Page 105 of 119 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107115 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1182

Thread: Atheism And Moral Progress

  1. #1041
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,492
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Sheesh Carp it is in the definitions even yours:the power to control or demand obedience from others Why you argue against your own definition is beyond me.
    Seesh, Seer, if your hypothetical god "controls" me - then I am no longer a free moral agent. God does not have the power to control me AND retain my moral freedom. And your hypothetical god can "demand obedience" until the cows come home. That does not place upon me an obligation to comply. It's pretty simple, Seer. How you cannot see that is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I don't care about moral authority, neither do the definitions we both used. You are just moving the goal posts.

    Again with the moral authority! Nothing in the definitions say you need to morally, or otherwise, accept the authority. The authority of God, a King, or the culture at large. That has nothing to do with the definitions.
    Your statement was about moral law, and moral principles as they relate to god's "authority." By definition you are talking about "moral authority," even if you have not used those specific words.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    What exactly is wrong?
    That your hypothetical god has any "authority" over me in the moral sphere.
    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

  2. #1042
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,337
    Amen (Given)
    1629
    Amen (Received)
    4896
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Seesh, Seer, if your hypothetical god "controls" me - then I am no longer a free moral agent. God does not have the power to control me AND retain my moral freedom. And your hypothetical god can "demand obedience" until the cows come home. That does not place upon me an obligation to comply. It's pretty simple, Seer. How you cannot see that is beyond me.
    Carp it is not about God controlling you any more than the laws of the land controlling you. It is about who is in authority. Compliance, or not, is immaterial - to the definition.

    Your statement was about moral law, and moral principles as they relate to god's "authority." By definition you are talking about "moral authority," even if you have not used those specific words.
    Nonsense, I did not once talk about His moral authority, any more than I was talking about the moral authority of the laws of logic. I said God has authority to impose His moral law. Just as your state of Vermont has the authority to impose its laws on you - whether you agree with those laws or not.

    That your hypothetical god has any "authority" over me in the moral sphere.
    So what, what on earth does that have to do with the definitions of authority? And you question my debating skills?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  3. #1043
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,492
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp it is not about God controlling you any more than the laws of the land controlling you. It is about who is in authority. Compliance, or not, is immaterial - to the definition.
    And your hypothetical god has no authority over me - except via power. I broke this down for you several times. Why you don't see it is beyond me. I know this may come as a shock to you, Seer, but not all of us are driven by your "authority-based" mindset.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Nonsense, I did not once talk about His moral authority, any more than I was talking about the moral authority of the laws of logic. I said God has authority to impose His moral law. Just as your state of Vermont has the authority to impose its laws on you - whether you agree with those laws or not.
    God has the authority to impose his moral law - but that is not about moral authority? Seer - do you actually read what you type after you type it?

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    So what, what on earth does that have to do with the definitions of authority? And you question my debating skills?
    Seer, I think your debating skills are fairly evident to anyone reading out exchanges. Further comment on them is not going to be all that productive on my part. As for your question, how you are hairsplitting between "authority in the realm of moral law" and "moral authority" I have no clue whatsoever.
    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

  4. #1044
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    421
    Amen (Given)
    8
    Amen (Received)
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    I actually agree that “the moral law is written on the heart”, but for different reasons than you. It’s not written by a deity; whose very existence is open to question. It’s “written”, i.e. programmed, by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.
    Even if one doesn't accept a deity, I think it's more complicated than that, if you mean just biological evolution. It would include cultural evolution and what reason, language and sociality would entail.

  5. #1045
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,337
    Amen (Given)
    1629
    Amen (Received)
    4896
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And your hypothetical god has no authority over me - except via power. I broke this down for you several times. Why you don't see it is beyond me. I know this may come as a shock to you, Seer, but not all of us are driven by your "authority-based" mindset.
    Right and that power is in the very definition of authority! Even your definition:the power to control or demand obedience from others.


    God has the authority to impose his moral law - but that is not about moral authority? Seer - do you actually read what you type after you type it?
    What does moral authority have to do with anything? Does that state care about your personal moral peccadilloes? It still will have authority over you.

    Seer, I think your debating skills are fairly evident to anyone reading out exchanges. Further comment on them is not going to be all that productive on my part. As for your question, how you are hairsplitting between "authority in the realm of moral law" and "moral authority" I have no clue whatsoever.
    No Carp, you moved the goal posts, "moral authority" is not the same thing as God imposing His moral law. You changed it because by the definitions of authority I was right and you were wrong - and you hate to admit that.

    And your appeal to moral authority is just plain bunk anyway:

    moral authority

    : trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good


    How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?
    Last edited by seer; 08-09-2019 at 11:59 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  6. #1046
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    421
    Amen (Given)
    8
    Amen (Received)
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post

    Nothing you are saying here is in conflict with subjective moralism. And yes, as I have noted to Seer multiple times, morality IS about "personal preference." It is the term we use for decisions about behavior that have to do with the things we most value.
    You're not presenting an argument. You're merely asserting that "morality IS about 'personal preference'". If you have an actual argument, I'd like to hear it.

    As I said, to base morality on personal preference or choice is to make morality essentially a useless concept, since morality is about interpersonal conflict resolution and amelioration of the human predicament. To attempt to reach these goals suggests that a standard must be appealed to that transcends the immediate interests of any of the parties involved. To appeal only to the interests of the parties involved would mean a rejection of morality as an ajudication between conflicting interests in favor of a power struggle.

    As I said, when I think about what I ought to do morally, I'm not thinking about what I personally want or what is in my personal interest. I shift into another mode of thought. Hume discusses this in his Enquiry into the Principles of Morals where I shift from the "language of self-love" to another language in which I expect all my audience to concur with me. It's one in which I expect universal and objective validity. And I'm sure you're going to counter that "But it's still you who has to think that!" But that's just confusing the medium with the object of thought.

    What you're saying reduces morality to a matter of taste, over which there are no grounds for dispute or resolution. I like licorice, you don't. I like torturing kids for giggles. You don't. If it's all preference, there are no grounds for critique or resolution or amelioration between different preferences other than power, either between individuals or between societies.




    You have misunderstood. What I said was that what we call social moral norms are simply the collection of things we hold in common. For example, for many years, the social moral norm was that homosexual intimacy was immoral. Not everyone thought this - but so many did that it was considered the "moral norm." Since then individual moral positions have shifted on the topic, and now the social norm has become "homosexual intimacy is subject to the same moral guidelines as heterosexual intimacy." The social moral norm has shifted.
    The social moral norm might have shifted, but for you the ultimate moral arbiter remains the individual. I believe homosexuals should be stoned to death. I happen to be in the minority. Am I simply out of step, like still wearing a Nehru jacket?



    It can be any particular group in question: a religious group, a local community, a neighborhood, the country, etc.
    But like I said, I belong to many groups, often with conflicting moral codes, so often I am doing something, action a, that is both morally right and morally wrong.



    The individual's moral framework takes precedence. Which group has more influence on the individual differs from individual to individual,
    And my moral framework tells me that mine is superior and that I ought to destroy and subjugate the larger culture around me. The only justification the larger culture has for stopping me is that it is stronger than I am. Your system devolves into a Hobbsiean power struggle. It is amoral, not a moral system. Moral systems are subjunctive and one step removed and abstracted from self-interest.



    It is possible that an individual's moral framework would see "being a good mafioso" as a moral good. Most of us would probably disagree. I certainly would.
    And you have the law and the cops on your side for now. Just wait until I can buy enough of the cops and politicians and change the laws!



    The individual always decides what is "right" or "wrong." The "will of the group" is nothing more than the collective will of its members.
    Yes, just like the individual always decides whether or not 2+2=4. It doesn't follow from this trivial observation that maths are subjective.



    The individual decides what is wrong or right - not the group. The statistics just tell us what the majority does or does not think. If a moral position were as close as you describe, I'd say that particular group/society/culture was split on the moral question.
    Again, more assertions. If you ever come up with an actual argument, let me know. A society would be split on a moral question because it is undecided about the truth of the matter. It wouldn't be because the society is waiting to see how the polling numbers shake out. The underlying assumption is that there is some fact there to be discovered, at least in principle, even if we can never know it, not a matter of taste or preference, as in which ice cream flavor will be voted the best.

  7. Amen Adrift, seer, Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  8. #1047
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    421
    Amen (Given)
    8
    Amen (Received)
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    You seem to be under the mistake impression that I think the group has primacy in morality. The group can and does influence the individual. The individual has primacy and determines their moral framework. It has always been this way. It's not my "idea." It's show morality has always worked.
    Just saying "this is how morality has always worked" isn't an argument. Of course the individual has to be the medium for every item of experience/knowledge the she/he has, but that's trivial. That observation also applies to scientists, mathematicians and logicians. That doesn't mean science, math and logic are all subjective and a matter of personal preference.



    What "stated criteria" are you referring to?
    The ones I've already referred to. Morality has to lay claim to objective and universal validity, it has to be categorical.



    I assume it, Jim, because I see it all around me, and experience it within me. I assume it for the same reason I assume my car is blue: because that is what I observe to be true. It is not "begging the question" to report what one observes.
    You observe it because that's how you're framing it. I'm suggesting you re-frame it. It depends on which lens (or filter) you observe your car through.






    I am familiar with a metaphor - but what you call "intuition" I call "habit." We are raised in a combination (as you note) of overlapping cultures, each with their own moral influence. We initially derive our moral positions on that basis of authority (Mom says so, Dad says so, the teacher says so, the policeman says so, the priest/minister says so). Eventually, hopefully, we mature as moralizers and begin to examine moral issues on their own merits and come to our own moral conclusions. This is an individual act, but it is strongly influenced by our context. We see the commonalities that we do because we value similarly, and we value similarly because we share more in common than most people consider (life, humanity, bipedalism, this planet, social/cultural contexts, religions, etc.).
    If I diverge from my environment in my moral system, what would that be based on? A genetic mutation? Some quantum blip in my brain? What I believe is to my best selective advantage?



    Jim, there is not "a" concept of god - there are many of them. Each religion has its own nuanced view. Humanity has created an enormous number of gods over its brief existence. I don't think any of them exist in reality. When discussing, I try to keep in mind the particular definition of god being used by whoever I'm talking with. It's not easy, because most of these ideas of god are internally inconsistent - but I try.
    Fair enough.

  9. #1048
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,301
    Amen (Given)
    6766
    Amen (Received)
    6519
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Fair enough.
    I don't think there's really any need to concede this point. He's mainly debating Christians on a Christian forum. It's not out of the world to expect that the conception of god under discussion is the Christian one.

  10. #1049
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,927
    Amen (Given)
    1607
    Amen (Received)
    1438
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Right and that power is in the very definition of authority! Even your definition:the power to control or demand obedience from others.




    What does moral authority have to do with anything? Does that state care about your personal moral peccadilloes? It still will have authority over you.



    No Carp, you moved the goal posts, "moral authority" is not the same thing as God imposing His moral law. You changed it because by the definitions of authority I was right and you were wrong - and you hate to admit that.

    And your appeal to moral authority is just plain bunk anyway:

    moral authority

    : trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good


    How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?
    There isn't an objective right or good in your world either. For you, objective simply means whatever god decides which can be different from case to case, i.e. objectively arbitrary!

  11. #1050
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,337
    Amen (Given)
    1629
    Amen (Received)
    4896
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    There isn't an objective right or good in your world either. For you, objective simply means whatever god decides which can be different from case to case, i.e. objectively arbitrary!
    Jim, we have been through this, God's law is grounded in His immutable character so it is far from arbitrary.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •