The Moral Argument

[bhsmte]

No. I can´t even decide about the validity of your stance. Obviously, it´s valid for you. I can´t allow nor disallow you anything.
I can´t even stop you from lieing about me or from misrepresenting my position - as this may be permissible in your subjective morality.

It's all about protection.

 

[bhsmte]

Being at odds with your ideas doesn´t mean I am inconsistent.

That may or may not be the case. Since I am not a naturalist, it´s completely irrelevant here.
You appear to be confused: Naturalism isn´t even part of the topic.

Ah, another guy who makes up stances for me.

I love it when they read minds.

 

[Davian]

Quote button still broken?

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then sin is not the only thing that is a fabrication.

A faulty argument from consequences built on the fallacy of equivocation.

Morality, meaning, purpose, just to name a few, can fit into the category of things that are by-products of particular collocations of atoms moving through space for a brief interval.

The behaviour of social animals is not a by-product of their interaction, it is their interaction.

Is the by-product of animals eating that they don't starve to death?

 

[Davian]

On an ontological naturalistic understanding of reality, young homo sapiens which in the English language, we refer to as "children", are collocations of atoms that just so happen to be in a particular configuration. This configuration is what distinguishes them from say the rat or the mongoose or the chimpanzee.

The particular configuration of matter that we call "children" is explainable by appealing to those causal states of affairs which themselves are effects of some antecedent natural cause.

Some homo sapiens presently have a sense of revulsion regarding the act of deliberately causing a young homo sapien's biological functions to cease. But such sense exists because it is of some adaptive worth, like our sense of smell or sight.

Many homo sapiens have this sense and many don't. Having it or not having it is determined by one's physiological makeup which itself is determined by antecedent natural causes.

On ontological naturalism, the very fact that we are having these conversations is owed solely to the fact that there are some of us are so constituted in our makeup, that we have been determined to think the way we do because the thinking in some way aids in survival.

Others think differently and they do so because in so doing, it aids in survival.

Thus concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, are concepts that we have come to hold as a result of certain socio-biological pressures,

"O noes, nihilism. Quick, find me a god to cling to, so as to add meaning and porpoise to my life."

Everyone should have a porpoise in their life.

not because there is some good outside of the closed box in which we exist that we are appealing to.

Or that there is evidence of this 'good' that is claimed to exist outside of this closed box.

Since this is the case it is not unthinkable that sometime in the future of our evolution, the deliberate termination of the biological functions of a young homo sapien will be good and right if the act aids in the survival of the species.

In fact, it happens now. It is not unheard of to find in certain tribes of homo sapiens, that children are killed because the sustaining of their life costs the tribe too many resources. The weak and infirm, whether they be young or old are killed because the killing serves the end, i.e. survival.

If this is any allusion to abortion, I would note that, on average, the person procuring this procedure is Christian.

"According to many “pro-lifers” on Twitter, women who have abortions are “[expletive deleted]” who are too “lazy” to use birth control. However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the average patient has one or more children, was using birth control, and is Christian: 37 percent Protestant and 28 percent Catholic."

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/our...e_truth_about_right_wing_religious_hypocrisy/

So as long as the naturalist bears all this in mind, us theists have no problem with discussing such matters. As soon as the naturalist wants to borrow from the worldview

I borrow from the same worldview that Christians do; the ones that came before it.

he repudiates to say that killing children is wrong regardless of what religious folk say, we will point out this inconsistency.

What inconsistency, exactly?

 

[Davian]

That's because he's not being consistent.

Where is he not, exactly?

It is hard to be a consistent naturalist. All of reality screams and pushes against the naturalist's beliefs. He truly is a fish out of water.

Why is it then that it is the religionists, such as yourself, that are unable to demonstrate that their beliefs comport with reality?

 

[quatona]

Since this is the case it is not unthinkable that sometime in the future of our evolution, the deliberate termination of the biological functions of a young homo sapien will be good and right if the act aids in the survival of the species.

Why rant about the future of evolution when religions already have a track record in justifying and religious folks are justifying it here in this thread already?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If it makes you feel better, I can also claim that Jawhe commanded me to kill their women and children.

This seems to me a little nonsensical as well juvenile. Why would that make me feel better?

But it wasn't this god that killed all those women and children.
It were humans claiming to act on behalf of their god.

If that was true, and the culture thought this was morally right and morality is subjective to the culture do you think they were acting immorally and by which standard are you using?

Which, incidently, is exactly what ISIS is doing today.

ISIS is acting out the Quran's directives and not basing it on any first hand experience with their god. That was not the case with the Israelites. They had first hand experience with God during the deal with Pharaoh and during their journey from Egypt. So it is not the same.

No. I'm simply following your exact logic.

YOU said literally "even if they wouldn't grow up to do evil, they still went to heaven".

Meaning, literally, that killing toddlers and babies isn't an injustice to those toddlers and babies, since they go to heaven anyway.

I did say that but you are taking it out of context. God knows the future of the children and what they will do in the future.

Let me remind you of your exact words:

A short life here or an eternity where they will know no sorrow or pain. No tears will come from their eyes.

This is YOUR argument.

It is part of my argument. If they were going to spend an eternity in hell prior to dying but they are now spending it in Heaven then that is a good thing. That doesn't mean that I then believe that it is best if all children die so they go to Heaven and I never claimed that.


I said: Like I said, I do not have the necessary information to pass judgement on any people and only God possesses this information. God is the arbitrator of life and has this necessary information to make a moral judgement against evil.

You didn't comment. Did you miss it or did you ignore it?

No, you were asking me about toddlers and babies.
Did you forget what your own question was? Or are you trying to play dirty games here?

This isn't about abortion.
This is about brutally killing children, toddlers and babies.
And you defending the practice.

I didn't forget did you?

Dirty games?

Abortion is just as relevant as the OT passages you are citing.

You don't believe that abortion is brutally killing children? Babies? Are you defending abortion then?

Yes, I would say that murdering toddlers and babies is quite repugnant.
You don't? Apparantly not......

I am not the arbitrator of life. I find it sad and unnerving. My feelings however are not the issue. My interaction in this discussion is pointing out the act in a Biblical sense and providing reason for the actions God took. This aligns with the question of objective morality vs. subjective morality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you're stating that every single city that the Israelites attacked practiced human sacrifice, and I need to offer proof you're wrong? First, just show me the verse that says every single city or every single group the Israelites attacked practiced human sacrifice and I'll concede.

No, I am not claiming that every single city that the Israelites attacked practiced human sacrifice. Some were attacked in self defense and others for their idolatry and then there were those that we are talking about that were sacrificing their children. That information comes from the Bible and archaeologists have found remains of sacrificed children in jars.

Actually, I said this is your justification. If you want to make that justification, then fine. But you haven't so far (at least not to me). Your justifications have been self-defense and fighting evil.

So you don't believe the accounts in the Bible. So why are you discussing the issue at all.

No, this is in response to you claiming what is "probable". If we're just going to guess on what is "probable" then that is my guess, and you have yours.

Except so far your whole argument has been based on this guessing of what was probable.

Then what is your question and what is its point?

What? You might want to go back and re-read it if you don't remember.

You sort of quoted me (but accidentally dropped the /QUOTE stuff) here but then didn't respond to it at all. Are you planning on responding to this?

So do you think that this objectively immoral for soldiers to marry captives and have marital relations with them? In other nations captives were not allowed to marry. They were taken and used as sex slaves as you have discussed and if they had children they were killed as slaves could not have children. The women taken by Jews were married, had full rights as family and the children were full biological heirs.

Abortion is just as relevant in this discussion about moral values. I see everyone is evading and not wanting to discuss this...I wonder why...not.

 

[anonymous person]

Why rant about the future of evolution when religions already have a track record in justifying and religious folks are justifying it here in this thread already?

I am not ranting. I am stating in very clear terms, that assuming naturalism, whatever aids in the survival of our species is what we have been programmed to call "good". Killing children is good when doing so aids in survival. Anything is "good" if it aids in survival. Animals kill each other quite often. They forcefully copulate with one another all the time. They do not murder or rape each other. Homo sapiens assign labels like murder and rape to certain acts, but that is simply because we have evolved to see such acts generally as being disadvantageous to survival and have over time come to view them as taboo.

Indeed, even now as you mention, many rapists and murderers rape and murder because within each homo sapien that commits such acts, there are certain natural processes affecting their physiology which causes them to act as they do. Fermions and bosons acting on matter as Rosenberg would say. Puppets being wielded by impersonal mechanistic forces acting on matter over time.

This is morality on naturalism.

Thus all of the denouncements from naturalists about how messed up the bible is on this issue cannot be made unless they borrow from the worldview they seek to repudiate in raising the issue.

On naturalism, there just is no right or wrong but whatever aids or does not aid in survival. Our awareness of a realm of moral values and duties is a biological adaptation not unlike our hands, or feet or teeth. Such referents are illusory. They do not exist. There are no "oughts" in a naturalistic universe. There just "is" us and the DNA arranged just as it is, and we dance to it. The rapist is simply dancing to his or her DNA. The pedophile is simply dancing to their DNA. The skeptic who questions everything but his skepticism, is simply dancing to his DNA. You by typing the words you type here, could not do otherwise. You dance. I dance, we all dance and we could not do otherwise, though some are persuaded they can, such persuasion has no basis in reality on naturalism.

Thus any grounds for moral accountability is jettisoned. If we are robots, we are not accountable for what we think, say, or do.

The problem the naturalist has is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to be god, but will not let others be free to be god too.

He wants to on one hand say that meaning and purpose are relative and simply whatever he decides is meaningful and purposeful at the moment, but then he wants to denounce others for simply doing what they feel is meaningful and purposeful.

In attempting to be rid of God, he saws the branch off that supports him.

 

[anonymous person]

The utter bankruptcy of naturalism is the fact that on such a worldview, the self-centered hedonistic coward that preys upon little children is simply doing what nature has caused him to do, while the altruistic humanist philanthropist that gives all that he has to the poor is simply doing what nature has caused him to do. Neither is better or worse off than the other. Neither is more noble or less noble, more honorable or less honorable than the other. Such notions only obtain in the event that they could have done otherwise. But the chain of cause and effect must forever remain unbroken. What is, will be the antecedent cause for what will be tomorrow.

They both die after a short while to be replaced by more homo sapiens who will live and die.

The strong survive to procreate with the aim to survive as long as possible before the universe experiences either heat death or a big crunch. The universe neither knows nor cares, nor do we. We just are and are beset with delusions of having some special place in the cosmos.

 

[Davian]

Sure looks like ranting.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because he's not being consistent. It is hard to be a consistent naturalist. All of reality screams and pushes against the naturalist's beliefs. He truly is a fish out of water.

Very inconsistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. I can´t even decide about the validity of your stance. Obviously, it´s valid for you. I can´t allow nor disallow you anything.
I can´t even stop you from lieing about me or from misrepresenting my position - as this may be permissible in your subjective morality.
Which part of "I won´t discuss morality with you because you and I don´t have a minimum of common ground for doing so." did you not understand?

You are making false accusations. You can't discuss it because you are using objective morality while arguing against it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I am not claiming that every single city that the Israelites attacked practiced human sacrifice. Some were attacked in self defense and others for their idolatry and then there were those that we are talking about that were sacrificing their children. That information comes from the Bible and archaeologists have found remains of sacrificed children in jars.

Okay, then show me the verse that directly links the "cities at a distance from you" with the accounts of human sacrifice.

So you don't believe the accounts in the Bible. So why are you discussing the issue at all.

I'm taking the accounts in the Bible as a given. I may not believe in the divine aspects, but I'll take those as a given as well. I do believe that most of the accounts in the Bible happened, but maybe not some of the specifics. For instance, I believe the Israelites went to war a lot. I believe they conquered cities. I believe that cities named in the Bible as conquered cities were conquered by the Israelites. I believe that the practices described in the Bible about other peoples did happen to some extent, though I think the Israelites may have exaggerated some. I believe that the Israelites did the things they said they did in the context of enforcing the law and dictating what that law is, and that is the most important thing of all.

The only thing I won't take as a given is the justification for the acts described in the Bible. That is what we will discuss.

The issue at hand is that Christians in this thread are trying to prove the existence of objective morals. If I start believing in the Judaeo-Christian God, I have to stop believing that rape is objectively immoral, genocide is objectively immoral, slavery is objectively immoral, etc... It seems like The Bible is the ultimate source for morals being subjective, and I don't see how it has a place in this argument of objective morality. So we are going through all the horrible stuff in The Bible, one by one, as you try to justify it, that is what we are doing. This is why I asked you early on what objective morals are in the Bible other than "obey God", and "worship God", but you didn't want to answer.

Except so far your whole argument has been based on this guessing of what was probable.

Nope, my argument has been about what is permitted. If it was permitted, then it is not objectively immoral to do it. It doesn't even matter if there was ever one instance of it happening, it would still be a moral code that says, "you can do this".

What? You might want to go back and re-read it if you don't remember.

I answered it once, and you said you worded it wrong. I don't want to answer again until you word it exactly the way you want it to be worded.

So do you think that this objectively immoral for soldiers to marry captives and have marital relations with them?

Please answer the question, and then you can ask yours. If a soldier decides to keep his captive as a wife, and then forces her to have marital intercourse with him and she resists, who is acting immorally?

Abortion is just as relevant in this discussion about moral values. I see everyone is evading and not wanting to discuss this...I wonder why...not.

Once you've answered my questions about rape, then I swear I'll talk to you about abortion till you're blue in the face. I don't want to have to handle 100 different topics at once. So all it takes are concrete answers, not answering questions with questions.

 

[Davian]

I am not ranting.

rant |rant| verb; speak at length in a wild, impassioned way: she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all.

I am stating in very clear terms, that assuming naturalism,

...your interpretation of naturalism...

whatever aids in the survival of our species is what we have been programmed

"Programmed", in the pejorative use of the word, or course.

to call "good". Killing children is good when doing so aids in survival.

Can you provide a context where that might apply, in your interpretation of "naturalism"?

Anything is "good" if it aids in survival.

Again, this needs context.

Animals kill each other quite often. They forcefully copulate with one another all the time. They do not murder or rape each other. Homo sapiens assign labels like murder and rape to certain acts, but that is simply because we have evolved to see such acts generally as being disadvantageous to survival and have over time come to view them as taboo.

Indeed. Morality evolves with us.

Indeed, even now as you mention, many rapists and murderers rape and murder because within each homo sapien that commits such acts, there are certain natural processes affecting their physiology which causes them to act as they do. Fermions and bosons acting on matter as Rosenberg would say. Puppets being wielded by impersonal mechanistic forces acting on matter over time.

Where did you get this version of "naturalism"? Mine does not throw free will under the bus.

This is morality on naturalism.

Fortunately, morality is not limited to this "naturalism" that you describe, and we can also use reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness.

Thus all of the denouncements from naturalists about how messed up the bible is

Is it only naturalists that think the Bible is messed up? What about those of religions other than yours? Those of no religion?

on this issue cannot be made unless they borrow from the worldview they seek to repudiate in raising the issue.

What exactly would a naturalist borrow from a worldview where anything goes - rape, genocide, murder - as long as you believe?

On naturalism, there just is no right or wrong

Don't you mean, no black and white? If you don't have absolutes, how can you have anything? Is that what you are saying?

but whatever aids or does not aid in survival. Our awareness of a realm of moral values and duties is a biological adaptation not unlike our hands, or feet or teeth. Such referents are illusory.

"Illusory" implies deception, or trickery. I prefer "constructs".

They do not exist.

Yet the world functions as if they do. Colours don't actually exist either, but we act as if they do.

There are no "oughts" in a naturalistic universe. There just "is" us and the DNA arranged just as it is, and we dance to it. The rapist is simply dancing to his or her DNA. The pedophile is simply dancing to their DNA. The skeptic who questions everything but his skepticism,

If scepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity, what you are saying makes no sense. Scepticism applied to itself would not mean "less sceptical".

is simply dancing to his DNA. You by typing the words you type here, could not do otherwise.

Or you, misrepresenting the positions of others here.

You dance. I dance, we all dance and we could not do otherwise, though some are persuaded they can, such persuasion has no basis in reality on naturalism. Thus any grounds for moral accountability is jettisoned. If we are robots, we are not accountable for what we think, say, or do.

And we observe that we are not like robots, and accordingly we are held accountable for what we say and do. Being held accountable for what we think is in the realm of religion.

The problem the naturalist has is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to be god,

What do you mean, be a god? Like, have superpowers and stuff?

but will not let others be free to be god too.

You can be a 'god' if you want. How are you going to do that?

He wants to on one hand say that meaning and purpose are relative and simply whatever he decides is meaningful and purposeful at the moment, but then he wants to denounce others for simply doing what they feel is meaningful and purposeful.

Only those that wish to promote those things they feel are meaningful and purposeful as fact in our government and educational system, while these things remain indistinguishable from the imaginary.

In attempting to be rid of God, he saws the branch off that supports him.

God who?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On an ontological naturalistic understanding of reality, young homo sapiens which in the English language, we refer to as "children", are collocations of atoms that just so happen to be in a particular configuration. This configuration is what distinguishes them from say the rat or the mongoose or the chimpanzee.

The particular configuration of matter that we call "children" is explainable by appealing to those causal states of affairs which themselves are effects of some antecedent natural cause.

Some homo sapiens presently have a sense of revulsion regarding the act of deliberately causing a young homo sapien's biological functions to cease. But such sense exists because it is of some adaptive worth, like our sense of smell or sight.

Many homo sapiens have this sense and many don't. Having it or not having it is determined by one's physiological makeup which itself is determined by antecedent natural causes.

On ontological naturalism, the very fact that we are having these conversations is owed solely to the fact that there are some of us are so constituted in our makeup, that we have been determined to think the way we do because the thinking in some way aids in survival.

Others think differently and they do so because in so doing, it aids in survival.

Thus concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, are concepts that we have come to hold as a result of certain socio-biological pressures, not because there is some good outside of the closed box in which we exist that we are appealing to.

Since this is the case it is not unthinkable that sometime in the future of our evolution, the deliberate termination of the biological functions of a young homo sapien will be good and right if the act aids in the survival of the species.

In fact, it happens now. It is not unheard of to find in certain tribes of homo sapiens, that children are killed because the sustaining of their life costs the tribe too many resources. The weak and infirm, whether they be young or old are killed because the killing serves the end, i.e. survival.

So as long as the naturalist bears all this in mind, us theists have no problem with discussing such matters. As soon as the naturalist wants to borrow from the worldview he repudiates to say that killing children is wrong regardless of what religious folk say, we will point out this inconsistency.

Why don't you rant on your blog and spare us here? Could it be that you don't have an audience there?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is morality on naturalism.
...

In attempting to be rid of God, he saws the branch off that supports him.

You haven't even got a branch for support:

I pray I would be willing to do His will if it included killing men women and children, yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How so? If one claims that morality is only subjective, it would seem reasonable to allow an opposing subjective stance as much validity as the one you are holding. That is not what you are doing.

Ethical subjectivism is not equivalent to moral relativism/nihilism.

 

[quatona]

You are making false accusations. You can't discuss it because you are using objective morality while arguing against it.

All I have given you is my opinion. I don´t see any point in discussing (despite your persistent attempts to draw me into such a discussion) morality with you, exactly because without there being a demonstrable objective morality, it requires some common ground (e.g. similar moral values and a similar meta-ethics) for discussing this meaningfully.
Besides, I haven´t been arguing against "objective morality" here, I just refused to simply accept its existence for a premise in the moral argument withtout substantiation.

 

[quatona]

I am not ranting. I am stating in very clear terms, that assuming naturalism, whatever aids in the survival of our species is what we have been programmed to call "good". Killing children is good when doing so aids in survival. Anything is "good" if it aids in survival. Animals kill each other quite often. They forcefully copulate with one another all the time. They do not murder or rape each other. Homo sapiens assign labels like murder and rape to certain acts, but that is simply because we have evolved to see such acts generally as being disadvantageous to survival and have over time come to view them as taboo.

Indeed, even now as you mention, many rapists and murderers rape and murder because within each homo sapien that commits such acts, there are certain natural processes affecting their physiology which causes them to act as they do. Fermions and bosons acting on matter as Rosenberg would say. Puppets being wielded by impersonal mechanistic forces acting on matter over time.

This is morality on naturalism.

Thus all of the denouncements from naturalists about how messed up the bible is on this issue cannot be made unless they borrow from the worldview they seek to repudiate in raising the issue.

On naturalism, there just is no right or wrong but whatever aids or does not aid in survival. Our awareness of a realm of moral values and duties is a biological adaptation not unlike our hands, or feet or teeth. Such referents are illusory. They do not exist. There are no "oughts" in a naturalistic universe. There just "is" us and the DNA arranged just as it is, and we dance to it. The rapist is simply dancing to his or her DNA. The pedophile is simply dancing to their DNA. The skeptic who questions everything but his skepticism, is simply dancing to his DNA. You by typing the words you type here, could not do otherwise. You dance. I dance, we all dance and we could not do otherwise, though some are persuaded they can, such persuasion has no basis in reality on naturalism.

Thus any grounds for moral accountability is jettisoned. If we are robots, we are not accountable for what we think, say, or do.

The problem the naturalist has is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to be god, but will not let others be free to be god too.

He wants to on one hand say that meaning and purpose are relative and simply whatever he decides is meaningful and purposeful at the moment, but then he wants to denounce others for simply doing what they feel is meaningful and purposeful.

In attempting to be rid of God, he saws the branch off that supports him.

Wrong thread (not about naturalism - and the exposition of the logical flaws in the moral argument don´t require you to be a naturalist, it just requires you to be honest), wrong person to address (not a naturalist here). So yes, an off-topic rant.
I´ll leave it to the naturalists to address your misconceptions about naturalism.