Needing justification for morality

Dave Ellis · May 25, 2014

juvenissun said:
We can make the definition.
A definition is basically an assumption. It could be made as one wishes.

No, a definition is a description, not an assumption.

Dave Ellis · May 25, 2014

juvenissun said:
Do not link. I won't read it. I am not talking to anyone else. I am talking to YOU.

Give me one by yourself.

I have provided you with the evidence you requested. If you choose not to read it, that's not my problem.

Dave Ellis · May 25, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
He has to give support for his first premise.

What reason could he give to support the view that the cookie monster is the grounds for objective moral values and duties?

Well, you could simply assert he is so. That's what theists do for god after all.

I think you're missing the point of the cookie monster comparison. It isn't meant to show cookie monster is a valid explanation.... it's meant to show that cookie monster and god are on equal footing evidence-wise, and it's an equally bad claim either way.

Dave Ellis · May 25, 2014

lesliedellow said:
The point is that they have no basis for saying the Nazis were evil beyond their own displeasure at what they did. Even if they had been around at the time, why should their opinion that it was wrong to murder Jews have been binding on the Nazis?

It's not really that hard to think up of reasons why the Nazis were evil and should be opposed.

The irony is the theistic view does not account for morality, the atheistic one is grounded in reason.

Dave Ellis · May 25, 2014

NannaNae said:
i'm calling this..
and you vote how exactly?
have you ever voted for a
"conservative" for his real conservative morality and clinton and his cigar don't count..

I'll jump in here to say I absolutely agree with Eudaimonist's post on why we should and do act good. Ironically, it's usually the Christians who say they act good to stay in god's good books rather than acting good for the sake of their fellow humans.

And to answer your question, I don't see how someone votes is relevant to the issue.... However I worked on the Conservative Party of Canada's election campaigns in 2006 and 2008, and have always voted to the center-right of the political spectrum.

That being said, you should be aware for what passes as conservatism in the states is not what passes for conservatism anywhere else in the developed world. The Republicans for the most part are full on wingnuts.

juvenissun · May 25, 2014

Dave Ellis said:
I have provided you with the evidence you requested. If you choose not to read it, that's not my problem.

As I predicted, no more than 3 posts. In fact, not even a single argument is made. I know what you do not know.

The Bible does not say the earth is flat.

juvenissun · May 25, 2014

Dave Ellis said:
No, a definition is a description, not an assumption.

An assumption is a description. Boy, have you ever graduated from a college?

Leave the above mistake alone, you may give a definition and see if I can turn it into an assumption.

Dave Ellis · May 26, 2014

juvenissun said:
As I predicted, no more than 3 posts. In fact, not even a single argument is made. I know what you do not know.

The Bible does not say the earth is flat.

Actually, yes, an argument was made and evidence was provided. The only reason this hasn't gone beyond three posts is your refusal to look at it.

As such, my argument stands, and yes, the bible repeatedly describes the world as flat.

theophilus777 · May 26, 2014

Syd the Human said:
With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them.

This is hilarious! As in, milk spewing out my nose all over my screen ...

Are morals that aren't adhered to still moral? What if no trees fall in the forest?

Syd the Human said:
But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

Justification would seem to be at issue because if there is firm footing, then morals will be adhered to. I just see no reason to conflate morality with religion. Morality can be plenty clear w/o it. In fact the Judeo-Christian Scriptures seem to dwell on the edge of such perilous moral issues as to be unresolvable. (Kinda the whole point, I think)

Dave Ellis · May 26, 2014

juvenissun said:
An assumption is a description. Boy, have you ever graduated from a college?

Leave the above mistake alone, you may give a definition and see if I can turn it into an assumption.

I find it rather hilarious when you insult my education level, then you contradict your own assertion proving yourself wrong right afterwards..... If you can turn a definition into an assumption, that means it's not an assumption to begin with.

Anyways, while this may be college level stuff where you live, for people around where I live, this is grade 2 level. I'll be happy to bring your reading comprehension along by providing you with definitions for each word. It's the least I can do to help the poor and needy uneducated.

Definition:

1: a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

2: the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

Assumption:

1: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

2: the action of taking or beginning to take power or responsibility.

3: the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily into heaven. This was formally declared a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in 1950.

Description:

1: a spoken or written representation or account of a person, object, or event.

2: a sort, kind, or class of people or things.

As you can see, they are totally separate words, each with different meanings. The flaw in your argument is that an assumption is a belief, not a description.

juvenissun · May 26, 2014

Dave Ellis said:
1: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Is the highlighted a sentence of description (on "a thing")
See where you put it in your last post.

Dave Ellis · May 26, 2014

juvenissun said:
Is the highlighted a sentence of description (on "a thing")
See where you put it in your last post.

I repeat, it's a belief. What's hard to understand about that?

juvenissun · May 26, 2014

Dave Ellis said:
1: a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

Does this description suggest that a word which seemingly has an exact meaning, must have an exact meaning? Why don't you try one such word and see if it is true?

Let me do one for you:

Word: definition:
Statement: a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

So, how many statements can be given to a word: e.g. Food ?
Does the word "Food" have an exact meaning?

---------

I am not insulting you. I am telling you something you did not learn well in college.

Dave Ellis · May 26, 2014

juvenissun said:
Does this description suggest that a word which seemingly has an exact meaning, must have an exact meaning? Why don't you try one such word and see if it is true?

Let me do one for you:

Word: definition:
Statement: a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

So, how many statements can be given to a word: e.g. Food ?
Does the word "Food" have an exact meaning?

---------

I am not insulting you. I am telling you something you did not learn well in college.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate which entails you changing the definitions of what words mean to suit your own argument.

To bring this back on topic, you can define your god however you want to, however until you can back that up with something verifiable, I have no reason to assume your claims are true.

juvenissun · May 26, 2014

Dave Ellis said:
I'm not interested in getting into a debate which entails you changing the definitions of what words mean to suit your own argument.

To bring this back on topic, you can define your god however you want to, however until you can back that up with something verifiable, I have no reason to assume your claims are true.

That is what I said. A definition does not have to be true. Take it as an assumption. You do not have to decided until you see the arguments followed the definition. You do not need to reject God, until you hear what (the assumed) God says to you.

juvenissun · May 26, 2014

Dave Ellis said:
I repeat, it's a belief. What's hard to understand about that?

No no. It is an assumption.

Can you tell an assumption from a belief? One is logic and the other one is beyond logic.

Mediate · May 26, 2014

Syd the Human said:
With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

If a person understands themselves and realizes that non-compassionate actions only bring suffering, then a person realizes the benefit of compassion, both for themselves and for others.

There need be no other justification.

'Consider others as yourself'.

Mediate · May 26, 2014

juvenissun said:
No no. It is an assumption.

Can you tell an assumption from a belief? One is logic and the other one is beyond logic.

Logic is reasoning underpinned by a strict 'sense' of validity.

Senses are subjective, just as experiences are varied and ever changing, thus an individual recognition of a permanently valid 'reality' is in itself a belief.

A belief is defined as 'the acceptance of something that exists or is true'.

But truth in and of itself, especially in western culture, is based on the idea that objective 'realities' exist, yet all conscious experience is subjective.

There is an issue there.

abacabb3 · May 26, 2014

Syd the Human said:
With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

Have feeling in your gut that says killing puppies and stealing from people is wrong? Your gut ain't lying to you.

juvenissun · May 26, 2014

Mediate said:
Logic is reasoning underpinned by a strict 'sense' of validity.

Senses are subjective, just as experiences are varied and ever changing, thus an individual recognition of a permanently valid 'reality' is in itself a belief.

A belief is defined as 'the acceptance of something that exists or is true'.

But truth in and of itself, especially in western culture, is based on the idea that objective 'realities' exist, yet all conscious experience is subjective.

There is an issue there.

So, all these come to one idea: empty (&#31354, right? (I guess you may say: empty IS, in fact, solid).

I have problem with that too, big problem.

Needing justification for morality

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

theophilus777

Guest

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Only Borrowed

Only Borrowed

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency