Originally posted by 37818
View Post
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
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNot 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?
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostAnyone 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
-
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.
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostJust because we assert something doesn't make it so.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostI've gained ground in the fact that I've proven wrong the silly claim that atheists can't have an objective standard for good.
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
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostOriginally posted by Mountain ManNot 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?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
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostThank 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostYep, 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.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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYep, 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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostJim, do you ever hope you are wrong and there is a God and an afterlife? Just asking.Last edited by JimL; 07-27-2020, 04:58 PM.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostIt 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!
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
12 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
101 responses
539 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment