong. People quite often find these feelings hard to "get over" even if as adults they come to hold very different moral views to the ones they were brought up with. Human are social animals and most of us are quite sensitive to society's norms and feel guilty when we transgress them... people who lack such sensitivity and do not feel at all constrained by social norms are regarded as literally having a psychological disorder and are termed "psychopaths" by scientists. I think it's a hugely unjustified leap for you use the sense of guilt that your social conscience gives you as evidence for some sort of moral commands of God.

But it's not a "social" conscience. True, society can reinforce my conscience so that it is shapen in a certain way, but the faculty of mind which we call a conscience exists regardless of our parents, society or religion. At most our parents/family, society and the religion we belong to can shape our conscience, but they are not themselves the ultimate explanation for why we have a conscience in the first place.