The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

So you admit you said something inaccurate about me. Ok.

Why sure I do have a basis. I am just not claiming that I have a basis "independent of humans".
You don´t acknowledge my basis as valid, I don´t acknowledge your basis ("moral values independent of human opinion") valid.
On top of that, the fact that you can´t even demonstrate the existence of this alleged basis, is just another problem you need to solve.


Well, as soon as you can demonstrate that
a. there are moral facts "independent of human opinion", and
b. that your opinions happen to be congruent with them,
you don´t have anything ahead of me in such a discussion, by your own standards.
Just like me, you give your opinions, and the only difference is that you have the guts to claim them to be somewhat "objective = facts, independent of human opinion".

I am not demonstrating anything to you. Thanks for asking though. You too will be ignored.

 

[bhsmte]

Tim to take the ball and go home.

 

[Davian]

God is justified in all He does.

How again did you justify him standing idly by, watching children get raped, while doing nothing?

 

[bhsmte]

How again did you justify him standing idly by, watching children get raped, while doing nothing?

By hitting the easy button. When trying to defend an apparent immoral action, just say; it was for the greater good. Problem solved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As you may have noticed, I am not affirming or asserting any moral convictions to you.
You have asserted and affirmed yours - which is sufficient for me to conclude that we don´t have any common ground for discussing our ethical and moral convictions.
This is what I have repeatedly informed you about a couple of days ago, and this isn´t going to change.

And, yes, you needn´t do anything beyond asserting your moral convictions. You have done it, they have been noted. Get over it.

Get over it? What am I suppose to get over exactly?

 

[quatona]

Oh, he´s in melt-down mode again. To tell from the previous rounds, next will be the "i am just a sinner as everyone else" mode, the preaching mode and the "I am so grateful to y´all - grouphug!" mode.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Just", as in unethical and morally bankrupt.

Are there gods that are not godly?

Might makes right.

On what basis would they be judged, other than disbelief?

Is that what you think you are being judged for?

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, he´s in melt-down mode again. To tell from the previous rounds, next will be the "i am just a sinner as everyone else" mode, the preaching mode and the "I am so grateful to y´all - grouphug!" mode.

Yep, the pattern keeps repeating.

 

[quatona]

Get over it? What am I suppose to get over exactly?

Over the fact that no matter how much you beg for it, no matter how much you demand it, no matter how nuch you bait me - I won´t discuss moral questions with you.
I might discuss abstract meta-ethical problems with you (once you manage to form a coherent hypothesis), but actual moral values and questions? No way.

 

[quatona]

I am not demonstrating anything to you.

Yes, that´s exactly the problem with your arguments. Well, one of the problems, to be precise.

 

[anonymous person]

Oncedecieved, since I ignored all the spammers, this thread is remarkably easier to follow and participate in. If you need to ignore anyone just click on their name and click ignore.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So why again did you suggest I let him explain his "wrong" stance to me, in support of your notion?
Dishonesty is one thing, shameless dishonesty is yet another.

What was dishonest?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Over the fact that no matter how much you beg for it, no matter how much you demand it, no matter how nuch you bait me - I won´t discuss moral questions with you.
I might discuss abstract meta-ethical problems with you (once you manage to form a coherent hypothesis), but actual moral values and questions? No way.

Well of course you are within your right to withhold conversation with whomever you feel so inclined. I wonder though how your ire was so roused in our conversations. I don't remember saying anything unfair or unkind to you.

 

[quatona]

Well of course you are within your right to withhold conversation with whomever you feel so inclined. I wonder though how your ire was so roused in our conversations. I don't remember saying anything unfair or unkind to you.

Since I´ve explicitly told you the reason several times now, there is no need to make guesses about "my ire being roused" or me being personally insulted.
Here is the reason again: in view of the way you argued for your moral views, i don´t see a square inch of common ground for a fruitful conversation about morals and ethics between you and me. There isn´t even a common starting point.
This is the reason, spelled out a couple of times already. No need to make further assumptions about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedecieved, since I ignored all the spammers, this thread is remarkably easier to follow and participate in. If you need to ignore anyone just click on their name and click ignore.

I am aware of the ignore button but I don't use it. I do ignore one person and I do that without the button because I kind of get a kick how he is always a cheerleader for those he supports in the discussion but that is all he does. He attacks everyone's character, cheers other non-believers on and that is all he is does. Sad really.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since I´ve explicitly told you the reason several times now, there is no need to make guesses about "my ire being roused" or me being personally insulted.
Here is the reason again: in view of the way you argued for your morality, i

Do you do this with everyone that you disagree with then?

 

[Murby]

You are making some assumptions that if you are an atheist, are not true.

Truth has absolutely nothing to do with one's belief system, or lack of. The fact that your statements would suggest otherwise is a statement in itself.
You can believe you can fly off a mountain by flapping your arms if you like.. If you want, you can build centers to worship it, come together in big groups and pray for it.. you can write books about it, and you can claim its possible all you want.. But that won't change the fact when you jump from the top of the mountain you will plummet to your death as gravity takes over.
Belief systems are irrelevant to science and evolution.. although, that's not to say that science and evolution are not relevant to your beliefs.

The biggest one is that you seem to care about 4 million humans. According to evolution there is nothing special about humans. Why should the four risk anything for those other humans in an objectively rational sense?

Interesting.. I seem to care about other humans but you seem to think that atheist should not risk anything in an "objectively rational sense" ..
Perhaps you should think about what that means.. please, take a moment..

Humans are just another animal no more, no less. Now it sounds like your view is just based on sentimentality for your own species, not on anything rationally objective.

While our biology and evolution is, generally speaking, no more or less different than other animals, our brains are far more evolved. Cooperation among species is something that is seen throughout the animal world, humans just have a much higher and refined sense of it.

Only Christianity has a rational objective basis for morality and for infinite human worth to the point where the sick person would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the four million.

Umm.. Ya.. I support your right to believe anything you want to believe, even when you're wrong and misguided. There's a few billion people in the world who would also disagree with you based on your statement about Christianity, and we should probably not even discuss historical precedent and how it pertains to that statement.

Your green line signature has no rationally objective basis.

And yet, it remains true.. funny how that works.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you believe that Christian morality is equally valid. We don't have a problem as far as I see then.

Like I already said, it depends on what you mean by valid. Any christian is just as entitled as any non-christian to hold their opinions about morality. If that's what you mean by "valid"...then that should answer your question.

I would imagine that if someone took the life of one of your loved ones you would believe that was wrong, however, if they believed they had a good reason one could not claim that it was wrong is that what you are implying?

Not at all...why wouldn't I be able to claim it's wrong? Surely you realize that moral opinions aren't limited to the person doing the action being judged? We don't live in a vacuum...people have opinions about other people's behavior all the time.

I might not want to dig in my pocket to come up with the penny amid the other debris in it, knowing I had put many a penny into the Take a penny tray and hadn't taken any I would think it was good.

Well personally, I think it's wrong. The tray is there for those without pennies on hand. If too many people behave as you did...eventually someone who really needs the penny for their purchase won't have one.

Of course whether or not you agree makes little difference to the validity of either positions...correct?

Correct...the validity of objective morality rests heavily upon someone's ability to demonstrate that objective morals exist. That's something I've never even heard of being achieved...and I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So morals are no more relative to life than the flavor of vanilla?

They are similar in the fact that they are both opinions. I'd say that generally speaking, people tend to give more weight to their moral opinions (they like to pretend they are facts...for,obvious reasons).

Could you provide a circumstance where it would be acceptable to rape your spouse?

Sure.

If she were to say that it was a turn on, and that at some point in the future...unknown to her...she would like you to rape her. I'm perfectly comfortable with that behavior.

I used a specific one above.

I answered.

 

[quatona]

Do you do this with everyone that you disagree with then?

No. As I have explained several times already, I only do it with people with whom there is no common ground for a meaningful discussion. There are plenty of people who I have controversial yet fruitful discussion with - because we at least have a common ground or starting point for our considerations.