Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why, is he a creationist too?
Recognition of the limitations of human rationality does not an inconsistency make, but nice try.I find your inability to be morally consistent with a godless worldview to be logically incoherent, and existententially convenient. And who cares about all that logical consistency business!
This is not "fake it till you make it" forum.It's a little more complicated than "intuition." It's not special pleading to refuse moral intuition the "objective" status of scientific facts.
Yes, morals are objectively derived.This is not "fake it till you make it" forum.
The author gives us a textbook example of special pleading. He rejects intuition that leads us to the theologically neutral statement, " Objective morals exist."
He is unaware of the basic tenets of modernism which suggest that the only thing we can prove, in the way AntiCitizenX demands we prove, is that "I exist."
You seem equally unaware of this epistemic mistake and try and substitute "read in" your own make believe definitions for technical terms used in epistemology. This is faking it.
There are good arguments for morals being subjective. AntiCitizenX was too lazy to study them and present them.
Please engage the argument rather than faking it.
e.g. "pragmatic empirical rationalism (aka science) as a method to make reasonable conclusions."
What is the weight of "loving one's neighbor?"
What is the gravitational force of one unit of "Justice?"
Is "defending the weak," appear during the inflationary period of the big bang or later?
We quickly see how foolish scientism is.
It assumes that the only knowledge one can gain about our universe is scientific knowledge. But this is self-refuting!
What scientific experiments were performed to demonstrate the fact that the only knowledge we can gain is through scientific empirical rationalism?
Opps.
That is as coherent as a square circle or a married bachelor.
Had you considered the comments and studied you would have avoided these simple mistakes.
Faking it is not something you can do post high-school.
Did you misunderstand the context of my claims.Yes, morals are objectively derived.
Get over it.
Maybe you didn't watch any of the videos I posted?Did you misunderstand the context of my claims.
Your comment is nonsensical.
I am claiming morals are Objective. And you are telling me "Yes, get over it."
????
Looking for cogency on this thread. I must admit to being a little disappointed.
Did you read the title of this thread? Or read my opening post?Maybe you didn't watch any of the videos I posted?
Morals are objectively derived. What's your point?
Here we see an attempt to undermine the moral argument for the existence of God.
Solipsistic nihilism is a function of skepticism that anyone other than you exist. This is nonsensical the way you use it.Again you saddle atheists with a solipsistic nihilism without justification. I find your inability to ground morality outside of the say-so of some divine being disturbing.
If the statement "objective morals exist" is theologically neutral, then the conclusion of the moral argument does not follow from premise 2. We don't need to examine any more of ACX's video, you've defeated the moral argument for God's existence all by yourself. You've sunk your own ship to kill the captain. Well done.The author gives us a textbook example of special pleading. He rejects intuition that leads us to the theologically neutral statement, " Objective morals exist." Many atheists agree with that statement and defend moral platonism.
No, you are just unaware of how he fleshes out his epistemology elsewhere in his catalog. Because this isn't one of his epistemology videos, he doesn't delve into the subject very deeply and therefore for some reason you assume his solution to the problem of hard solipsism is "intuition." I'll say it again, but it's a little more complicated than that. Even if his epistemology was built on intuition, unless you're prepared to argue that what "feels" right is the same as what "is" right, you must agree that intuition isn't sufficient means to discover whatever objective morality may exist anyway. What an odd angle you're taking.AntiCitizenX is unaware of the basic tenets of modernism which suggest that the only thing we can prove, in the way AntiCitizenX demands we prove, is that "I exist."
You seem equally unaware of this epistemic mistake and try and substitute "read in" your own make-believe definitions for technical terms used in epistemology. That is faking it.
There are good arguments for morals being subjective. AntiCitizenX was too lazy to study them and present them.
Please engage the argument rather than faking it.
Science is not scientism, so I don't know why you brought that up. Science as an epistemology doesn't need to be all-encompassing, and intuition is a useful tool for creating hypotheses or "starting points" for certain beliefs, but you have no business calling such things "objective values" if they are not the kinds of things that can be measured by any conceivable objective unit, e.g. morality, love, and justice.e.g. "pragmatic empirical rationalism (aka science) as a method to make reasonable conclusions."
What is the weight of "loving one's neighbor?"
What is the gravitational force of one unit of "Justice?"
Is "defending the weak," appear during the inflationary period of the big bang or later?
What sort of scientific empirical experiment do you propose?
We quickly see how foolish scientism is.
First of all, you just labeled it an assumption, and assumptions aren't things proven by any means in the first place so I don't know what your complaint is. Assumptions aren't knowledge claims, they're starting points, and sometimes they're even axiomatic. Secondly, what you and theists all over the internet tend to gloss over in review of scientific thinking is what I've highlighted in bold. About our universe. Facts about what sort of knowledge is possible for us aren't facts about our universe, they're facts about ourselves. We don't use science to determine that. We use a priori logic. If/Then statements. If scientific methodology is reliable, Then it can be used to create useful predictive models of reality.It assumes that the only knowledge one can gain about our universe is scientific knowledge. But that statement is self-refuting!
What scientific experiments were performed to demonstrate the fact that the only knowledge we can gain about our world is through scientific empirical rationalism?
Opps.
I see you don't believe in conmen. Guess that explains how you've fallen for Craig.Faking it is not something you can do post high school.
These are problems for nihilists and people playing psychopath's advocate, and God is of no help here. Why is God the standard of good? Is God good because good is defined as whatever God is, or is God good because he is adhering to some standard outside of himself? Theists will often answer, "It's God's nature to be good." That doesn't answer the question at all. Why is God's nature good? Is it by definition, or is it by adherence to a standard outside of itself? If it is by definition, why is good worth striving for? If it is in adherence to an outside standard, how is God relevant?Solipsistic nihilism is a function of skepticism that anyone other than you exist. This is nonsensical the way you use it.
The incoherence is not that an atheist isn't able to be moral. Of course they are. The incoherence is that since morality is acting in accordance with an objective standard of Good. Where would one get a standard of Good if God doesn't exist.
If God doesn't exist then whence comes the good, a vote?
Good and evil would be illusory.
Being advanced animals it is hard to see on atheism and evolution why we have any obligations at all.
Right, because morals are the one thing humans can't conceive of on their own.Where would one get a standard of Good if God doesn't exist.
Exactly, just like if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?If God doesn't exist then whence comes the good, a vote?
So would theft and murder, I suppose then.Good and evil would be illusory.
Religions were tailormade for people like you. If you can't figure out how to be good without god, by all means, stay faithful.Being advanced animals it is hard to see on atheism and evolution why we have any obligations at all.
Alright, I’ll bite. Morality, as I understand it, is a code of conduct established by a society according to the consensus of its inhabitants. Generally the consensus is driven by mutual interests of said inhabitants, and there are several theories as to what constitutes the ideal moral system. The “perfect moral theory” hasn’t been settled as far as I know, so to claim that something has been stripped from morality by an atheist’s definition is premature, is it not?Well, this thread seems to have gone downhill pretty quickly.
I would challenge the atheists present to define precisely what they mean by 'morality,' because at the end of the day, they are usually discussing something very different than what theists mean by the term.
Alright, I’ll bite. Morality, as I understand it, is a code of conduct established by a society according to the consensus of its inhabitants. Generally the consensus is driven by mutual interests of said inhabitants, and there are several theories as to what constitutes the ideal moral system. The “perfect moral theory” hasn’t been settled as far as I know, so to claim that something has been stripped from morality by an atheist’s definition is premature, is it not?
The thing is, we need to face the possibility that our traditional sense of morality really is subjective and absurd. We can not dismiss this purely on the grounds that if true, we live in a world that makes us uncomfortable. I’ve seen some interesting attempts to ground morality objectively, but so far I haven’t seen anything sufficiently convincing. I have, however, seen some very convincing arguments outlining why behaving morally leads to a more subjectively fulfilling life than not, and that is reason enough for me to find moral guidelines important even if they’re not objective.Premature, no. Consequentialism is a fairly recent approach to ethics, and it does have holes that traditional metaethical theories do not. It also fails to get around the problem of defining what are good and bad consequences and thus descends into subjective nonsense unless supported by an actual theory of objective value.
But my point was more to the fact that consequentialists ignore or downplay the personal aspects of morality that were so important in the past. The Wicca code sums it up pretty well: "An it harm none, do what ye will." What it means for an individual to live a good life is relegated to the realm of the subjective, and more traditional people are going to see this as deficient at best, and wicked and potentially damming at worse.
This distinction doesn't need to be drawn along the line of theism vs. atheism, but it often is.
Well, here you have it folks. His faith rests on something we can’t prove to not exist.
The thing is, we need to face the possibility that our traditional sense of morality really is subjective and absurd. We can not dismiss this purely on the grounds that if true, we live in a world that makes us uncomfortable. I’ve seen some interesting attempts to ground morality objectively, but so far I haven’t seen anything sufficiently convincing. I have, however, seen some very convincing arguments outlining why behaving morally leads to a more subjectively fulfilling life than not, and that is reason enough for me to find moral guidelines important even if they’re not objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?