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

I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    You are defining good by the removal of evil (in this case suffering).
    Not a bad way to define GOOD, it removes anceint aspects of evil such as Original Sin and guilt, and no there is still suffereing.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Not all. Even if I concede that atheists can account for the existence of objective morality (how they get there is largely irrelevant), then what ground have you gained when you can't also show that, therefore, humans are obligated to act morally?
      You're not, that's why we created god. Probably shouldn't be letting you in on that secret though.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
        "Good" is that which reduces the unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures. The unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures is therefore "Evil".

        Suffering can be measured by MRI and other diagnostic technologies

        Necessity should be obvious. Someone who takes a nasty tasting medicine has suffered a bit, but they had to take the medicine in order to get better. Someone who is robbed suffers unnecessarily, because the thief could have gotten the money via some other slower method.

        This standard is objective in that anyone with access to the person and the aforementioned technology can look to see whether the person's suffering has lessened, and therefore, whether Good exists. The observer doesn't need to accept the standard as their own. All they need is to understand this standard, and to recognize when it's been met.

        You have an assumed teleology built in to your concept of necessary / unnecessary. That is, there's some kind of end or goal for humans that we use to decide whether any particular instance of suffering is necessary or not. What is that end, or goal, or purpose?


        Further, I have my doubts that humans have the required scope of knowledge (including knowledge of future outcomes) and the cognitive capacity to make a complete and accurate assessment of whether any particular suffering is in fact necessary. Some things are only obvious way down the track, with hindsight. For example, looking back on my life I can see goods that came only because I had undergone some suffering beforehand. I came to a dead end in a career path that I really wanted to pursue. I was frustrated, disappointed, cheated and let down by my employers. I suffered. But that suffering led me to change my plans completely. I'm now (years later) in a fulfilling career, with a house and a very happy marriage. Neither of the last two were things I thought I'd ever have. That suffering brought me so much good, but it was impossible for me, or for anyone else, to know that at the time.


        Lastly, it may be that some goods are only accessible after some degree of suffering. That is, without the suffering, those goods would not exist. A simple example would be the pleasure of a glass of cool water after a hour's hard work in the garden. Pulling weeds is hot, uncomfortable and has minor dangers - poison ivy, snakes, a wasp's nest etc. But the reward is a tidy garden and the pleasure that comes from having that, and having it be the work of one's own hands, plus the pleasure of a well-earned cool drink afterwards. Goods like gratitude towards another are largely dependent on that other having made some significant sacrifice or undergone suffering on our behalf or for our benefit.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
          Anyone with a dictionary, and a knowledge of whether some less harmful/painful option exists.


          If we define murder as an illegal/unjust killing, then the answer becomes a question of whether the diseased person or their friends and family agree that the killing is justified. If they agree with the killer, then any suffering caused by the killing is necessary (or at least acceptable). If they don't, the caused suffering was unnecessary - and thus the killing was murder / evil.


          Is the suffering unnecessary? I can't tell from your scenario.

          Your standard seems really subjective after all, not objective.

          So a group of people could just get together and decide that killing you is a good thing and then kill you?

          But let's go with your definitions. Is aborting a baby good or evil?
          Last edited by Sparko; 07-27-2020, 08:54 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
            "Good" is that which reduces the unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures. The unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures is therefore "Evil".

            Suffering can be measured by MRI and other diagnostic technologies

            Necessity should be obvious. Someone who takes a nasty tasting medicine has suffered a bit, but they had to take the medicine in order to get better. Someone who is robbed suffers unnecessarily, because the thief could have gotten the money via some other slower method.

            This standard is objective in that anyone with access to the person and the aforementioned technology can look to see whether the person's suffering has lessened, and therefore, whether Good exists. The observer doesn't need to accept the standard as their own. All they need is to understand this standard, and to recognize when it's been met.
            I could answer the OP with this ...

            Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
            Just because we assert something doesn't make it so.
            Just because you assert you have an objective standard doesn't make it so. Given time, holes can be punched through it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
              I've gained ground in the fact that I've proven wrong the silly claim that atheists can't have an objective standard for good.
              You really don't understand the problem, do you? Suppose you saw a fellow atheist stealing a $20 bill from his mother's purse. You say, "Dude, that's objectively wrong, you know." It would be no contradiction to his world view if he were to smile and say, "Yes, I do know that it's objectively wrong, but since I have no obligation to only do what is objectively right, I steal with a clear conscience."

              Even if I grant for the sake of argument that your opening post represents a rock solid, irrefutable standard for objective morality, it doesn't matter, because as far as the moral argument for atheism goes, you're literally back where you started.
              Last edited by Mountain Man; 07-27-2020, 09:37 AM.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                Originally posted by Mountain Man
                Not all. Even if I concede that atheists can account for the existence of objective morality (how they get there is largely irrelevant), then what ground have you gained when you can't also show that, therefore, humans are obligated to act morally?
                You're not...
                Thank you for conceding that point, because it is precisely why I say that the only consistent atheist is a nihilist, but most atheists instinctively reject nihilism, which I think makes a pretty strong case against atheism.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                  Thank you, Esther.

                  As an atheist, I don't necessarily agree with everything you wrote - but that's unimportant. I created this thread because I've been lectured several times by Christians here saying that I don't have any objective standards for right/wrong, good/bad. You and I don't have to agree on the details, but as long as we both recognize their claim about me is wrong, I'm satisfied.
                  I would of course much rather you think about the fact that it is God and not you making the moral judgements

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    You really don't understand the problem, do you? Suppose you saw a fellow atheist stealing a $20 bill from his mother's purse. You say, "Dude, that's objectively wrong, you know." It would be no contradiction to his world view if he were to smile and say, "Yes, I do know that it's objectively wrong, but since have no obligation to only do what is objectively right, I steal with a clear conscience."

                    As far as the moral argument goes, you're literally back where you started.
                    Yep, that's why we had to create god, MM, for people like you who knowingly would cause suffering in others for their own selfish desires. Legal remedies alone weren't enough, so we had to create an omnipresent god who is always watching over you with the carrot and the stick. Had to keep you guys in line somehow, psychology was the only option.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                      Yep, that's why we had to create god, MM, for people like you who knowingly would cause suffering in others for their own selfish desires. Legal remedies alone weren't enough, so we had to create an omnipresent god who is always watching over you with the carrot and the stick. Had to keep you guys in line somehow, psychology was the only option.
                      Sneering mockery does nothing to solve the moral problem for atheists. If atheism is true, then any atheist who expects or demands that others live according to whatever objective standard of morality the atheist has defined is rejecting the logical implications of his own world view. Why would you do that? Aren't you comfortable with where atheism ultimately leads? If it's really the worldview you believe, then why not gladly embrace it's implications and live and let live? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Yep, that's why we had to create god, MM, for people like you who knowingly would cause suffering in others for their own selfish desires. Legal remedies alone weren't enough, so we had to create an omnipresent god who is always watching over you with the carrot and the stick. Had to keep you guys in line somehow, psychology was the only option.
                        Jim, do you ever hope you are wrong and there is a God and an afterlife? Just asking.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Jim, do you ever hope you are wrong and there is a God and an afterlife? Just asking.
                          Sometimes, I'm thinking that living for eternity might get monotonous after a while though, but I also think I'd rather die than to be a wind-up toy determined to serve a tyrannical monster for eternity. Sounds more like eternal hell to me. But hoping for an alternate reality is not a good reason for believing in its existence. Regardless of your teaching, hope and faith are not sound bases for belief.
                          Last edited by JimL; 07-27-2020, 04:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It would only be monotonous if you aren't with God. And terrifying if you think that of Him! If you see Him as a compassionate Patron that shows grace to His clients, it'll be fine(understatement). I will have an entire universe to explore along with billions of brothers and sisters. And I would love to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from Him! Why does this remind me of a wild animal versus a tame animal? You think God is scary like a squirrel thinks you are scary!
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                              It would only be monotonous if you aren't with God.
                              How would you know?

                              And terrifying if you think that of Him!
                              Hey, it's your bible. According to Paul you're nothing but a wind up toy to serve god as he detemines. You don't even have free will, you're neither obedient or disobedient, neither good or evil, you have no agency, you're just a pawn in gods game of chess, the winners and losers are already determined, and you have no say. That's you're bible. Romans 9:14-24

                              If you see Him as a compassionate Patron that shows grace to His clients, it'll be fine(understatement).
                              Client, you're not a client. God doesn't work for you, you're his wind-up toy for him to play with, i.e according to Paul and your bible.

                              I will have an entire universe to explore along with billions of brothers and sisters. And I would love to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from Him! Why does this remind me of a wild animal versus a tame animal? You think God is scary like a squirrel thinks you are scary!
                              You're god, not that he exists, but you're god is an evil tyrant and you are naught but his play thing which he engineered to do as he wills. Romans 9:14-24.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                                Just because you assert you have an objective standard doesn't make it so.
                                I explained what that standard was, and rather than critique it, you've resorted to grade school taunts.

                                I take this as your concession to the argument

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                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
                                78 responses
                                411 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