|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
30th May 2012, 08:03 AM | #2161 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
Most religious people, today, are exposed to the idea that people have different beliefs and different moral codes than they do, even if they claim to believe in the same God.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect religious folks to agree that a large part of morality comes from the society around them. Merely claiming God is the Ultimate source of objective morality is not sufficient to explain the discrepencies. But, let's say that someone doesn't even recognize that: It would still be absurd to argue that atheists do not have morality, because atheists claim to have a source for it. It's a different source than one claimed by a religious person. But, a source that is compelling to them, anyway. It is NOT moral relativism. It is NOT merely "subjective" or "anything goes". It is more like a secular social contract. That is why the claims that atheists can't be moral fail. That is why those who make such claims are the ones being intellectually dishonest. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
30th May 2012, 09:02 AM | #2162 |
You can't expect perfection.
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
|
To the above post
"within a 100 years or so there will be NO free oxygen in the air" Paul |
__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing |
|
30th May 2012, 09:07 AM | #2163 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
|
30th May 2012, 09:10 AM | #2164 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
|
30th May 2012, 09:11 AM | #2165 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
30th May 2012, 09:40 AM | #2166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba |
|
30th May 2012, 10:02 AM | #2167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
In science, technicalities are irrelevent; only the facts matter. And science has a very specific view of facts: they must be independently verifiable at minimum, and if there's experimental evidence that experiment must in principle at least be testable. If your argument is supported by such facts than it doesn't matter if you commit a minor error in presenting it. If it's unsupported by such facts it doesn't matter how well you follow procedures. |
30th May 2012, 10:04 AM | #2168 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
That is absurd, I don't not subscribe to Kantian metaphysics, 'meaning' has real world implications.
Some of the dumbest sophistry yet. All values can be reality based. No need for superfluous dualism. The rest of your post is just more straw. Not real surprise. Ethics and morals do not require god despite your foolish quotations. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
30th May 2012, 10:45 AM | #2169 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
It occurs to me that the NON-naturalistic arguments presented, here, are incredibly arrogant and selfish. Should one really be compelled to base their "Best Explanation" on the idea that "I get to WIN if I have faith in non-materialistic things!" That is what seems to be implied by the reward system (heaven) one gets, if they follow a strict moral code set by some non-materialistic entity. It is arrogant, because of the insistence that only a few people get to be the authority on truth and moral behavior. It is selfish for reasons that are fairly obvious.
Would it not be even better if one approached life with the attitude of "I can do something that will help EVERYONE get a chance at winning in life, including myself amongst that crowd!" This attitude seems to be reflected in the naturalists' insistence on improving the knowledge of the world. There is no presumption of moral authority. There is no assumption of absolute truths. We can all, collectively, work to make the world a better place! Of course, this refers to various technologies. But, this also includes finding ways to advance morality, so that fewer people need to suffer, over time. And, we can do it all without worrying about what some non-materialistic entity feels about that! Granted, this is an argument from consequences. But, if one is determined to figure out which paradigm is the "Best" explanation for our existence, sometimes you have to look at the consequences of the approach. (This is NOT meant to override the empirical reality of, nor the pragmatic approach of, the arguments I made earlier. This is just an extra bonus argument to throw on top of the others.) |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
30th May 2012, 11:33 AM | #2170 |
You can't expect perfection.
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
|
The religious make a god and try and fit the universe to that god.
Science finds information and tries to fit a theory to that information. BIG DIFFERENCE, one lies and one is truthful and it isn't the religious ones that are truthful GIBHOR when they change information to make it fit their god. Paul |
__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing |
|
30th May 2012, 12:11 PM | #2171 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
But, unlike Hell, such consequences are clearly demonstrable. Just imagine how many potential Newtons, Einsteins, Chandrasekhars and Maxwells have been lost to humanity because they were born into grinding poverty or died in their teens in some asinine war. These are precious intellectual resources that have been, and will be, lost to us forever. Our chances of avoiding extinction in a dangerous universe will be much greater if we can create a world in which everyone is able to contribute to to sum of human knowledge.
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
30th May 2012, 12:15 PM | #2172 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Or because they had the nerve to be born female. One thing I find detestable about the so-called "objective morality" proposed in the Christian bible is that it is actually subjective, based on your gender. If the same principles applied to people of all genders, it would be somehwat closer to a truly objective standard. As it is, not so much. Blech. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
30th May 2012, 12:29 PM | #2173 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Yes. Had my wife been born just a hundred years earlier, she never could have earned the engineering degree that she has now. As Huxley said speaking in favor of offering women the same educational opportunities as men, "The "golden hair" will not curl less gracefully outside the head by reason of there being brains within".
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
30th May 2012, 03:53 PM | #2174 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
Originally Posted by dlorde
Life's too short. |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
30th May 2012, 05:07 PM | #2175 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
|
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
30th May 2012, 05:13 PM | #2176 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
On second thoughts, an equivalent, but less aesthetically pleasing substitute will do the job...
Simple probability. Statistical chance. If birds fly around crapping at random and you walk around where they fly, eventually you'll be crapped on. It's simple probability. Nobody asks 'what mechanism triggers the whole action?' because if it's possible and you give it enough time, it will probably happen. Crap happens - quite literally.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just sayin' |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
30th May 2012, 05:14 PM | #2177 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:14 PM | #2178 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
30th May 2012, 05:18 PM | #2179 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:20 PM | #2180 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
If you held yourself as a critical thinker, and if you are a biologist, you could have learned from Pitmans website about the irreducible complexity. Since you simply ignored the presented facts over there, you just show that you are not here to learn, but to find reasons to confirm what you want to believe.
|
30th May 2012, 05:20 PM | #2181 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
Much of surgery physically does just that (e.g. hare lip).
Much of pharmacology chemically does just that. Much of psychiatry - hmm - perhaps that's enough for now... |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
30th May 2012, 05:23 PM | #2182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2012, 05:23 PM | #2183 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
do you think it is objectively wrong , someone to eat someone else face ?
http://www.newsmax.com/US/lsd-cannib...5/30/id/440646 if so, based on what can you say that ? |
30th May 2012, 05:25 PM | #2184 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
30th May 2012, 05:26 PM | #2185 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:32 PM | #2186 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
If morality is subjective, then that means indeed , morality does not exist. Since anyone can make up its own standard of morality. If i think torturing small babies is moral, how can you tell me i am wrong, if morals are just subjective ??
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
30th May 2012, 05:33 PM | #2187 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
I'm in the business of figuring out how it got this way, not figuring out how to fix your god's errors. I'm a reverse engineer, not a civil one.
I'll also note that this is just another version of Argument from Personal Incredulity. GIBHOR can't think of a better way for the human body to work, therefore his god did it. Never mind the reams of evidence and piles of bones we have to the contrary.
Quote:
Quote:
|
30th May 2012, 05:36 PM | #2188 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
30th May 2012, 05:36 PM | #2189 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
that is not what i said. What i say is, without objective moral values, there cannot be good, and wrong. Everything becomes relative, and depends always only on each individuals standpoint. You cannot blame the guy in Miami for eating someone else face. He maibe did it , because he thought that would be the best thing someone could do on earth. How could you blame him wrong, if morality is not objective ?
|
30th May 2012, 05:36 PM | #2190 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
If morality is subjective, it does not exist? ! Doors that rule apply to favorites as well? What about art?
The fact is that your claim is nonsense. |
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2012, 05:37 PM | #2191 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2012, 05:38 PM | #2192 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:39 PM | #2193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:41 PM | #2194 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
|
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
30th May 2012, 05:41 PM | #2195 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
No, not necessarily. (Though, it would be immoral to deliberately destroy one's prosperity without sufficient reasons.)
But, you have a better chance of being prosperous, yourself, if you contribute to the prosperity of society. It's a quasi-selfish-yet-altruistic trend that is starting to get noticed by more people. Game theory calls it "Tit-for-Tat". It is more commonly referred to as "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine". Two people get parasites removed from their backs, instead of neither one. I suspect that naturalistic attitudes tend to lend themselves better to delivering on this trend. Since THIS life is all there is, there is motivation to make the best of it, and to live life for the long run. Long run assumes you will be around people for a long time, so you better generally be nice to them. On the otherhand, one who basically puts their own life into the hands of a non-naturalistic entity, in the hopes of living well in some sort of afterlife, will tend to discount the future more sharply. This doesn't do anyone any good: Not the beliver, and not anyone they know. The thrill of acquiring new knowledge is less important, as well. It is NOT immoral to waste your life doing nothing for society. But, you are missing out on maximizing your life, and perhaps even your legacy after it. Of course, this is NOT A LAW of any sort. You will find exceptions and caveats and such in various places. But, it is a general trend we find in history. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
30th May 2012, 05:41 PM | #2196 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2012, 05:42 PM | #2197 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:44 PM | #2198 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
30th May 2012, 05:45 PM | #2199 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2012, 05:48 PM | #2200 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|