What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Bradskii]

'...under relativism there is nothing intrinsically wrong about it.'

We're assuming that it's not under relativism. I keep saying that.

The fact that you are trading on its apparent wrongness just shows that you recognize that there genuinely is a right and wrong, yet you fail to consider how that might be.

So if you think there's a genuine right and a wrong then I'm asking you for your personal opinion on the matter. If you think it's wrong then tell us that you'd vote no and tell us why.

 

[Fervent]

So if you think there's a right and a wrong then I'm asking you for your personal opinion on the matter. If you think it's wrong then tell us that you'd vote no and tell us why.

My opinion doesn't matter. The question is whether there is something inherent in it that is wrong, or if it's simply a matter of personal taste. The question is, why are you trading on that scenario instead of one where everyone decides that its wrong to eat vanilla ice cream and asking me if I would go with the crowd then? If its all just personal prefrences, why are the two scenarios different?

 

[Bradskii]

My opinion doesn't matter. The question is whether there is something inherent in it that is wrong, or if it's simply a matter of personal taste. The question is, why are you trading on that scenario instead of one where everyone decides that its wrong to eat vanilla ice cream and asking me if I would go with the crowd then? If its all just personal prefrences, why are the two scenarios different?

Well, the first one concerns the torture of a young boy. The second is about ice cream. Those things are not the same. But if you like, we can include both:

What is your personal decision on the taste of vanilla versus chocolate ice cream? And would you personally vote to torture a young boy? Both questions assume that you're not a relativist. You can give reasons for both decisions if you like.

I think this is the 6th time I've asked you. Correction. Seventh.

 

[Fervent]

Well, the first one concerns the torture of a young boy. The second is about ice cream. Those things are not the same. But if you like, we can include both:

So what's the difference if it's all a matter of personal preferences?

What is your personal decision on the taste of vanilla versus chocolate ice cream? And would you personally vote to torture a young boy? Both questions assume that you're not a relativist. You can give reasons for both decisions if you like.

I think this is the 6th time I've asked you.

And I remain steadfast in maintaining that my opinion isn't relevant on the matter.

 

[Bradskii]

So what's the difference if it's all a matter of personal preferences?

I want you to explain why it's not.

And I remain steadfast in maintaining that my opinion isn't relevant on the matter.

This is a forum. Where ideas are exchanged. This conversation has been on morality for some time. You are fond of asking questions, but not of answering them. It's a two way street. If you want to join a conversation then there'll be times when someone will ask you for your opinion on a given matter. This will be to clarify your position with a view to further discussion. So I'm asking for your opinion.

I have kept the question blazingly simple so there's no room for confusion. It's a question that any sane person would be able to answer at the drop of a hat. So whatever you think my position is on morality, I would like to clarify your position. I'm sure that anyone reading this exchange is as confused as I am regarding your refusal to give a simple answer to a simple question. So for the 8th time...

Everyone has voted to torture a young boy. What would your personal decision be regarding your vote?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is called an opinion. It would be "your" opinion. I don't pander to laziness, as the world is ripe with knowledge sources and I didn't step into a courtroom and am not on trial. So, they can stay ignorant if they like, or have and opinion, or both. I'm not offended... I don't force myself on others or bark orders to believe things or not. You are welcome to think this is all a big accident if you are so adamantly inclined.

I'll discuss all of the bio-stuff you posted as best I can, but this the wrong thread. You can go make your own if that's what you want to do.

I think the appropriate response here would quite frankly be, no.

If you are that offended, your volition can be used to avoid reading my posts. Those would be "my" opinions. I'm quite welcome it seems to address the community. Standard practice.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

You're a new poster with a thin record. I'll wait for more data before ignoring your or any other poster.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's been my experience as well.

One suspects that, on the whole, if one treats others well then, in most cases, they will reciprocate. If one has generally been well treated it is likely because one has treated others that way. Logically, the reverse might also be true.

The fact that you are trading on its apparent wrongness just shows that you recognize that there genuinely is a right and wrong, yet you fail to consider how that might be.

The above was directed at @Bradskii. I am reasonably confident that Bradskii knows how that perception of right and wrong arose naturally. Humans evolved to be a cooperative species. This, naturally, imposes a fuzzy sense of good and bad upon each of us. How we interpret that fuzzyness will be determined on the balance of how much it benefits or harms those on one end of spectrum from self to all humanity, versus those at the other end. How one reads that balance is, as Bradskii argues, a personal decision. The differences between people on the outcome of such decisions are accounted for by the fuzziness of the internal moral compass, or the fuzziness caused by varying interpretations of scripture.

I'm reasonably confident you disagree with everything I have written there, which is a pity. Might it be because you have had disappointing experiences?

 

[Larniavc]

You must live a charmed life.

I have often thought so in all honesty.

 

[Larniavc]

My opinion doesn't matter.

Can we move on then?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I have no idea how afterlife has anything to do with moral standards. It's right now in this life that we live moral ideals.

According to an atheist, what happens when you die?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Are you really saying that you couldn't put forward an argument against sexually assaulting and killing a child without there being a heaven or hell? Needless to say...I don't believe you.

I can, but ultimately, whatever reasons that are argued wont matter in the end. What happens to you after you die? What happens to all your memories of your experiences?

 

[Ophiolite]

Can we move on then?

This was in response to @Fervent remarking that "My opinion doesn't matter". Did it strike you as amusing that for someone who says their opinion does not matter, they spend a great deal of time expressing it?

 

[Fervent]

I want you to explain why it's not.

If it's just personal preferences, there isn't any intrinsic difference. It's all a matter of taste.

This is a forum. Where ideas are exchanged. This conversation has been on morality for some time. You are fond of asking questions, but not of answering them. It's a two way street. If you want to join a conversation then there'll be times when someone will ask you for your opinion on a given matter. This will be to clarify your position with a view to further discussion. So I'm asking for your opinion.

You're trying to trade on an apparently wrong situation, because there is a clear right and wrong in the situation. But that speaks against relativism, rather than for it. Regardless of what I say on the matter, it's wrong. So my refusal to answer is because you're trading on objective morality.

I have kept the question blazingly simple so there's no room for confusion. It's a question that any sane person would be able to answer at the drop of a hat. So whatever you think my position is on morality, I would like to clarify your position. I'm sure that anyone reading this exchange is as confused as I am regarding your refusal to give a simple answer to a simple question. So for the 8th time...

That simplicity is exactly why I refuse to give an answer. You're trading on an obvious case of right and wrong that should be apparent to all, but won't answer how it's any different from any other personal preference. It's clear you recognize that some things are truly immoral, yet you pretend that its just preferences.

Everyone has voted to torture a young boy. What would your personal decision be regarding your vote?

Why should my preference make any difference?

 

[Bradskii]

I can, but ultimately, whatever reasons that are argued wont matter in the end.

So there are reasons that don't rely on the promise of heaven or the threat of hell. Lucky for us, eh? Because neither seems to matter to so many when the rubber hits the road.

 

[Bradskii]

If it's just personal preferences, there isn't any intrinsic difference. It's all a matter of taste.

That's what you think others believe. I wanted you to state your position by answering the question. Which you do below.

You're trying to trade on an apparently wrong situation, because there is a clear right and wrong in the situation. But that speaks against relativism, rather than for it. Regardless of what I say on the matter, it's wrong. So my refusal to answer is because you're trading on objective morality.

You might have missed the fact that you just did answer it. I highlighted it so you can see where. I have asked you for your opinion on torturing a child and you said 'it's wrong.' Well done. It took some time but we got there.

Now the question becomes whether people, like yourself, who believe it's wrong have personally decided that this 'objective truth' is justifiably true or whether they blindly accept it as being true. This is why I asked a couple of times if there are reasons available for not torturing a child other than 'it's an objective fact'.

The question was obviously a simple one to answer. Others are more complex. More nuanced. But hey, I didn't want to tax you too much so I gave you an easy one. But whether these more difficult moral matters have justified reasons for being true (or false) or whether they are blindly accepted with no personal thought still stands.

You aren't the slightest bit interested in answering that so I haven't asked you. All the above is clarification for anyone else who has been following the thread. You only want to make claims and post statements and not involve yourself in messy things like discussions.

But thanks for the answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to an atheist, what happens when you die?

 

[Bradskii]

According to an atheist, what happens when you die?

We apparently escape punishment for all the bad things we did.

 

[dlamberth]

According to an atheist, what happens when you die?

And this has anything to do with moral standards?

 

[Belk]

My opinion doesn't matter. The question is whether there is something inherent in it that is wrong, or if it's simply a matter of personal taste. The question is, why are you trading on that scenario instead of one where everyone decides that its wrong to eat vanilla ice cream and asking me if I would go with the crowd then? If its all just personal prefrences, why are the two scenarios different?

OK. Tell us the methodology by which you determine there is something other then personal preference to morality. Tell us how we can test and repeat this methodology.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And this has anything to do with moral standards?

And what do moral standards have to do with this sub-forum?