Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Skavau]

No.

There are literally thousands of scenarios in life when it is actually necessary to harm someone.

You miss my point. I'll make my position more clear. People should live their lives as they see fit but should not in doing so inflict upon the rights of others to do the same. Intervention into the liberty of others and its potential byproduct of harm towards others should only be when there is a risk to innocents.

Y'know, the basic concept of human rights. Do you disagree with that?

Who says? You?

Others disagree. Who is right?

Me.

I await an argument for why the basis of society should break down and why it would benefit us.

Who says? You?

Yes, me. You asked.

Others disagree....who is right?

Me.

You see my point?

No.

There is no right or wrong but mere opinions....you can no more condemn me for acting a certain way than I can condemn you....on an atheistic view of reality.

No, morality does have a developed meaning and we can either act in accordance with it or we cannot.

There is no right or wrong that we are all held accountable to...right and wrong varies from atheist to atheist under atheism...

In terms of the existence of some cosmic power, then correct. However this does not mean we should not enable our own laws to benefit society.

 

[Skavau]

The objective facts that humans have pain reflexes and a sense of reciprocity, and the objective facts about the distribution of particular outcomes for a given situation. My moral system is utilitarianism, which is arguably subjective but can make neat use of the objective facts mentioned above.

I am very sympathetic to negative utilitarianism.

 

[quatona]

Formulate the above into a syllogism and let us debate on the topic: "Does God exist?"

The "above" that you quoted from me wasn´t about God´s existence.

 

[quatona]

I want you and quatona both to debate me on the subject and use this as your argument. If you do not want to that is fine.

I have told you several times before that
a. I am not into debating (I prefer thought exchanges),
b. even if I would enjoy debates: having seen your disingenious debate tactics in countless posts from you, you´d be about the last person I´d have a debate with.

Add to that the fact that you want to base a debate about "God´s existence" on a line of reasoning that doesn´t even address this question.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have told you several times before that
a. I am not into debating (I prefer thought exchanges),
b. even if I would enjoy debates: having seen your disingenious debate tactics in countless posts from you, you´d be about the last person I´d have a debate with.

Add to that the fact that you want to base a debate about "God´s existence" on a line of reasoning that doesn´t even address this question.

Ok.

However, I must inform you that I will no longer be addressing your posts in this forum unless it is a post in which you make known to me your desire to accept my invitation to debate.

I have learned much from you and I am grateful, but time will not permit me to casually post here any longer with you.

I wish you well!

 

[Elioenai26]

In terms of the existence of some cosmic power, then correct. However this does not mean we should not enable our own laws to benefit society.

Who determines whose laws are enabled?

Whose morality should be legislated?

And why?

 

[Skavau]

Who determines whose laws are enabled?

We do, through consensus.

Whose morality should be legislated?

No-one "owns" a morality. The morality that best serves personal liberty should be legislated.

And why?

Why not?

I'd rather live in a nice place than not. I think we all would.

 

[Elioenai26]

We do, through consensus.

So it is your view that members of a society, through popular vote or general consensus determine what is right and what is wrong, what is good and bad, what people should not do and what people should do and whatever that consensus is is binding for members of that society.

Is this what you are saying?

No-one "owns" a morality. The morality that best serves personal liberty should be legislated.

You use the word "should" here. However, you are appealing to your own ideal about morality. There are definitely others that would disagree with you. If they came to power in your country and became the majority, their views, which run counter to yours, would become the consensus and therefore their code of morality would become binding for you.

Do you understand that? You are proposing nothing more than a "might makes right means of legislation."

Why not?

I'd rather live in a nice place than not. I think we all would.

You assume everyone's idea of what is "nice" is the same as yours. Surely you know this is not the way reality works.

In some places, being the white male that you are and looking the way you do, you would be treated like a woman and would be raped and treated as a man's property. To these men, their way of life is "good" and "nice"...for you it would be "bad" and "not nice".

In their society, the consensus is that young white males exist to give sexual favors and to wash clothes and other miscellaneous duties...

You seem to be living in a fantasy world, or a bubble where everyone thinks like you do. The world is not like that my friend.

So when you say: "We determine what is moral and what is good and bad by consensus", you are simply saying that a group of people (a society) determines what is moral and what is good and bad without understanding that some societies actually believe it is good to kill atheists and that it is a moral obligation for them to do so.

Since there is no code of morality that is binding on both your society and their society, whichever society is more powerful will rightfully be the one to determine what is moral.

There is no adjudication between opposing societies if we take literally the view that you are proposing.

 

[Skavau]

So it is your view that members of a society, through popular vote or general consensus determine what is right and what is wrong, what is good and bad, what people should not do and what people should do and whatever that consensus is is binding for members of that society.

Is this what you are saying?

Not quite. Society determines what laws we have through consent (or ought to when not). That alone does not make them right but it does answer your question of how they are determined. At least in one case anyway.

You use the word "should" here. However, you are appealing to your own ideal about morality. There are definitely others that would disagree with you.

Yes, there are. I invite them to explain their position and how they have the right to oppress others.

If they came to power in your country and became the majority, their views, which run counter to yours, would become the consensus and therefore their code of morality would become binding for you.

Yes, they would. However it is a good job that most systems that involve democratic elements are not solely mob rule.

You assume everyone's idea of what is "nice" is the same as yours. Surely you know this is not the way reality works.

I never said that.

In some places, being the white male that you are and looking the way you do, you would be treated like a woman and would be raped and treated as a man's property. To these men, their way of life is "good" and "nice"...for you it would be "bad" and "not nice".

I'd probably be killed and my hair forcibly shaved actually. Or made to disappear by some gang. At any rate, they are wrong.

In their society, the consensus is that young white males exist to give sexual favors and to wash clothes and other miscellaneous duties...

See above.

You seem to be living in a fantasy world, or a bubble where everyone thinks like you do. The world is not like that my friend.

When did I say anyone would think like me?

So when you say: "We determine what is moral and what is good and bad by consensus", you are simply saying that a group of people (a society) determines what is moral and what is good and bad without understanding that some societies actually believe it is good to kill atheists and that it is a moral obligation for them to do so.

That is how morality is enforced, not how it is actually justified.

You mistake an explanation for how it is enforced to what it ought to be.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not at all, but I expect you not to understand.

You believe in a subjective morality, evolved over time no doubt, and which you think I should adhere to. I believe in a God-given, objective morality. God sets the standards and as the originator of that morality, always acts within it. Therfore, whatever he does to me is within the bounds of that morality.

You seem to think that your own, socially evolved, subjective morality will trump God's objective morality. I don't.

I'm not a Ragnor Redbeard sort of a guy. I don't believe that Might is Right. But I do believe that an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator ought not to be dismissed.

Everything you've said thus far suggests that you do believe Might is Right.

Unfortunately, in an atheistic framework there is no arbiter of morality, so your assertion means nothing. In other words, "sez who?"

How does a theistic framework solve that problem? You end up with multiple incompatible theistic frameworks, each one insisting to have the final word on moral truth. It becomes a "sez who" situation in which the authority one invokes depends entirely upon one's faith. As a consequence, moral claims are reduced to religious claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No.

There are literally thousands of scenarios in life when it is actually necessary to harm someone.

So no.



Who says? You?

Others disagree. Who is right?




Who says? You?

Others disagree....who is right?

You see my point?

There is no right or wrong but mere opinions....you can no more condemn me for acting a certain way than I can condemn you....on an atheistic view of reality.

There is no right or wrong that we are all held accountable to...right and wrong varies from atheist to atheist under atheism...

Gadarene said that atheists get their morality from their own views of what is moral and what is not....

That is the dilemma...

There is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions....there is no standard of morality one can appeal to...

So there goes your tripe about God being this and God being that....who says God is evil and immoral?

You? Ok, but since there is no standard by which to measure God's acts under atheism, all you're left with is your opinion.

I have asked you repeatedly in the past to elucidate how theism resolves this problem. I am yet to receive an answer.

Can one be a consistent moral relativist? I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'relativism'. In the previous thread, you made a number of interesting claims that warrant further examination. You claimed that objective morality stems from your morally perfect God and that certain actions (genocide for example) are objectively wrong. When it was revealed to you that the Biblical God commanded actions such as genocide, you attempted to argue that this objectively evil act could be considered 'good' and in keeping with your God's morally perfect character. I asked you whether you would participate in a genocide at the behest of your deity. Your response seemed to indicate that you would indeed commit atrocious acts in loving obedience to your God.

This poses a number of problems for your line of reasoning thus far. If genocide is objectively wrong, then your God's command to commit genocidal acts indicate that he is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect. If, on the other hand, the wrong-ness of genocide depends on whether or not your God commands it, then in what sense does that constitute an objective moral system? Acting morally is then simply defined by obedience, in which case even the most despicable acts might be deemed 'good' if those committing them believe they are complying with a divine directive. Since you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural, there will always remain uncertainty as to whether any 'divine directive' actually stems from the divine. Moral claims thus become reduced to assertions of "God wills it; therefore it is right." Whose God wills what seems to depend on the individual believer and his religion. Moral claims are thus reduced to religious claims or supernatural claims. Is is it any wonder then that some theists insist that persons who do not typically make religious claims (e.g. atheists) are correspondingly unable to make moral claims also?

This is why I think religion doesn't necessarily make men more moral. It does, however, make them believe they are more moral.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, because Christians have a long and proud history of agreeing with each other consistently on what's right and wrong, don't they?

Again, you are kidding yourself if you think you are in any better a position than us. Worse, in fact, as we are not kidding ourselves about the situation. But as ever, your incompetence will ensure you remain stuck in this intellectual rut.

I'm getting déjà vu here. Didn't he try to argue that theism is a superior postion because it provides the foundation for morality a few months ago? Are we just supposed to forget that that discussion ever happened?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Gadarene, that simply does not follow.

Saying that God sending His Son into the world to die for our sins is pointless because God did not have to make it possible for the need for the sacrifice to have arisen simply does not follow.

The two are wholly disconnected. One has nothing to do with the other. You are essentially saying that Christ's sacrifice was a waste because God is the one who created people who were going to need a Savior.

As long as God has at least one reason as to why He would want to create a world of free creatures, then your reasoning fails. Which means you would have to prove that God has no reason why He would create a world of free creatures.

Surely you do not want to shoulder such an insurmountable burden!

The point in fact, is that God demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.

That is the reason. So your accusation that it was pointless has been shown to be wrong. You simply have no way of providing an argument as to why God would not want to create a world of free creatures.

I think the pointlessness is connected to the original problem as accounted for in Genesis. God deliberately created Adam and Eve without any concept of right or wrong. He then placed forbidden fruit easily within their reach, all the while knowing what the outcome would be. The first humans were set up to fail. They were created without the concepts needed to appraise God's command to not consume the forbidden fruit. When they inevitably failed God's test (a situation impossible for God not to foresee) he punished them and cursed all of their descendants. The need for a sacrifice could have been prevented in the first chapters of the Bible. Instead God allows for millennia of needless suffering, followed by eternal suffering for the majority of people who have ever lived.

 

[crimsonleaf]

No-one "owns" a morality. The morality that best serves personal liberty should be legislated.

And here is the biggest danger of a subjective morality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And here is the biggest danger of a subjective morality.

It's not obvious what you mean by that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[crimsonleaf]

It's not obvious what you mean by that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And that's the second biggest danger.

 

[Davian]

I think the pointlessness is connected to the original problem as accounted for in Genesis. God deliberately created Adam and Eve without any concept of right or wrong. He then placed forbidden fruit easily within their reach, all the while knowing what the outcome would be. The first humans were set up to fail. They were created without the concepts needed to appraise God's command to not consume the forbidden fruit. When they inevitably failed God's test (a situation impossible for God not to foresee) he punished them and cursed all of their descendants. The need for a sacrifice could have been prevented in the first chapters of the Bible.

Or the story was fabricated, with knowledge of typical human behaviour, for the purpose of being an unachivable standard ("we are all failures/sinners") within a religion, where said religion was also used to control the populace. A far more parsimonious explanation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

People should live their lives as they see fit but should not in doing so inflict upon the rights of others to do the same. Intervention into the liberty of others and its potential byproduct of harm towards others should only be when there is a risk to innocents.

I agree that we need such social ground-rules, and that a liberal order can allow for some amount of diversity of ethical views. But this is primarily a political position.

Personally, I take an ethically naturalistic perspective on this, not a morally subjective one.

The need for rights is our nature as rational beings. Individual liberty is the manifestation of our need to be free in the exercise of reason for the purpose of personal flourishing, since our flourishing is essentially a rational activity.

The implication of this is that human rights do not have to be seen as a cease-fire between different views of ethics, or as a way of preventing a totalitarian enforcement of morality, but as a necessary part of an ethical social order.

Also, there is far more to ethics than politics. There can be plenty of morality not bound up in concepts of rights, and morality can be just as personal and private as it is interpersonal and social.

Anyway, I'm just piping in so that it is clear that some atheists do think that there are real moral truths, and that it's not all just some subjective "opinion".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

And that's the second biggest danger.

The second biggest danger is that you are a poor communicator?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lupusFati]

He's implying ignorance is the second biggest danger.