Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morality or Obedience?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    You can blather on about your “ethics-philosophical thrust” all you want...the statistics speak for themselves.
    You're so adorable when you miss the point so many times in a row.


    OK. So all YOU need do is show what morality IS based on
    Yup. Arentchya gonna ask what I meant by 'based on', or should I hold your hand . . .

    The facts speak for themselves regardless of the stinking dialectical path
    Not if you smear your gooey herring all over everything. Facts never, ever speak for themselves. Oh wait . . . that's right. You're Tass Nye the Scientism Guy!
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
      You're so adorable when you miss the point so many times in a row.




      Yup. Arentchya gonna ask what I meant by 'based on', or should I hold your hand . . .



      Not if you smear your gooey herring all over everything. Facts never, ever speak for themselves. Oh wait . . . that's right. You're Tass Nye the Scientism Guy!
      Well, nothing there!
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
        Oh, you want to talk now? I thought you thought I was arrogant? Are we over that now? I hope so. Let me know and I'll let you know why I think 'this is so'.
        You can respond or not respond at your convenience, Matt
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          And I said that believing something does not exist is not the same as declaring as a fact they do not exist.

          I don't believe in leprechauns either and see no reason why to believe they do. That doesn't mean I can declare they don't exist as fact. I mean I CAN, and I would probably be right, but there is no way to PROVE IT as fact. It would ultimately be an argument from ignorance. Now if I had evidence of where a person invented the concept of leprechauns, then I could probably prove they don't exist. Just like say, Frodo the hobbit. We know where Frodo was created, in a fictional book by JRR Tolkein, so we can say that Frodo the Hobbit does not exist in reality only in fiction.
          JRR Tolkein created Frodo, and the author of Genesis created the Hebrew/Christian god. You know them both from a book wriiten by men and from nowhere else.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            JRR Tolkein created Frodo, and the author of Genesis created the Hebrew/Christian god. You know them both from a book wriiten by men and from nowhere else.
            ...except that Lord of the Rings is superior literature with a more internally consistent universe and a better class of person.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              ...except that Lord of the Rings is superior literature with a more internally consistent universe and a better class of person.
              Excuse me...but there were no Orcs or Goblins in the Garden of Eden!

              But there was a Wormtongue... <insert the thoughtful, chin-rubbing, emoji I can't figure out here>



              You know - it really ruins a good post when you can't find the right emoji! I have to bookmark that link, if someone will post it again....?
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-21-2018, 07:32 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Excuse me...but there were no Orcs or Goblins in the Garden of Eden!

                But there was a Wormtongue... <insert the thoughtful, chin-rubbing, emoji I can't figure out here>
                Along with a talking god, cherubs with flaming swords, and magic fruit trees.

                You know - it really ruins a good post when you can't find the right emoji! I have to bookmark that link, if someone will post it again....? [/QUOTE]

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Well, nothing there!
                  Like the inside of your skull?
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    ...except that Lord of the Rings is superior literature with a more internally consistent universe and a better class of person.
                    Wow, you're even bad at literary criticism!
                    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                    George Horne

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The facts speak for themselves regardless of the stinking dialectical path
                      This is not true.

                      First, what you are calling a fact is actually analysis of the data presented by the study.

                      Second, even if it were...you are pointing out a correlation not a causation. If a disproportionate number of plumber are alcoholics, it is not correct to conclude that being a plumber leads one to being an alcoholic.

                      Third, you seem to be cherry picking your data. For example, what about secular based countries that fall in the bottom of the survey.

                      And finally, the very source you provide debunks your claim...

                      "IEP’s recent research on religion and peace demonstrates that societies with diverse religious practices and societies with high levels of religiosity can also be highly peaceful. Similarly, the rate at which people identify as a member of a religious group does not have a statistically signi cant relationship with peacefulness. Societies in which a high portion of the population reports being a member of a religion can be highly peaceful and societies with low levels of religious practice or identi cation can have low levels of peace."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                        This is not true.

                        First, what you are calling a fact is actually analysis of the data presented by the study.
                        It is the data that are the facts, the interpretation of these facts is open to bias...either way.

                        Second, even if it were...you are pointing out a correlation not a causation. If a disproportionate number of plumber are alcoholics, it is not correct to conclude that being a plumber leads one to being an alcoholic.
                        In this context I was addressing the erroneous claim (#188) that “moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity.” The reality is that there are a large number of secular societies where this is demonstrably not the case.

                        Third, you seem to be cherry picking your data. For example, what about secular based countries that fall in the bottom of the survey.
                        Certainly! But as a reasonable generalisation "those societies today that are the most religious tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while the more secular societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest tend to have the lowest...to paraphrase prof Phil Zuckerman, Pitzer College.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          It is the data that are the facts, the interpretation of these facts is open to bias...either way.
                          Right, that is what I was referring to.


                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          In this context I was addressing the erroneous claim (#188) that “moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity.” The reality is that there are a large number of secular societies where this is demonstrably not the case.
                          But I think that is the rub and the general problem for this thread where a lot of people are talking past one another.

                          I think the phrase "moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity" needs additional phraseology to make it more understandable from the atheist perspective. How about this.... Moral values based on societal norms and the consistency of living this way as a society leads to absurdity.

                          The main argument that we theists make is that it is not that atheists cannot be moral people because they don't believe in God. That would be like saying someone who doesn't believe in air could not breathe. Indeed, some of the noblest and charitable people I know are atheists. That isn't what is being said.

                          We are saying that you cannot have objective morality without God. However, because we intuitively think objective morals are real...it is impossible to live like morals are subjective. For example, my atheist student agrees that without God there are no objective morals. However, he still lives his life like there are objective morals. I asked why he did this even if they were an illusion. After a bit of poking and prodding (I am a great mentor), he admitted that he just feels that the way to live. This is exactly the theists point. The idea that morals can be just subjective ideas is so absurd that people cannot actually live this way (except for people with mental health issues).

                          So if we would extend the person out to society, it would also be ridiculous to have a subjective sense of morality. With no bedrock, societal norms can change based on popularity. We usually point out the progressive morals that have come about (end of slavery, etc) but there are also societal norms that are terrifying (WWII, etc). The societal norm for the Nazi's was that Jewish people weren't human. Without an objective standard, we cannot say that out societal norm is "better" than theirs because it is all subjective.

                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Certainly! But as a reasonable generalisation "those societies today that are the most religious tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while the more secular societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest tend to have the lowest...to paraphrase prof Phil Zuckerman, Pitzer College.
                          I still don't think that is a reasonable generalization. You could substitute a number of characteristics that aren't religious in nature and that would still apply. For example, population size comparisons, wealth of country, climate, homogeneous population, etc.

                          I am also hesitant to use generalizations as well. I am politically liberally minded but am a Christian. I have been painted with the brush before that assumes that I am a conservative (in this case it was used as a pejorative by another party).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Right, that is what I was referring to.




                            But I think that is the rub and the general problem for this thread where a lot of people are talking past one another.

                            I think the phrase "moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity" needs additional phraseology to make it more understandable from the atheist perspective. How about this.... Moral values based on societal norms and the consistency of living this way as a society leads to absurdity.

                            The main argument that we theists make is that it is not that atheists cannot be moral people because they don't believe in God. That would be like saying someone who doesn't believe in air could not breathe. Indeed, some of the noblest and charitable people I know are atheists. That isn't what is being said.

                            We are saying that you cannot have objective morality without God. However, because we intuitively think objective morals are real...it is impossible to live like morals are subjective. For example, my atheist student agrees that without God there are no objective morals. However, he still lives his life like there are objective morals. I asked why he did this even if they were an illusion. After a bit of poking and prodding (I am a great mentor), he admitted that he just feels that the way to live. This is exactly the theists point. The idea that morals can be just subjective ideas is so absurd that people cannot actually live this way (except for people with mental health issues).

                            So if we would extend the person out to society, it would also be ridiculous to have a subjective sense of morality. With no bedrock, societal norms can change based on popularity. We usually point out the progressive morals that have come about (end of slavery, etc) but there are also societal norms that are terrifying (WWII, etc). The societal norm for the Nazi's was that Jewish people weren't human. Without an objective standard, we cannot say that out societal norm is "better" than theirs because it is all subjective.



                            I still don't think that is a reasonable generalization. You could substitute a number of characteristics that aren't religious in nature and that would still apply. For example, population size comparisons, wealth of country, climate, homogeneous population, etc.

                            I am also hesitant to use generalizations as well. I am politically liberally minded but am a Christian. I have been painted with the brush before that assumes that I am a conservative (in this case it was used as a pejorative by another party).
                            I think the idea is that morals are objective, not in and of themselves, but in the sense of how they either benefit people and society as a whole. In other words "slavery" isn't immoral simply because it's a brute fact, or because it's derived of an objective source, it's immoral due to it's effect on human beings and human society as a whole. If creatures didn't exist, then neither would adaptive behaviors, or morals exist.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              I think the idea is that morals are objective, not in and of themselves, but in the sense of how they either benefit people and society as a whole. In other words "slavery" isn't immoral simply because it's a brute fact, or because it's derived of an objective source, it's immoral due to it's effect on human beings and human society as a whole. If creatures didn't exist, then neither would adaptive behaviors, or morals exist.
                              But that doesn’t really follow...

                              Slavery is exceptionally beneficial to the society enslaving the population. Free labor!

                              It’s only not beneficial to the enslaved society.

                              However, with no objective morality to fall back on...how do you determine who is right?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                                But that doesn’t really follow...

                                Slavery is exceptionally beneficial to the society enslaving the population. Free labor!

                                It’s only not beneficial to the enslaved society.

                                However, with no objective morality to fall back on...how do you determine who is right?
                                The slaves would be part of humanity and society as a whole. In my opinion morality consists of behaviors which in the end are beneficial to all of humanity, not just beneficial to some.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X