Atheism

[createdtoworship]

Never seen those as posted rules in an airport.

It is the "standard", because it is a courtesy extended?

how are people all under the same guidlines though?

 

[Paine]

nice turn around, but you are wrong. Positives are true until proven negative (innocent until proven guilty). you are saying guilty until proven innocent.

When something's existence has any decent evidence to back it up, there's no need to resort to philosophical hair-splitting or semantic games. You never hear these sort of arguments brought to bear about the existence of, say, Morgan Freeman.

 

[Dave Ellis]

yes we may be less annoyed than fifty years ago that somone cut in line, the point is that cheating or cutting in line is against the rules anywhere not just here. But why? Answer this question and you have made my point.

Because if someone is cutting in front of you, they are inconveniencing you.... Most people find that annoying.

Again, that has nothing to do with universal law, that's a simple biological reaction. Nobody likes standing in line, and this guy is making you stand in line longer. That's going to cause you to feel annoyance or anger.

You don't feel annoyed because of some mystical universal law, you feel annoyed because of the chemical processes going on in your brain.

 

[createdtoworship]

Because if someone is cutting in front of you, they are inconveniencing you.... Most people find that annoying.

Again, that has nothing to do with universal law, that's a simple biological reaction. Nobody likes standing in line, and this guy is making you stand in line longer. That's going to cause you to feel annoyance or anger.

You don't feel annoyed because of some mystical universal law, you feel annoyed because of the chemical processes going on in your brain.

but what is to say that inconveniencing someone is bad?

 

[Dave Ellis]

how are people all under the same guidlines though?

Why wouldn't they be? We are empathic people, we understand our actions affect others.

We know we'd be annoyed if people cut in line, so likewise, most people would be inclined to avoid doing that to others.

That doesn't go for everyone of course, but most people just naturally think that way.

 

[Dave Ellis]

but what is to say that inconveniencing someone is bad?

Do you enjoy being inconvenienced?

If you don't, then you can acknowledge it's undesirable, and therefore bad.

 

[Non sequitur]

how are people all under the same guidlines though?

Courtesy extended to others? Empathy? Unwritten rules?

No idea.

 

[createdtoworship]

Courtesy extended to others? Empathy? Unwritten rules?

No idea.

this is why I was talking about a natural law. There seems to be like you said unwritten rules to follow. They are everywhere and cover all walks of life. I propose this law to be objective not subjective and Holy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

this is why I was talking about a natural law. There seems to be like you said unwritten rules to follow. They are everywhere and cover all walks of life. I propose this law to be objective not subjective and Holy.

It's obvious you were fishing for an answer like that, so you could put forward that rebuttal.

Seeing as you ignored my point about it being a natural reaction, I ask you please address that, as it would negate your post.

Assuming you can do that however, on what basis do you propose this is an objective law, much less an objective, holy law? What evidence do you have that would justify your claim? The fact that many people see eye to eye on most major moral issues is not evidence for your case.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's obvious you were fishing for an answer like that, so you could put forward that rebuttal.

Seeing as you ignored my point about it being a natural reaction, I ask you please address that, as it would negate your post.

Assuming you can do that however, on what basis do you propose this is an objective law, much less an objective, holy law? What evidence do you have that would justify your claim? The fact that many people see eye to eye on most major moral issues is not evidence for your case.

but selfishness, or general courtesy is not a major moral issue, it's a small issue. We are not talking about murder here. I believe it to be objective because no culture seems to know how to explain it away, or do away with these laws. They simply exist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

but selfishness, or general courtesy is not a major moral issue, it's a small issue. We are not talking about murder here. I believe it to be objective because no culture seems to know how to explain it away, or do away with these laws. They simply exist.

That was addressed earlier.... We are an empathic race. We dislike rude behaviour when it is committed against us. For example, butting in line. It's an inconvenience, and therefore makes us angry or annoyed.

We understand how our actions affect others, and realise that if we but in line, we are inconveniencing everyone behind us. We also realize we may make everyone back there angry at us, and could provoke a fight or argument of some kind. So, the right thing to do, is to go to the back of the line and wait your turn.

It's not all that complicated, that's basics of how the human mind works.

 

[createdtoworship]

That was addressed earlier.... We are an empathic race. We dislike rude behaviour when it is committed against us. For example, butting in line. It's an inconvenience, and therefore makes us angry or annoyed.

We understand how our actions affect others, and realise that if we but in line, we are inconveniencing everyone behind us. We also realize we may make everyone back there angry at us, and could provoke a fight or argument of some kind. So, the right thing to do, is to go to the back of the line and wait your turn.

It's not all that complicated, that's basics of how the human mind works.

I can see this conversation is going is circles. Now it's not as much about the cutting in line as it is the inconvenience. Why is it taught that we should not inconvenience each other?

 

[Non sequitur]

this is why I was talking about a natural law. There seems to be like you said unwritten rules to follow. They are everywhere and cover all walks of life. I propose this law to be objective not subjective and Holy.

Not everybody follows these "natural laws" or these "unwritten rules".

Plus, they don't cover all walks of life.

Now you just assert "objective" and "Holy".

Actually, that was rather subjective

 

[quatona]

I can see this conversation is going is circles. Now it's not as much about the cutting in line as it is the inconvenience. Why is it taught that we should not inconvenience each other?

Why does it need to be taught when it is an objective natural law (i.e. when, on the other hand, you conclude its objectivity from its alleged universal acceptance)?

 

[DaneaFL]

Don't let gradyll take a poop all over this thread... He's one of the type you'll never reach so don't try.

I'd like to hear more from Elioenai26.

I'd also like to hear you define a couple terms and then explain your position.

First of all. What is God? Are we going to assume we are talking about The Judeo-Christian Yahweh?

Or would you rather keep it simple and define god as "an omnipotent mind without a body that has the will to create things like the universe"?

 

[Elioenai26]

Don't let gradyll take a poop all over this thread... He's one of the type you'll never reach so don't try.

I'd like to hear more from Elioenai26.

I'd also like to hear you define a couple terms and then explain your position.

First of all. What is God? Are we going to assume we are talking about The Judeo-Christian Yahweh?

Or would you rather keep it simple and define god as "an omnipotent mind without a body that has the will to create things like the universe"?

Dear DaneaFL,

I am greatly humbled by your desire to offer me a chance to speak on this subject. By the way, if that is your picture, then I must say you are very beautiful.

Having said that, I would for a moment, like to clarify my dear brother gradyll's position. The argument is, as I am sure you are all aware of, the moral argument which is based on the existence of morals and values.

First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a police officer or a teacher, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth and or value, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

Second, there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

With those distinctions in mind, here’s a simple moral argument for God’s existence which is what gradyll was arguing from. It is a tri-premise argument:

‪1.‬ If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
‪2.‬ Objective moral values and duties do exist.
‪3.‬ Therefore, God exists.

Premises 1 and 2

What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning. (This is what many here have been saying thus far).

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well. (Once again, this too is evident from the various responses supplied within this thread).

Now C.S. Lewis is one of the more notable figures in academia to have spoken and argued from this point. This framework here is simply a more logical and concrete form of that moral argument. This is what gradyll has been speaking about.

I do apologize for the editing and lack of bold and italic emphasis, I am writing this on my cell phone and am limited as to what I am able to do. When I return home from work I shall make minor corrections where needed.

Good day to you all!

 

[createdtoworship]

Why does it need to be taught when it is an objective natural law (i.e. when, on the other hand, you conclude its objectivity from its alleged universal acceptance)?

well we need some guidance as to what is out there as far as laws. For example we may inherently know things, but not know how to exercise them.
But again why is it even recommended to NOT inconvenience people? That is the real heart of the matter. Why do we know unwritten laws if they are unwritten?

 

[Gadarene]

What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight

This sounds like you're repeating Lane Craig, so I'll need to highlight this.

Merely constructing a logical argument is trivial.

Constructing a SOUND argument is something else.

Pointing this out as if it were some bonus is like expecting someone to rate your argument better because it is composed of words.

but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age

Except people don't generally believe both premises.

The Nazis believed what they were doing was right. Ergo, it's not objective that the Nazi holocaust was wrong. Nor was it generally held at the time that it was wrong - there was a lot of anti-Semitism broiling at that time, and lots of Nazi sympathisers. You can try and detract from this by appealing to objectivity as not-opinion dependent, but what else exactly do we have other than that?

Atheists don't believe that a God exists so the first premise is not generally believed either. Or if you want to take a still-religious approach - why specifically YOUR god in the first premise, and not some other?

 

[KCfromNC]

in LAX airport you have people from all different cultures standing in long lines waiting to go on a flight. What if you decided to cut in front of someone who's nationality is from india? Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well?

Yes, and they're different than in the US.

But even if they shared the same views about cutting in line as Americans, how does the fact that two cultures share the same idea about standing in line imply absolute morality? I still don't see the connection. And if I can find a culture where standing in line isn't followed so strictly, will you agree that morality is relative?

And they are absolute, not relative.

Making a random statement then restating your assumption is not an argument.

Also what if you decided to torture babies for fun, and giggled at it? Wouldn't you think that in any culture this would be wrong? Again it is the natural law we are attesting to. Some cultures may kill infants or burn them or torture them, but certainly not giggle at it! again this is the natural law, universal law we are attesting to.

What use is this alleged universal natural law if it only puts the most trivial limits (i.e. not giggling at killing innocents) on our behavior?

 

[Eudaimonist]

‪1.‬ If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
‪2.‬ Objective moral values and duties do exist.
‪3.‬ Therefore, God exists.

Premises 1 and 2

What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises.

What does it matter what people "generally believe"? Aren't we concerned here with what is true of reality?

I could accept premise 2, but certainly not premise 1.


eudaimonia,

Mark