Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[durangodawood]

And my point stands. Just because most humans agree on some moral point does not mean that moral point is objectively true.

ok. My point stands too: this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.

Yeah. Evolution. We evolved as a social species. Killing people in your group isn't very cooperative.

 

[BigV]

We do not belong to the UK. We are part of the commonwealth just like India

How did the UK treat Indians and native New Zealanders? I think the feelings changed towards the New Zealand after the island was populated by the Europeans, as New Zealand became more European.
The Maori and Colonial New Zealand

Same can be said about the United States. It is amazing how quickly some people forget that before "all men were created equal" in the US, there was a mass genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African Americans.

In February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that ousted the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, Russia annexed Crimea after a military intervention by pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces.[7]

A controversial Crimea-wide referendum, unconstitutional under the Ukrainian and Crimean constitutions,[8][9][10] was held on the issue of reunification with Russia; its official results showed majority support for reunification, however, the vote was boycotted by many loyal to Ukraine[11][12] and declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations.

Well, your link/source also says the people voted for reunification. A majority of them. Their vote results were boycotted by the Western government. Which is very strange, if you think about it. The Western governments supported a violent revolution that 'ousted' a legitimately elected Ukrainian President but boycotted the vote of Crimeans.

So, if one uses violence against the police and forces the President to flee, then one is supported by the Western governments. But if one uses a referendum, then one is going to be boycotted. I thought the Western governments loved the will of the people? Why the inconsistency?

 

[Ken-1122]

I was highlighting something that was very contradictory. You can't have something that is objective and yet only applies if the subject (observer) is humans.

Ahh... so you were joking? Would you mind answering the question from post #236?

 

[stevil]

Objective facts of human living? What does that mean?

Answer to post 236

I don't quite understand the question, but I'll give it a try.

An objective fact of human living, is that living humans breath, and have heartbeats and brainwaves.
Humans are mammals
Humans live on Earth and are land based omnivores.



But if we start to consider their wants and preferences, these are subjective to each human.
If we state that most humans value property and recognise that most other animals don't value property we could say that valuing property is subjective to the human experience.

 

[stevil]

How did the UK treat Indians and native New Zealanders? I think the feelings changed towards the New Zealand after the island was populated by the Europeans, as New Zealand became more European.
The Maori and Colonial New Zealand

Same can be said about the United States.

Very different.
The UK folk didn't come, guns blazing and conquer the natives. It wasn't cowboys and indians here and Maori aren't forced to live in reservations.

Well, your link/source also says the people voted for reunification. A majority of them. Their vote results were boycotted by the Western government. Which is very strange, if you think about it. The Western governments supported a violent revolution that 'ousted' a legitimately elected Ukrainian President but boycotted the vote of Crimeans.

So, if one uses violence against the police and forces the President to flee, then one is supported by the Western governments. But if one uses a referendum, then one is going to be boycotted. I thought the Western governments loved the will of the people? Why the inconsistency?

For some reason you are deliberately forgetting that Russia used force to take Crimea.

 

[durangodawood]

Objective facts of human living? What does that mean?

Anything a scientist would learn about how humans thrive (or wither) without having recourse to their subjective opinions.... using the same methods we would to study the health of, say, a caribou herd, or a pod of whales.

 

[stevil]

Well, your link/source also says the people voted for reunification. A majority of them.

The majority of those that voted.
The link also said that many of those loyal to Ukraine boycotted this vote as it was deemed illegitimate.

As I understand it, many people in the US revere their constitution.
Well it seems that the Ukraine constitution is important too.
"A controversial Crimea-wide referendum, unconstitutional under the Ukrainian and Crimean constitutions"
How can an unconstitutional referendum be valid???

I'm guessing here, but given the violence that had been carried out prior, people may have also been scared to vote their allegiance to the Ukraine.
"After the events of Euromaidan, the referendum was held during a Russian military takeover of Crimea.[3][4] The referendum is not internationally recognized by most countries."
"On 1.3.2014, the Russian Council authorized the use of armed forces on the territory of Ukraine.5 In the following weeks Russian troops in Crimea were reinforced and also gathered at the Ukrainian border."

Do you think that during a military takeover with Russians with guns in the country, this would be a good time to have a referendum where people can freely choose what their desires are?

"Based on the limited factual evaluation of the situation during the referendum that is possible, especially the freedom of the referendum did not seem to be guaranteed, since pro-Russian soldiers had taken control of Crimea and controlled the public infrastructure. This is problematic, because the freedom of a referendum requires the absence or at least restraint of military forces of the opposing parties and a neutrality of public authorities. Both elements do not seem to have been secured in Crimea"

"According to the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice the referendum could only have been held on one of the questions, which would then have been answerable with yes or no. Here, in contrast, voters were forced to choose between two courses of action without having the chance to opt for the status quo in which Crimea formed part of Ukraine under the current Ukrainian constitution."

Their vote results were boycotted by the Western government.

Actually "declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations."

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marx...crisis_-_an_international_law_perspective.pdf
"The process in which Crimea was integrated into Russia relied on the use of force by Russian troops and therefore gives rise to an obligation not to recognize Crimea’s accession to Russia. Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27.3.2014 was adopted with 100 votes, 58 abstentions, and 11 No-votes.104 Only a small number of states has recognized Crimea’s accession to Russia while the majority of states opposes Crimea’s integration into Russia."


It is painfully dishonest for you to imply that only Western nations oppose Russia in annexing Crimea.
There are 115 UN member states that oppose and only 19 that supported it.

Many of those 115 are not deemed Western nations
Political status of Crimea - Wikipedia

 

[BigV]

As I understand it, many people in the US revere their constitution.
Well it seems that the Ukraine constitution is important too.

Well, if so, which part? The part where the Western governments sponsored/supported the overthrow of Ukraine's president?

How can an unconstitutional referendum be valid???

Maidan was not even a referrendum! Besides, people of Crimea can vote for whatever it is they chose to vote, no?

Why can't the people decide on what they want to vote for or against?

Do you think that during a military takeover with Russians with guns in the country, this would be a good time to have a referendum where people can freely choose what their desires are?

Russia's guns were not trained on the people. Russian military ensured that the vote would have taken place. If not for the Russian military (disguised in uniforms without insignia) the vote of Crimeans would have likely not taken place.

Another interesting point - Russia had an official agreement with the Ukraine government about it's fleet being stationed in Crimea and Sevastopol. So, there could not have been an invasion by the Russias' military because they had an agreement to be there. For example, it would not be correct to claim that the US military invaded Saudi Arabia because there is a US military base in Saudi Arabia!

Actually "declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations."

You may have missed my point. I was saying that the Western Government supported Ukraine's JUNTA, Maidan protesters. That's why Ukraine's 'interim' government, unelected, was recognized by the West! While a Crimean referendum, where the people of Crimea voiced their opinion in the matter, was NOT recognized by the West!

 

[BigV]

Very different.
The UK folk didn't come, guns blazing and conquer the natives. It wasn't cowboys and indians here and Maori aren't forced to live in reservations.


For some reason you are deliberately forgetting that Russia used force to take Crimea.

Hm, that's not what I read about the native New Zealanders and how they were conqured:

New Zealand Wars - Wikipedia


Regarding Russia, Russia did not use force to conquer Crimea. Maybe you can find sources for the number of people actually killed by Russian military in Crimea? I mean, how can a Russian military take over a region and not kill anyone?

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis - Wikipedia

If you scroll down to the Crimean crisis casualties, you'll find a total of SIX people! Less than 10! How can Russia invade a region and conquer it with having less than 10 casualties? Are they that efficient? Or, perhaps, they weren't conquering but were welcomed there with open arms?

 

[Kylie]

ok. My point stands too: this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.

Why does it sound like you think that moral positions people hold are arrived at randomly? I stated very clearly in post 230 that we benefit from not having killers because we are a social species. The benefit of no killers is clear, thus it is in our interest to take action to ensure there are no killers among us.

 

[stevil]

Hm, that's not what I read about the native New Zealanders and how they were conqured:

New Zealand Wars - Wikipedia

Maori fought on both sides of the New Zealand Wars. This wasn't the British taking NZ off the Maori.

The British signed a treaty with the Maori. There was no conquering.
Ever heard of the Treaty of Waitangi?

 

[Speedwell]

And it's not like the Maoris were the ancient aboriginal inhabitants. They had only been in New Zealand for 300 years by the time Europeans arrived.

 

[BigV]

Maori fought on both sides of the New Zealand Wars. This wasn't the British taking NZ off the Maori.

The British signed a treaty with the Maori. There was no conquering.
Ever heard of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Well, I just look at facts. There was no British at first, then there were wars followed by the British take over. A mere coincidence?

What caused the New Zealand Wars? - E-Tangata

 

[durangodawood]

Why does it sound like you think that moral positions people hold are arrived at randomly? I stated very clearly in post 230 that we benefit from not having killers because we are a social species. The benefit of no killers is clear, thus it is in our interest to take action to ensure there are no killers among us.

In the very post you responded to I was highly skeptical of a random coincidence of opinion disconnected form the objective and shared conditions of living leading to a stable morality.

So I re read you post 230, and it makes me wonder why elsewhere youve been struggling so hard against my idea that enduring human morals are based on the objective conditions of human living.

I'm still struggling to grasp how the adaptations of other animal species are anything but a red herring... or red lion as it were. I'm not arguing for a pan-species morality of any sort.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well "God" is just something we all (traditionally) just agree on too. There's no objective God we can show each other. Now that's a bandwagon.

At least with well being as a standard we can observe the effects of various behaviors and see how they cause health/happiness or sickness/misery.

This is a curious statement.

 

[Kylie]

In the very post you responded to I was highly skeptical of a random coincidence of opinion disconnected form the objective and shared conditions of living leading to a stable morality.

So I re read you post 230, and it makes me wonder why elsewhere youve been struggling so hard against my idea that enduring human morals are based on the objective conditions of human living.

I'm still struggling to grasp how the adaptations of other animal species are anything but a red herring... or red lion as it were. I'm not arguing for a pan-species morality of any sort.

Gah, sorry, I misread your post.

In any case, it sounds like you are saying that since there must be more to it than a coincidence, you are suggesting that there is some objectivity to morality. Again, I will point out that such wide agreement typically only happens with the extreme issues like murder. When it comes to much milder issues, such as how to best punish a disobedient child, that almost universal agreement is nowhere to be found. If there really was an objective morality, then this would not be the case. There would be agreement in ALL aspects of morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Gah, sorry, I misread your post.

In any case, it sounds like you are saying that since there must be more to it than a coincidence, you are suggesting that there is some objectivity to morality. Again, I will point out that such wide agreement typically only happens with the extreme issues like murder. When it comes to much milder issues, such as how to best punish a disobedient child, that almost universal agreement is nowhere to be found. If there really was an objective morality, then this would not be the case. There would be agreement in ALL aspects of morality.

Well I never said there is "an objective morality" as if its all or nothing.

For like the millionth time, Ive said that enduring morality is based on the the objective facts about human living. That leave open all sorts of other influences on morality as well, like cultural contingency and even personal opinion.

So many people here say there is no objective basis for morality at all. That all I'm fighting against.

 

[durangodawood]

...an objective morality....

One thing that really bothers is: why do religious people get to call their idea of a God-revealed or God-judged morality "objective" at all? I mean, its the very least objective of any theory of morality out there. No one can show us a shred of evidence for it.

 

[Kylie]

Well I never said there is "an objective morality" as if its all or nothing.

For like the millionth time, Ive said that enduring morality is based on the the objective facts about human living. That leave open all sorts of other influences on morality as well, like cultural contingency and even personal opinion.

So many people here say there is no objective basis for morality at all. That all I'm fighting against.

However, you are unable to provide information for this objective basis for morality. How far does it extend? You seem to have suggested that it works for murder, that is, murder is objectively wrong. But I assume that when we go for milder and milder examples, it gets less and less objective until we get to things like what is a suitable punishment for when your toddler draws all over the walls. At what point is the cut off? When the objective morality applies, how exactly do we apply it? All you've done is say there's some objective component to morality and left the rest to speculation. Are you able at all to be specific?