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

Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    But you were saying it was the "natural" state of affairs, and is even seen in higher primates. God is the author of nature. You do believe that, right?

    If men are following their free will to do something that is natural, then they are following God's plan.
    You are assuming that what is natural is necessarily good. Men are on a different level than animals. We are moral beings created in the image of God. And there is something wrong in and with man. We are not doing what is natural for us. We should by nature love God and our fellow man, that is what we were created for.


    And you took that to be the moral guiding principle of atheism? Why would you think that atheism follows that idea?

    Do you have anything at all to support this bizarre straw man besides your own wishful thinking?
    Well what is the moral guiding principle of atheism? Oh wait there isn't any.

    I am saying:

    According to Christianity, God created nature
    According to Christianity everything God does is morally right
    Explained above. God created creatures that could freely choose not to do what is morally right. Freedom is a moral good, the choices we make may not be.

    According to you, it is natural for "A small powerful group controls the rest"
    Therefore it is morally right for a small powerful group controls the rest
    Nonsense, I don't think doing evil is good. But there is no evil in a godless universe, just nature.
    Last edited by seer; 08-31-2015, 12:04 PM.
    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...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Nonsense, I don't think doing evil is good. But there is no evil in a godless universe, just nature.
      Why do you keep repeating this falsehood, even after it's been explained to you that there are versions of moral objectivism that are compatible with God not existing? Once again:

      "So, what is moral realism about? It's about what sort of thing makes moral beliefs, moral statements, etc. true or false or false. That's what meant by "moral facts"; not "moral truths", but the truth-makers for moral claims. To take a non-moral example: scientific realists can point to things like "cats", as being the sort of things that make scientific claims like "cats exist" true. You'd have to be deeply confused to treat that as meaning the same thing as "the truth that cats exist must exist apart from minds". Similarly, the moral realist can point to things like character traits (as per virtue ethics), effects of welfare (as per welfare utilitarianism), etc. as being the sort of things that make moral claims true or false. You've already been given examples of such positions:

      (http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil12...ctivism.html):

      2. Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:
      (i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.

      E.g., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thought that all acts should be judged according to a rule he called the Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is, he thought the only kind of act one should ever commit is one that could be willed to be a universal law.

      (ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.

      Utilitarianism is the best known sort of Consequentialism. Its best known defender is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)"


      You yourself appeal to utilitarian considerations to figure out what's morally right and morally wrong, when it suits your purposes:
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Originally posted by robertb View Post
      Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?
      Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.
      Your own claims require you to admit that evil could exist in a Godless universe, as long as vicious unnecessary harm existed in a Godless universe.

      So why are you pretending that evil could not exist on atheism? WHY?
      Last edited by Jichard; 08-31-2015, 10:32 PM.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        No I ignore him, I just got tired of being called a liar and psychopath.
        Well, if you don't want to be called a psychopathy, then don't make comments like this:

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        I don't understand, why isn't it just as morally good to promote the well-being of my sentient life at the expense of, or to the detriment of, other sentient life? That seems to be a pretty common occurrence in human history. Isn't that also a brute moral fact?
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Nonsense, I'm asking you why isn't it just as morally good to promote the well-being of my sentient life at the expense of, or to the detriment of, other sentient life? If doing that promotes my well being and the survival of me, my family or tribe why is it morally wrong. Certainly our survival is a moral good.
        ^^^ Only psychopaths don't understand why the well-being of other's is important.
        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          It doesn't matter Tass if the majority resists it if those at the top have the power. Look at North Korea, Cuba, China, most of the countries in Africa or the Middle East etc... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.
          Most people in the developed world don’t see secular or religious tyranny as beneficial or desirable and resist it. It's in the less developed word that tyranny, both religious and secular, tends to flourish...this is where you'll find violence and cruelty, not in the developed world so much.

          Don't be silly, it has been the history of secular rulers too. It is the way the evolutionary process made us
          The "way the evolutionary process made us" was to predispose us for living in community.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          You are assuming that what is natural is necessarily good. Men are on a different level than animals. We are moral beings created in the image of God.
          No seer, God was invented by Man in his own image...all the gods were.
          Last edited by Tassman; 09-01-2015, 02:26 AM.
          “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


          • #50
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.
            This seems true, I would say this is why the acceptable answers to moral questions seem to evolve over time and that actions once deemed appropriate in certain contexts are no longer thought to be so in those same contexts.

            So, for you, moral questions (type A) would be grounded in your understanding of scripture and moral questions (type B) would be grounded in some version of the harm principle. Two distinct groundings (though this may tend to cause a ground-loop now and then, I suppose ).

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              You are assuming that what is natural is necessarily good.
              No, I am assuming what is natural was engineered by God in Christian doctrine.

              If you state that God did not engineer nature then I will withdraw my objection and admit I made a mistake.

              Otherwise my argument is stands, despite your attempts at distraction.
              My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                No, I am assuming what is natural was engineered by God in Christian doctrine.

                If you state that God did not engineer nature then I will withdraw my objection and admit I made a mistake.

                Otherwise my argument is stands, despite your attempts at distraction.
                But this doesn't follow. First "nature" is not moral, it is not immoral for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle. Whether God created nature to act as it does, or whether Satan negatively influence nature somewhere in the distant past is not relevant - there is still a good end which all of nature is moving. There is a teleology. The lion will lie with the lamb. And man, of all the creatures, has a high degree of moral freedom. We were created to love God and our fellow man - but we don't - and that was our choice not God's.
                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...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by robertb View Post
                  So, for you, moral questions (type A) would be grounded in your understanding of scripture and moral questions (type B) would be grounded in some version of the harm principle. Two distinct groundings (though this may tend to cause a ground-loop now and then, I suppose ).
                  Not really, I think generally the golden rule is applicable, and intuitive for type B.
                  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...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Most people in the developed world don’t see secular or religious tyranny as beneficial or desirable and resist it. It's in the less developed word that tyranny, both religious and secular, tends to flourish...this is where you'll find violence and cruelty, not in the developed world so much.
                    Yet, probably the larger portion of the world still live under some form of tyranny. And do so with at least tacit consent of the larger population.

                    The "way the evolutionary process made us" was to predispose us for living in community.
                    Yes and live in community under tyranny, like with the higher primates.

                    No seer, God was invented by Man in his own image...all the gods were.
                    Of course Tass... But the fact is, if there is no ultimate purpose or teleology for humankind then - "what ever is, is right." Survival is the ultimate good, not matter how one gets there. But even here, there is no objective reason why our survival as a species would be a moral good.
                    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...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      No, I am assuming what is natural was engineered by God in Christian doctrine.
                      If you state that God did not engineer nature then I will withdraw my objection and admit I made a mistake.
                      Otherwise my argument is stands, despite your attempts at distraction.
                      But this doesn't follow. First "nature" is not moral, it is not immoral for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle. Whether God created nature to act as it does, or whether Satan negatively influence nature somewhere in the distant past is not relevant - there is still a good end which all of nature is moving. There is a teleology. The lion will lie with the lamb. And man, of all the creatures, has a high degree of moral freedom. We were created to love God and our fellow man - but we don't - and that was our choice not God's.
                      So you are not prepared to state that God did not engineer nature. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

                      So one the one hand we have Christians claiming nature was designed by a perfectly moral being and on the other we have atheists who claim nature was not designed at all, that it is necessarily amoral. Yes?

                      Now what was it you said earlier?
                      ... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

                      You want to promote an argument that if something is natural then atheists think it is morally right!

                      Given your last post, I trust you now see the flaw in your argument. Yes, it is quite natural for a small powerful group controls the rest, but it would be wrong to suggest atheists think that it is therefore moral because, as you say "First "nature" is not moral, it is not immoral for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle."
                      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                        So you are not prepared to state that God did not engineer nature. A simple "no" would have sufficed.
                        No I said there were two possibilities.


                        Now what was it you said earlier?

                        ... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

                        You want to promote an argument that if something is natural then atheists think it is morally right!

                        Given your last post, I trust you now see the flaw in your argument. Yes, it is quite natural for a small powerful group controls the rest, but it would be wrong to suggest atheists think that it is therefore moral because, as you say "First "nature" is not moral, it is not immoral for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle."
                        What? What atheists are you taking about? And why would you think it is amoral for a lion to kill and eat a a gazelle and immoral for Stalinists to kill dissidents? Are not both actions perfectly natural?
                        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...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          No I said there were two possibilities.
                          Where did you say that? I just reread post #52, and that does not come across at all. I can see a "first", but I took that to be your first reason, not the first possibility.
                          You want to promote an argument that if something is natural then atheists think it is morally right! ...
                          What? What atheists are you taking about?
                          That would be the straw man atheists in your imagination, seer!
                          And why would you think it is amoral for a lion to kill and eat a a gazelle and immoral for Stalinists to kill dissidents?
                          Because Stalists were thinking beings able to understand right and wrong.

                          Are you not aware of that?
                          Are not both actions perfectly natural?
                          According to Christianity, God is the author of nature and God is perfectly moral. If these actions are "perfectly natural" what can we conclude about their morality in a Christian viewpoint? Perfectly natural actions engineered by a perfectly moral agent...

                          Contrast to atheism, which says nature is not designed, and is not the product of a moral agent, perfect or otherwise. Under atheism, there is obviously no reason to draw any inference about the morality of an action merely because it is "perfectly natural". And yet you persist in doing so. Why is that, seer?
                          My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                            Where did you say that? I just reread post #52, and that does not come across at all. I can see a "first", but I took that to be your first reason, not the first possibility.
                            I said: Whether God created nature to act as it does, or whether Satan negatively influence nature somewhere in the distant past is not relevant.

                            That would be the straw man atheists in your imagination, seer!

                            Because Stalists were thinking beings able to understand right and wrong.

                            What? The point being they did not did not believe that killing dissidents was immoral. They may have believed that for any number of reason, like the only thing that matters is survival, or that in a godless universe nothing is ultimately moral/immoral. You act like you are speaking for all atheists.

                            According to Christianity, God is the author of nature and God is perfectly moral. If these actions are "perfectly natural" what can we conclude about their morality in a Christian viewpoint? Perfectly natural actions engineered by a perfectly moral agent...
                            You are just being dense now and you know it. Like I explained, human actions do not follow their designed purpose. God did not create us to do evil. But you already knew this Pixie.

                            Contrast to atheism, which says nature is not designed, and is not the product of a moral agent, perfect or otherwise. Under atheism, there is obviously no reason to draw any inference about the morality of an action merely because it is "perfectly natural". And yet you persist in doing so. Why is that, seer?
                            The question is why would the atheist find any natural act objectionable? Do the fish complain because it is wet?
                            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...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                              So you are not prepared to state that God did not engineer nature. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

                              So one the one hand we have Christians claiming nature was designed by a perfectly moral being and on the other we have atheists who claim nature was not designed at all, that it is necessarily amoral. Yes?

                              Now what was it you said earlier?
                              ... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

                              You want to promote an argument that if something is natural then atheists think it is morally right!

                              Given your last post, I trust you now see the flaw in your argument. Yes, it is quite natural for a small powerful group controls the rest, but it would be wrong to suggest atheists think that it is therefore moral because, as you say "First "nature" is not moral, it is not immoral for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle."
                              Yup. He's pretending that atheists are committed to an appeal to nature.
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

                              Yet nothing about atheism entails such an appeal to nature In fact, it's often theists who resort to an appeal to nature, when they make claims such as homosexual is immoral because it's unnatural!!
                              Last edited by Jichard; 09-01-2015, 02:05 PM.
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Now what was it you said earlier?
                                ... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural.

                                You want to promote an argument that if something is natural then atheists think it is morally right!

                                Given your last post, I trust you now see the flaw in your argument. Yes, it is quite natural for a small powerful group controls the rest, but it would be wrong to suggest atheists think that it is therefore moral because, as you say "First "nature" is not moral, it is not immoral for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle."
                                What? What atheists are you taking about? And why would you think it is amoral for a lion to kill and eat a a gazelle and immoral for Stalinists to kill dissidents? Are not both actions perfectly natural?
                                Please stop pretending as if atheism commits one to a fallacious appeal to nature. The Pixie caught you on that, and you're not fooling any sensible person when you continue to pretend otherwise.
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

                                What should instead be doing is asking yourself why so many of your fellow socially conservative Christians resort to an appeal to nature when they say things like homosexuality is immoral because homosexuality is unnatural!
                                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X