Question for atheists

chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Question for atheists

If I decided one day to kidnap a little girl, rape her... then tie her up and torture her.... kill her by burning her in a fire... take her burnt up corpse and wrap it in a bag... and then throw her in the river.........

On what basis do you say that what I did was wrong?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:Here's

chuckg6261982 wrote:
Here's your argument:

(1) It has been observed that most people are empathetic.

(2) Empathy comes from a part of our brain.

(3) Therefore, people who aren't empathetic are probably missing that part of the brain.

Not only do you turn evilness into a symptom (which means that serial killers are not responsible for what they do), but your argument is totally unsupported and speculative.  

It's obvious you didn't read the article I linked.

P1 - Social behavior is an observed fact.

P2 - Behavior is the result of an emergent property of the brain.

P3 - Different behavior suggests differences in the structure of the brain.

P3 - Evidence exists that there is, indeed, structural differences between social brains and sociopathic brains.

C1 - Sociopaths are physiologically/neurologically different.

This does not suggest that a sociopath is unaware of his or her behavior nor does it suggest he or she is free from responsibility for that behavior.

chuckg6261982 wrote:
And what makes you think they still are not examining the brain today in light of all the advancements in the field?  And what if they still don't find any differences?  Are you still going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "LA LA LA" or will you admit that sociopaths are not crazy and actually know what they are doing?
That's a straw man argument.

chuckg6261982 wrote:
Care to explain how that's not moral relativism?
I've not said that "Action x is sometimes OK and sometimes not depending on context" which is what moral relativism means. All I've said is that moral codes are subject to change because there are no innate justifications for morality.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:"Moral

MattShizzle wrote:

"Moral laws cannot be universal" isn't contradictory. It's a statement of fact, not a moral law. Statements of fact can be universal.

Next problem with moral relativism/utilitarianism:

Let's say that you had a son and he was a menace to society.  Everybody hated this child and this child has caused so much trouble, everybody decided that it would maximize utility if your son was executed.  Your efforts at discipline failed, no child care agency or boot camp would take him in.... all efforts have failed including placing your son in prison because he was too much for them to handle.  And so it was determined that the utility of the entire society would be maximized if we put your son to death.

According to utilitarians, that would be a moral course of action.

(And I know that you are looking at the example and thinking that it is absurd... and it is.  But it's absurd because our society doesn't think this way.  But more on that later.)


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:P1 - Social

JillSwift wrote:

P1 - Social behavior is an observed fact.

Okay.

Quote:
P2 - Behavior is the result of an emergent property of the brain.

Speculation.

Quote:
P3 - Different behavior suggests differences in the structure of the brain.

See: John Wayne Gacy.

Quote:
P3 - Evidence exists that there is, indeed, structural differences between social brains and sociopathic brains.

See: John Wayne Gacy.

Quote:
This does not suggest that a sociopath is unaware of his or her behavior nor does it suggest he or she is free from responsibility for that behavior.

Okay, so then sociopathic behavior is not a sickness?  Therefore, your whole argument of humans being innately empathic breaks down.

Quote:
That's a straw man argument.

How so?  You said unqualifiably that scientists didn't observe Gacy's brain thoroughly enough, merely on the basis that it was done in the early 90s (as if neuroscience wasn't advanced enough already). 

Quote:
I've not said that "Action x is sometimes OK and sometimes not depending on context" which is what moral relativism means. All I've said is that moral codes are subject to change because there are no innate justifications for morality.

Moral relativism is the position that moral claims are RELATIVE to societal, historical, cultural, or personal circumstances.  So yes, you are a moral relativist.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982

chuckg6261982 wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

P1 - Social behavior is an observed fact.

Okay.

Quote:
P2 - Behavior is the result of an emergent property of the brain.

Speculation.

Quote:
P3 - Different behavior suggests differences in the structure of the brain.

See: John Wayne Gacy.

Quote:
P3 - Evidence exists that there is, indeed, structural differences between social brains and sociopathic brains.

See: John Wayne Gacy.

Quote:
This does not suggest that a sociopath is unaware of his or her behavior nor does it suggest he or she is free from responsibility for that behavior.

Okay, so then sociopathic behavior is not a sickness?  Therefore, your whole argument of humans being innately empathic breaks down.

Quote:
That's a straw man argument.

How so?  You said unqualifiably that scientists didn't observe Gacy's brain thoroughly enough, merely on the basis that it was done in the early 90s (as if neuroscience wasn't advanced enough already). 

Quote:
I've not said that "Action x is sometimes OK and sometimes not depending on context" which is what moral relativism means. All I've said is that moral codes are subject to change because there are no innate justifications for morality.

Moral relativism is the position that moral claims are RELATIVE to societal, historical, cultural, or personal circumstances.  So yes, you are a moral relativist.

Forget it. If you won't look at the evidence provided, and want to change definitions to suit yourself, we'll never get anywhere. Bye.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Forget it.

JillSwift wrote:

Forget it. If you won't look at the evidence provided, and want to change definitions to suit yourself, we'll never get anywhere. Bye.

Can I see you naked?

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, from your last post

Well, from your last post you are an asshat but anyway..

Absurd examples are normally not valid, but this one kind of is. If someone is very antisocial and can't be reformed and won't behave in prison there are options besides execution such as supermax, but execution is sometimes the best option.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote: John

chuckg6261982 wrote:

John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer/child predator.  He continued to murder people for more than half a decade.  He had no empathy whatsoever.  After he was arrested and executed, doctors and scientists examined his brain and found no physiological abnormalities whatsoever.  His brain looked like yours and mine.

A postmortem exam wouldn't show much. A little less grey matter is all it might reveal. But had they performed an fMRI prior to death, they might would have noticed some irregularities in the paralimbic system.

Humane examination of the brain has eluded us for years. This is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If the researcher performs invasive examinations on criminals, scientists are evil monsters. If they are opposed to such research and use less effective non invasive techniques, ha ha, stupid scientists don't even understand how the brain works! A convenient ploy for the religious Luddites, I would say.

Thank goodness for advances in magnetic resonance imaging. The functional MRI, of fMRI, allows us to watch the activity of neural interactions while they are in progress. And what we have learned from this is that psychopaths and violent criminals show dysfunction in the paralimbic system. I'm guessing that Gacy would have shown such anomalies had his brain been scanned while alive.

http://www.crimetimes.org/07a/w07ap10.htm

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/index.html

see also: Psychiatry Research, vol 142, Issue 2-3, Pages 107-127 A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction , avaliable online via subscription through science direct.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:If I

chuckg6261982 wrote:

If I decided one day to kidnap a little girl, rape her... then tie her up and torture her.... kill her by burning her in a fire... take her burnt up corpse and wrap it in a bag... and then throw her in the river.........

On what basis do you say that what I did was wrong ?

        I don't know Chuck, why don't you ask her yourself ?

 

      

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Matt the jizzler wrote:Well,

Matt the jizzler wrote:

Well, from your last post you are an asshat

On what basis?  According to you, morals are relative.  Maybe what I did will contribute to the advancement of society.  Jill appears to be a real bimbo and by treating bimbos like bimbos, I can inspire her and others like her to go out and get themselves educated.  

Quote:
Absurd examples are normally not valid, but this one kind of is. If someone is very antisocial and can't be reformed and won't behave in prison there are options besides execution such as supermax, but execution is sometimes the best option.

I could use even more examples but you honestly do not see the danger inherent in moral relativism or utilitarianism? 

 


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova

Desdenova wrote:

chuckg6261982 wrote:

John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer/child predator.  He continued to murder people for more than half a decade.  He had no empathy whatsoever.  After he was arrested and executed, doctors and scientists examined his brain and found no physiological abnormalities whatsoever.  His brain looked like yours and mine.

A postmortem exam wouldn't show much. A little less grey matter is all it might reveal. But had they performed an fMRI prior to death, they might would have noticed some irregularities in the paralimbic system.

Humane examination of the brain has eluded us for years. This is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If the researcher performs invasive examinations on criminals, scientists are evil monsters. If they are opposed to such research and use less effective non invasive techniques, ha ha, stupid scientists don't even understand how the brain works! A convenient ploy for the religious Luddites, I would say.

Thank goodness for advances in magnetic resonance imaging. The functional MRI, of fMRI, allows us to watch the activity of neural interactions while they are in progress. And what we have learned from this is that psychopaths and violent criminals show dysfunction in the paralimbic system. I'm guessing that Gacy would have shown such anomalies had his brain been scanned while alive.

http://www.crimetimes.org/07a/w07ap10.htm

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/index.html

see also: Psychiatry Research, vol 142, Issue 2-3, Pages 107-127 A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction , avaliable online via subscription through science direct.

LOL

I knew the moment I mentioned this that all the so-called "scientists" would crawl out of the woodwork and attack this like there was no tommorow.

Imagine if they found no abnormalities in his brain.  Imagine if it turned out that empathy wasn't inherent in human beings.  Atheists would be absolutely devastated.

In fact, Gacy WAS studied while he was alive.  To which extent, I don't know.  But they could never find some physiological basis to say that he was crazy.

 


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
RatDog Response

chuckg6261982 wrote:

RatDog wrote:


As opposed to what?  Do what I say or go to hell?

As opposed to the belief that beating, raping, and killing someone is wrong REGARDLESS of what may result from it.  Whether society benefits because of it or not, it is wrong.  It is wrong just because it is a universal axiomatic rule.

Why do churches preach about hell so much if the universal axiomatic rules of religion are all people need, and if these rules are so self-evident why do so many religions disagree about their exact nature?

chuckg6261982 wrote:

What if causing harm didn't hurt the overall survival of civilizations?  Would causing harm then be permissible?

chuckg6261982 wrote:

RatDog wrote:
That is a good question.

Then why didn't you answer?

RatDog wrote:

I personally will always think certain things are wrong.   I am just not so delusional to think that my belief must have some kind of reality outside myself.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4


I thought this was an answer.  I think certain things are wrong.  An example is rape.  I would disagree with any society that says Rape is all right.

chuckg6261982 wrote:

Quote:
What if in a hypothetical universe it was considered alright to throw large rocks at children for being disobedient, or at people who work on a certain day of the week?  If it didn’t cause harm to the overall survival of civilization would it be moral? 

That's my question.

Now it’s my question.  I guess you’re the only one who gets to ask questions.  That must be nice for you.

chuckg6261982 wrote:

You can CONCEIVE of situations where, in fact, certain actions that we consider immoral wouldn't result in the self-destruction of a society.


I can conceive of such a situation.  I will give an example.  Since I don't know what "we consider immoral" includes I will base it of what I consider immoral.  How about a society were it was considered alright to throw large rocks at children for being disobedient, or at people who work on a certain day of the week.

chuckg6261982 wrote:

You cannot base morality on empirical truths because empirical truths are based on repeated observation of particular events and as David Hume would point out, you can never infer a universal from a particular... or even one million particulars.  A particular instance will never instantiate a universal truth.


I don’t base my morality on empirical truths.  I base my morality of my empathy, which probably comes from some biological process.  What would you base morality on?  Would you use the Bible? That has many laws I find reprehensible.

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote: LOLI

chuckg6261982 wrote:

 

LOL

I knew the moment I mentioned this that all the so-called "scientists" would crawl out of the woodwork and attack this like there was no tommorow.

Imagine if they found no abnormalities in his brain.  Imagine if it turned out that empathy wasn't inherent in human beings.  Atheists would be absolutely devastated.

In fact, Gacy WAS studied while he was alive.  To which extent, I don't know.  But they could never find some physiological basis to say that he was crazy.

 

No fMRI on the record for Gacy, sorry. Also quite interesting how you respond to pretty conclusive evidence for a neurological basis for psychopathy with " LOL ". Yeah, thats quite the winning strategy! I guess that ignoring evidence is what makes a fundy a fundy. Hmmm, maybe we should be cracking open their heads and looking around!

And how exactly would atheists be devastated? People with Asperger's seem to lack empathy. Sociopaths seem to lack empathy. Fundies seem to lack empathy. So what? There are abnormalities in every species.

Look, I am really sorry that you have no morality. I am equally sorry that your lack of morality is a direct result of your inability to understand why we atheists are moral. I am especially sorry that your coercion based religion insists that you refuse to examine evidence for a socio-biological basis for human cooperation. But your mental disadvantages are no excuse for resorting to mockery when confronted with facts and evidence. I understand, you are an intellectual coward, incapable of admitting how wrong ( and amoral ) you are, but evidence will stand regardless of how many times you close your eyes and type LOL. Evolution gave us what we call morality. Your invisible sky fairy had nothing to do with it, but belief in the sky fairy has a lot to do with why so many of you lack it.

Have a nice life of denial and refusal to address our points. And please, please, keep your beliefs. Lacking the morality of atheists, you would surely be executed for crimes against humanity were you to abandon your poor morality substitute.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982

chuckg6261982 wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

Forget it. If you won't look at the evidence provided, and want to change definitions to suit yourself, we'll never get anywhere. Bye.

Can I see you naked?

 

I'm calling this one as now officially being a troll. Following this up with the "she's a bimbo" comment solidifies it. Stop feeding the troll everyone. I thought up some things to say here, but I won't post them seeing as that would only contribute to more troll behavior on this site. I can only assume that the mods will deal with this kind of behavior.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't you realize the

Don't you realize the physical structure of the brain is only part of the story? And we don't come close to fully understanding it. Did they study his brain chemistry (more important in terms of behavior and not completely understood yet. ) What about the environment he grew up in? Environment is very likely just as important as biology in terms of a persons psychological adjustment.  I myself have a degree in Psychology. Jill is not a bimbo - from the thread so far she is way more intelligent than you. Asshat.  BTW antisocial personality isn't considered legally insane. Not only that, "insane" is a legal term, not a clinical term.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

chuckg6261982 wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

Forget it. If you won't look at the evidence provided, and want to change definitions to suit yourself, we'll never get anywhere. Bye.

Can I see you naked?

 

I'm calling this one as now officially being a troll. Following this up with the "she's a bimbo" comment solidifies it. Stop feeding the troll everyone. I thought up some things to say here, but I won't post them seeing as that would only contribute to more troll behavior on this site. I can only assume that the mods will deal with this kind of behavior.

 

I agree and would add the technical terms "fucktard" and "asshat. "

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
        I don't know


        I don't know Chuck, why don't you ask her yourself ?

 

 

      

Duude...... Ouch...

That's a little over the top don't you think?

Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If this were the 17th

If this were the 17th century I would challenge him to a duel for insulting a lady (Jill)


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:If this

MattShizzle wrote:
If this were the 17th century I would challenge him to a duel for insulting a lady (Jill)
Thank goodness the zeitgeist has changed and we no longer require such misogyny. Sticking out tongue Eye-wink

Besides, who cares what some prepubescent troll has to say? I'm sooner concerned with how my cat looks at me.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I believe several members

I believe several members have already labeled you a troll, but I'll respond anyways.

Quote:
On what basis do you say that what I did was wrong?

The word "wrong" is a very loaded term. 

My answer is my biological intuition and reason, but I know this is not good enough for you. Unfortunately, I don't have a better answer because absolute morality does not exist.

Also, your criticisms of moral relativism are irrelevant since our intention is to accept what is most rational, not what is the least dangerous. Finally, haven't you considered the dangers of drawing morality from an unquestionable source? Unless this source is actually the omnibenevolent creator of the universe, you are simply adhering to a system that's been established by other humans.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 What Does Sugar Have To Do

 What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

In my continuing quest to see just how many theists can totally ignore my writing... here you go.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:MattShizzle

JillSwift wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
If this were the 17th century I would challenge him to a duel for insulting a lady (Jill)
Thank goodness the zeitgeist has changed and we no longer require such misogyny. Sticking out tongue Eye-wink

Besides, who cares what some prepubescent troll has to say? I'm sooner concerned with how my cat looks at me.

 

 

Well if he was 13 or 14 I wouldn't bother. If he were an adult the poltroon would taste my blade. Arrrgh! OK I'm silly!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I thought this person wanted

I thought this person wanted to attack atheism but I guess they only wanted to attack consequentialism on the basis that it's relativistic. That's kind of bizarre because a more absolutist approach is no less problematic. If you say that lying is wrong regardless of the consequences,  it's possible to have a situation where failure to tell a lie may cause an innocent person's death. If causing an innocent persons death is also wrong regardless of the consequences then you have an intractable problem.

I think the real problem is that he's trying to reduce consequentialism to the level of a personal preference, when a moral judgment is not a mere preference because it must be supported by good reasons. Utilitarianism in theory and practice has been proven a sound moral theory.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You wouldn't even fuck me

You wouldn't even fuck me for defending your honor like that? Damn.

OK the asshat that started this thread is so pathetic I needed something to liven it up. And I was playing the "pirates" game so hey.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Let's define "wrong"

Quote:
Let's define "wrong" in the following way:  An action is wrong if the act is something that anyone ought not to do.

Problem: This definition contains a hidden premise. 'Ought' is synonymous with 'Should', and there are pages upon pages of reading material available as to why simply asking 'Should', on it's own, leads us down the road of fallacious reasoning.

That anyone ought not to do because...?
 

Quote:
If you feel that an action is "sickening", then I presume that you believe that no human or any being in particular ought to do it.

No. I think it is sickening because the thought of the act literally turns my stomach (makes me feel 'sick'). I think people shouldn't perform such an act if they wish to continue being a part of human society.

Quote:
So my question, Kevin, is this: WHY should I not do it?

I answered this question already. Please do not merely ignore people's posts and continue posing the same question over and over again like a broken record. If you don't like the answer, fine - come-up with a counter argument or agree to disagree and leave the issue as ignorant as when you walked into it.

Quote:
Your answer is that it may result in negative consequences and/or that there is no reward or motive.  You are taking a consequentialist stance on morality.

There's no such thing as a 'consequentialist' anymore than there is a 'Darwinist'. I'm relaying to you what I know of the science of morality.

Quote:
So I ask again, what if the circumstances were not as you posited?  Could you imagine some sort of alternative universe where my act would be okay?

This is a moronic line of reasoning. Foremostly, no - there isn't any conceivable way for a species to evolve into a successful society when murder & violence happen on a whim. Any animal with such tendencies would immediately become extinct through self-destruction.

Even if there somehow were a possibility for this to occur, what the Hell difference would it make? It's not what's happened here. You're acting as though if killing someone can't be considered completely and totally universally 'wrong', then murder and rape should be okay. This is a delusional non-sequitor.

Quote:

But anyway, this thread has shown me what I already knew.

Many atheists have a consequential/utilitarian approach to morality.  An action is right or wrong in accordance with the results it brings to a society's functionality.  Nothing more, nothing less.

This is somewhat correct, thought you should substitute out 'society' for 'species' (or maybe even 'genes'). What's more? We can and have empirically proven this (in controlled laboratory settings and elsewhere). Moral and ethical standards are created by positive and negative reinforcement patterns (a huge, branching chain stretching all the way back to the initial stirrings of life), some of which are now literally encoded in us at the genetic level.

Quote:
If in some alternative universe, murder and rape do result in a stronger society, then murder and rape can be okay.

Imbecile. You've just posited a scenario that is not possible in order to try and support your conclusion. This is like arguing, 'If in some universe, 2+2 = 5, then our mathematical standards are wrong'.

Quote:
But we don't have to worry about that because that is not our universe.  We don't live in a world of "what ifs", we live in a world of "what is"... ignoring the fact that more often than not, the stability of the world depends just as much on our being proactive as it does on our being reactive.

Qualify that bold part, would you? In what way is the universe shaped by us far more than we are shaped by it?

It almost seems like you are confusing environmental conservation with human evolution.

Quote:
I've already responded to Kevin.  What you are saying is that he said it is wrong to inflict physical and emotion harm on someone because that may result in further pain on you.  His other two points were basically stating that my example could not ever happen because there is no motivation and complex human organisms have empathy.

You 'responded' by simply posing the same damn question over again! Acting like a broken record is not the same thing as arguing (contrary to the typical theist model of debate).

Quote:
And now you want to stray from the actual question and go on the assault of personal attacks by saying that by using that as an example, I am somehow condoning that act.... just because you do not want to confront the fact that your moral basis is seriously flawed.

'Flawed' in what way? Because ours doesn't make some unreasonable and laughable demand for an absolute universal answer to a complex question?

Quote:
My point was to expose atheists as utilitarians, consequentialists, and moral relativists... and I've done that nicely.

And you were so stupid that you, along with the peanut gallery, actually took the bait. 

And I thank you.

Bravo. You've proven to yourself that, yes indeed, science once again proves to yield the real answers to our most pertinent questions.

 

Enjoy the sermon tomorrow. Don't forget to be extra-generous when that collection plate comes rolling around.

Quote:
As opposed to the belief that beating, raping, and killing someone is wrong REGARDLESS of what may result from it.  Whether society benefits because of it or not, it is wrong.  It is wrong just because it is a universal axiomatic rule.

First, violence being 'wrong' is most definately not an axiom. Please don't just make things up.

Second, why is it included as a just course of action in the Bible if it is universally & axiomatically wrong? And - if it's an axiom - that certainly gives us a problem with God, doesn't it? Axioms aren't discretionary - God is actively engaged in this 'wrong' activity (quite a paradox, since by your own standard, he would have set the universal rights and wrongs to begin with).

The only way we can pursue this course of thought is through doublethink (as has been demonstrated so often in the past).

Quote:
And that's what makes you a moral relativist.  Thank you.

Everyone is a 'moral relativist' (including yourself).

Quote:
'm saying that if you want morality to be OBJECTIVE, then you can't just base it on consequences.  You can CONCEIVE of situations where, in fact, certain actions that we consider immoral wouldn't result in the self-destruction of a society.  The destruction of a society isn't metaphysically inherent in wicked acts.  In fact, if nobody chose to invade Germany during the early 1940s, then Germany could have continued functioning as a society while they were placing Jews in a concentration camps.  And I know some historian will want to come along and give a hundred different reasons why that wouldn't have happened but my point is, there was no LOGICAL NECESSITY for these things to happen.  You cannot base morality on empirical truths because empirical truths are based on repeated observation of particular events and as David Hume would point out, you can never infer a universal from a particular... or even one million particulars.  A particular instance will never instantiate a universal truth.

Morality isn't 'objective'. We can even see this is your example!

Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Consequentially, they had war declared on them. The upper hierarchy of the Nazi leadership order the genocide of Hebrews. Consequentially, they were tried at Nuremburg and put to death (or they were forced into hiding). Germany overextended itself and did not spend it's resources or manpower wisely. Consequentially, they lost the war. Etc.

Yes, chuck, in a world of cause & effect, it is logically necessary for certain results to follow certain conditions. And no, there are no 'universal truths'. What's your point?

Quote:
John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer/child predator.  He continued to murder people for more than half a decade.  He had no empathy whatsoever.  After he was arrested and executed, doctors and scientists examined his brain and found no physiological abnormalities whatsoever.  His brain looked like yours and mine.

You're a liar. Apparently believing in 'universal right & wrong' hasn't cured you of that, hm?

John Wayne Gacy's brain was examined by a single forensic psychiatrist, hired by Mr. Gacy's own lawyers, who did not have his findings peer-reviewed anywhere. This happened back in 1994, so neuroscience wasn't exactly where it is today.

Quote:
In other words, you don't have any evidence that people with no empathy are physically messed up, but you can just assume that because sociopaths don't constitute a majority of our population.

Untrue. We know have a comprehensive collection of evidence that various traits will lead to sociopathy, and we certainly see trends when we look at behavior patterns.

The only one making unfounded 'assumptions' here is yourself.

Quote:
And what makes you think they still are not examining the brain today in light of all the advancements in the field?  And what if they still don't find any differences?  Are you still going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "LA LA LA" or will you admit that sociopaths are not crazy and actually know what they are doing?

What a crock of shit.

First, sociopaths are not 'crazy'. They simple have different chemical dominances than you or I. Second, arguing that 'they still might not find any differences' is strictly an argument from ignorance.

Quote:
See: John Wayne Gacy.

Translation: Ignore every piece of contemporary research, because the only way to the truth is to dogmatically refer to a single instance over a decade old that doesn't directly refute my assertions.

Quote:
Okay, so then sociopathic behavior is not a sickness?  Therefore, your whole argument of humans being innately empathic breaks down.

Non sequitor.

Quote:

LOL

I knew the moment I mentioned this that all the so-called "scientists" would crawl out of the woodwork and attack this like there was no tommorow.

Imagine if they found no abnormalities in his brain.  Imagine if it turned out that empathy wasn't inherent in human beings.  Atheists would be absolutely devastated.

In fact, Gacy WAS studied while he was alive.  To which extent, I don't know.  But they could never find some physiological basis to say that he was crazy.

You're a retard. You're posing 'what ifs' as though they can be used to factually support your conclusions.

Gacy was not studied while he was alive with modern imaging technology. How do I know?

The technology didn't even exist in 1994!

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Tre911 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

You Cannot Truly call yourself an athiest until you have reviewed the Studies of the Recent Sereies Called the Truth Project. If You want to know the Awnsers of The all Import Questions: Who is God? What is Evil and where did it come from? Why Did Jesus come to earth? Evolution vs Creationism. And Many more than you would need to Look at This study. Especially since most athiest seem to think that they have a higher Mental Capasity then all of us Dumb Christians which is the reason they find a belief in God Ridiculous because Scientifically it Cannot be Tested, However if you are smart then you would look at these questions from a Scientific perspective which means no pre-concieved notions which means you would need to study Creationism before you could really make an informed and intelligent decision on where you stand as far as belief in God. Simply choosing to not believe in God without even considering the scientific evidence that supports God would mean that you are unfortunately ignorant. Therefore you cannot truly call yourself an athiest until you can blatenly deny the Scientific evidence supporting God as I have done for Evolution. I have Studied the Fossil Record, the theory and all else about evolution as have I studied the scientific facts supporting God and it is un-deniable to me that God is real. Believing in nothing is Hopeless to say the least but it also lets you justify your sin. If Thats what you need to do to make this life easier on you then that is sad because your sacrificing your Eternal life and Trading ultimate joy for temporary pleasure. Christians understand that our reward is in Heaven. Therefore Trying to Be like Christ is hard but we find it to be more than worth it when you consider the big picture. So if your one of those people who think that you have it all figured out and that your just smarter than all those Christians who believe in their fairy Tales then I would think that you would want to study the Truth Project. We Have to Study Evolution in School with an open mind and all we are asking is that you do the same for us. Its like saying you like apples better than grapes when you have never even tried grapes. www.TruthProject.com.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Morality

The morals of society really do and are made from our experiences as a society as a whole. What you posted would be morally wrong by any society that we live in currently. Now has killing someone has been considered socially wrong pretty much since the beginning of civilization, as we have found ancient laws against killing (of course there are societies which have circumstances which this is an exception, such as self defense). Being that we are social creatures and for the most part require others for our survival, killing members of our society would have negative consequences, especially in cases of thrill kills, which pretty much sounds what you described. Which could lead to retribution killing, which then your family may seek murder to those that killed you and it goes back and forth till that society/tribe maybe left with little survival chances.

Now our morals have changed over the time. For example having slaves was considered morally fine all throughout Europe, Asia, and the Americas, now, it's not morally ok. Duels where considered morally fine for retribution of an insult, now, not so much. Marrying girls at age 12 was ok, now, that gets you jail time. As you see our morals change over time, even cruelty towards an animal (An interlude in the 16 and 17th century theaters in various parts of Europe, was to lower a cat on a rope slowly into a fire pit on stage, as people in the audience would laugh at the pain inflicted on the cat, of course it was thought that animals didn't feel pain). Now even though social morals have changed certain ones haven't, and are pretty much considered universal per se, such as killing, kidnapping, torturing and raping, although some societies do have exceptions to these morals/rules.

Of course we as a society have both "universal" and "relative" morals, these as done us well as we have been able to flourish as a society/civilization. Although some may not think it is perfect or ok, it has and is working for us humans.


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:[A bunch

Kevin R Brown wrote:

[A bunch of drivel]

Two points:

(1) And no, there are no 'universal truths' is a self-contradictory statement.

(2) The correct spelling is "non-sequitur"

 

P.S.

Don't use the fact that I am responding with a short post as proof that you won.  I just have no desire to be like you and waste an hour of my life taking your post quote by quote and responding to every little point that you've made.  All someone has to do is read everything in reverse and see that everything you've written is something that I've already responded to but clearly you have zero reading comprehension and will only read what you want to read from my message.  But don't worry, you are within the safe haven that is this website and have your little atheist friends to defend you no matter what you say.  So you can continue living under the illusion that you are somehow smarter than everyone else who doesn't believe what you believe, but let me know when you're ready to enter the real world because when you are, then I'll be there to give you a quarter.  Aren't I nice?

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, Chuck, let me ask you

Well, Chuck, let me ask you a few things:

Assuming you are a moral absolutist, do you feel it is wrong to kill someone? If so, without resorting to 'God said so', can you tell me why it is wrong to kill someone? What if they're trying to kill you?

Are you a pacifist, or is it morally permissible for a soldier to kill an enemy during a war? Why are they exempted from the moral proscription against killing?

If moral absolutism is a reflection of God's directives, why do so many churches these days frown on killing the unborn by stoning their adulterous mothers to death?

If moral absolutism doesn't depend on God's directives, then what acts would you consider absolutely wrong under all circumstances, and why?

 

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:Aren't I

chuckg6261982 wrote:

Aren't I nice?

Humble and self-effacing, too.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(2) The correct

Quote:
(2) The correct spelling is "non-sequitur"

No, it isn't.

When translating latin to english, many vowel phonemes may be represented by any numer of letters because latin (like any language) doesn't translate over to english perfectly in terms of pronunciation. 'u' is as appropriate as 'o' is as appropriate as 'i', in this case.

 

Thanks for playing, though.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Tre911 wrote:You Cannot

Tre911 wrote:

You Cannot Truly call yourself an athiest until you have reviewed the Studies of the Recent Sereies Called the Truth Project.



Yes, I can. I'm an atheist. So there! Not only that, I can actually spell atheist.

Tre911 wrote:

If You want to know the Awnsers of The all Import Questions

I don't want awnsers, or even answers. " God did it!" and " 42" are both answers. But the former explains exactly nothing and the latter is wrong more often than right.  I want solid explanations.


Tre911 wrote:

Who is God?


Which one?

Tre911 wrote:

What is Evil and where did it come from?


Evil is what society defines as evil. It often comes from the best of intentions like saving witches from hell, saving heathens from hell, saving atheists from hell, etc.

Tre911 wrote:

Why Did Jesus come to earth?


Because his slut of a mother got knocked up by the milkman, then, suspecting that she would be stoned for adultry, blamed the pregnancy on an invisible sky fairy.

Tre911 wrote:

Evolution vs Creationism


That isn't a question, but the explanation is evolution.

Tre911 wrote:

And Many more than you would need to Look at This study.


No thanks, I have a severe allergy to ignorant fundy bullshit. It causes me to convulse with painful laughter.

Tre911 wrote:

Especially since most athiest seem to think that they have a higher Mental Capasity then all of us Dumb Christians which is the reason they find a belief in God Ridiculous because Scientifically it Cannot be Tested,


I find it ridiculous because I've studied the Bible and Mesopotamian history, and I know where the Hebrew stole their mythology from. I find it ridiculous because " God " explains nothing. I find it ridiculous because the average believer has the intelligence of a wilted garden salad. I can go on like this all day.

Tre911 wrote:

However if you are smart then you would look at these questions from a Scientific perspective which means no pre-concieved notions which means you would need to study Creationism before you could really make an informed and intelligent decision on where you stand as far as belief in God.


If you are smart, why can't you form coherent sentence structure? I've studied creationism. After all, I used to be a fundy. I found it dishonest, incorrect, and just plain stupid, kind of like I'm finding you at the moment.

Tre911 wrote:

Simply choosing to not believe in God without even considering the scientific evidence that supports God would mean that you are unfortunately ignorant.


I've considered the evidence. There is no evidence. Unfortunately, I have to explain this to ignorant people such as yourself daily.
 

Tre911 wrote:

Therefore you cannot truly call yourself an athiest until you can blatenly deny the Scientific evidence supporting God as I have done for Evolution.


Once again, I am an atheist. Please quit lying by claiming that I can't call myself one.

I have examined your lack of evidence, repeatedly. The bin is still empty.

But since you seem to not believe in the fact of evolution, please explain why horses and donkeys can breed. Are they the same species? If so, why are their offspring usually sterile? Are they not the same species? If not, why can they breed? Why do whales have vestigial hipbones? Why do cave fish have eye sockets? Why does archaeopteryx have traits of both dinosaurs and birds? Creationism can't tell you why, but evolution can.

Tre911 wrote:

have Studied the Fossil Record, the theory and all else about evolution as have I studied the scientific facts supporting God and it is un-deniable to me that God is real.


Big shock, seeing as you've already demonstrated that you are a blithering idot.

Tre911 wrote:

Believing in nothing is Hopeless to say the least but it also lets you justify your sin.


I believe in a lot of things. I just don't beleive in anything supernatural.

What sins? Sin is an Egyptian archery concept, meaning to miss the target. Had you ever really studied the Bible you would know this. I'm not an archer, and therefore without sin.

Tre911 wrote:

If Thats what you need to do to make this life easier on you then that is sad because your sacrificing your Eternal life and Trading ultimate joy for temporary pleasure


Prove this eternal life hypothesis, please. Have you been there? Can you point out where it is located with a telescope? Can you explain how the Biblical Saul was called forth from a gloomy, Babylonian and Greek version of the afterlife when he should have been in a wonderful paradise somehow never mentioned in the Bible? Have you ever actually Read the Bible? You should. It is good for a chuckle.

Tre911 wrote:

Christians understand that our reward is in Heaven. Therefore Trying to Be like Christ is hard but we find it to be more than worth it when you consider the big picture.


If you want to be like Jesus, why do you ignore his teachings and follow instead the teachings of a man that never met him, Paul? Tell me, have you ever looked at a member of the opposite ( or even same ) sex and felt lust? You have? Then how are you still typing? Jesus said to cut off your hand. How can you see what you typed? Jesus said to gouge out your eyes. Better to get some of you into heaven than all of you in hell. Remember that? Jesus said it. But you lying, hypocritical fundies ignore Jesus and follow the easier, less self critical path of Paul instead. You should be ashamed to call yourselves Christians. You are Paulists, not Christians.

Tre911 wrote:

So if your one of those people who think that you have it all figured out and that your just smarter than all those Christians who believe in their fairy Tales then I would think that you would want to study the Truth Project.


No thanks. I've lost enough brain cells just by trying to read your drivell. I fear I would be half as stupid as the average fundy if I tried to read a whole site of gibberish.

Tre911 wrote:

We Have to Study Evolution in School with an open mind and all we are asking is that you do the same for us.


I've already studied the Bible, Bible history, comparative religion, Mesopotamian history, and creationist claims. I don't need to read blather written by illiterate zealots.

Tre911 wrote:

Its like saying you like apples better than grapes when you have never even tried grapes.


Tried 'em both. The grapes were rancid.

Look, I am not going to visit your site for retarded Christian teens. If you think that anything the site has is valid, try breaking it down and starting a few threads here. We'll get a good belly laugh while blasting the claims out of the water. It'll be fun! C'mon, do it! Jesus would!

 

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Wow. What a fucktard. Jesus

Wow. What a fucktard. Jesus most likely never even existed. Sin is a primitive concept unworthy of modern civilized humans.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Tre911 wrote:You Cannot

Tre911 wrote:

You Cannot Truly call yourself an athiest until you have reviewed the Studies of the Recent Sereies Called the Truth Project.

The propaganda put forth by Focus on the Family and Dr James Dobson on this website called The Truth Project has been packaged in many ways. This is just a rehash of the same.

As an ex-Christian that spent years in parochial schools and in a Jesuit University I have pretty much heard all of this 100s of times. I have many versions of the bible which I have read, studied and dissected, some are really marked up with comments like WTF, and Not in this version of reality. Perhaps you should try actually comprehending and considering that which you read in the bible instead of accepting it all as real. 

Tre911 wrote:

If You want to know the Awnsers of The all Import Questions: Who is God? What is Evil and where did it come from? Why Did Jesus come to earth? Evolution vs Creationism. And Many more than you would need to Look at This study.

Nah, I think I'll stick with science and reality.

Tre911 wrote:

Especially since most athiest seem to think that they have a higher Mental Capasity then all of us Dumb Christians which is the reason they find a belief in God Ridiculous because Scientifically it Cannot be Tested, However if you are smart then you would look at these questions from a Scientific perspective which means no pre-concieved notions which means you would need to study Creationism before you could really make an informed and intelligent decision on where you stand as far as belief in God.

I have studied the beliefs of the sky daddy for well over 20 years in a formal Christian environment. I consider it fantasy. 

The website you suggest is operated by Focus on the Fantasy and Dr Dumbson. If these are those you choose to use for study you may want to put a chain on your wallet.

Tre911 wrote:

 We Have to Study Evolution in School with an open mind and all we are asking is that you do the same for us. Its like saying you like apples better than grapes when you have never even tried grapes.

I don't know if English is your native language or not. If it is not, please ignore the following.  If it is, your school has failed you miserably. If it is a private or parochial school you should demand a refund on your tuition. If you attend public school, you should inform your local school board they are failing to teach you basic English composition. The spelling errors you make show an inability or perhaps laziness to even use spell check, which by the way you could easily have done as you posted. 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Is the Christian concept of

Is the Christian concept of absolute morals the reason they are so obsessed with abortion?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Is the

RatDog wrote:

Is the Christian concept of absolute morals the reason they are so obsessed with abortion?

Pretty much.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Tre911 wrote: Especially

Tre911 wrote:

Especially since most athiest seem to think that they have a higher Mental Capasity then all of us Dumb Christians

Tre911 wrote:
So if your one of those people who think that you have it all figured out and that your just smarter than all those Christians who believe in their fairy Tales then I would think that you would want to study the Truth Project.
 

TheTruthProject wrote:
 

Science, the "systematic study of the natural world," brings to light innumerable evidences of Intelligent Design. But Darwinian theory transforms science from the honest investigation of nature into a vehicle for propagating a godless philosophy. (Part One)

A careful examination of molecular biology and the fossil record demonstrates that evolution is not a "proven fact." Meanwhile, history shows that ideas, including Darwinism as a social philosophy, have definite consequences – consequences that can turn ugly when God is left out of the picture. (Part Two)

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


TheHermit
TheHermit's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
The biggest problem with

The biggest problem with your argument, chuck, is that moral absolutism doesn't exist.  No, not even God is a moral absolutist.  Throughout the OT God commands his followers to invade, murder, pillage, and enslave their neighbors for the crime of simply being there on the land.  Do you believe that slavery, rape, and genocide are good ways of dealing with your neighbors in the modern world? 

If yes, what keeps you from breaking into your neighbors house, killing them, and turning their daughter into your own personal sex slave for all eternity?  God said it was okay once, so obviously its okay now and forevermore!  That's what absolute morality means!

If the answer to the above is no, then God must have changed his mind and decided that what was moral then is not moral now.  Ergo, he is a moral relativist, and if you can't trust the so-called originator of morality to have an absolutely perfect and unchanging morality then who can you trust?  Nobody. 

Either way, your argument is destroyed. 

Morals ARE relative, and necessarily so.  Otherwise we would never have the need to re-examine our morals and decide whether they are held rightly.  This is how we find mistakes in our moral code and fix them; without it slavery, racism, and sexism would still be mainstream and acceptable.  The truth is that moral absolutists are cowards, unable or unwilling to look deep at their beliefs and question them.  The proof is that they always consider their own morals to be the only absolutely correct ones.

By the way, if you try to bring up the tired old "but how do you KNOW it's wrong?" argument, you're just twisting in the wind without offering any real rebuttal.  In that case I'll treat it as you conceding defeat.


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
You know what the best thing

You know what the best thing about debating with atheists is?  They make the same arguments over and over and over.  They don't read anything, they simply go into full robotic mode and spout of stock phrases like "if everything needs a creator, then who created God?".... and that makes my life easier because then I barely have to type anything new.  To demonstrate this, I'm going to respond to our friend Hermit by just pasting things that I've previously written in this thread.

TheHermit wrote:

No, not even God is a moral absolutist.  Throughout the OT God commands his followers to invade, murder, pillage, and enslave their neighbors for the crime of simply being there on the land.  Do you believe that slavery, rape, and genocide are good ways of dealing with your neighbors in the modern world? 

If yes, what keeps you from breaking into your neighbors house, killing them, and turning their daughter into your own personal sex slave for all eternity?  God said it was okay once, so obviously its okay now and forevermore!  That's what absolute morality means!

If the answer to the above is no, then God must have changed his mind and decided that what was moral then is not moral now.  Ergo, he is a moral relativist, and if you can't trust the so-called originator of morality to have an absolutely perfect and unchanging morality then who can you trust?  Nobody.

No, I never said any of these things.

I'd like for you to answer the question.

I never even mentioned God, but obviously you want to take yourself off the hot seat.  I understand, but I'm not going to let you.

Quote:
Morals ARE relative, and necessarily so.  Otherwise we would never have the need to re-examine our morals and decide whether they are held rightly.  This is how we find mistakes in our moral code and fix them; without it slavery, racism, and sexism would still be mainstream and acceptable.

I'm already aware of how we learn our morals.  The question is not regarding the genesis of knowledge.  It is regarding the justification of knowledge.  What justification can you give me for the truth value of the moral claims that you espouse?  Is it just based on what you believe will benefit society in the long run?

Quote:
By the way, if you try to bring up the tired old "but how do you KNOW it's wrong?" argument, you're just twisting in the wind without offering any real rebuttal.  In that case I'll treat it as you conceding defeat.

It exposes the holes in your moral framework, which is why you don't appreciate it.  You know that if the situation presented itself and one was to follow your moral guidelines, you could conceivably be justifying murder and rape.  I am able to bring up the hypothetical situations because in fact, they are not logical impossibilities. Instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "That couldn't happen!  That couldn't happen!"... you should stop and ask yourself some really important questions about the moral laws that you take for granted.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Can he get the asshat

Can he get the asshat already?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If some action can be shown

If some action can be shown to have no harmful consequences, ie no one suffers pain or distress, and there is no evidence that it disrupts society in ways that the members of that society object to, then there is no justification for calling it 'wrong'.

If a few people find it distressing, then it would reasonably require that some modest benefit be shown to result from the action to offset that concern.

The more mixed the consequences, the more need to balance the positive and negative consequences.

And what precisely is wrong with judging a course of action by its consequences, as long as those consequences are examined thoroughly? What other approach is defensible?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:If I

chuckg6261982 wrote:

If I decided one day to kidnap a little girl, rape her... then tie her up and torture her.... kill her by burning her in a fire... take her burnt up corpse and wrap it in a bag... and then throw her in the river.........

On what basis do you say that what I did was wrong?

Answers:

You left evidence.

Your motives for killing her were that you already knew it was wrong to kidnap, rape, and torture.

You were wrong for wasting what might have been of the girl had she grown up and enjoyed these little games of hypothetical question and answer.

You used the word 'if' which would imply that you were unsure of the implications of your actions.  In other words,  you were examining the consequences prior to the action which denotes moral consideration aka ethics.

 

AND FOR MY FINAL ANSWER....

Because you Kant do that.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm already aware of

Quote:
I'm already aware of how we learn our morals.  The question is not regarding the genesis of knowledge.  It is regarding the justificationof knowledge.  What justification can you give me for the truth value of the moral claims that you espouse?  Is it just based on what you believe will benefit society in the long run?

You still don't get it.

If morals are relative, there is no "final justification." Scary, huh? Especially when you start with the presupposition that morality is perfect and comes from your God, whom, by the way, enjoys smashing babies against rocks, but hates shrimp.  

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must withdraw to my original preoccupation of torturing a five year old transexual with a lighter.

  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:You know

chuckg6261982 wrote:

You know what the best thing about debating with atheists is?  They make the same arguments over and over and over.  They don't read anything, they simply go into full robotic mode and spout of stock phrases like "if everything needs a creator, then who created God?".... and that makes my life easier because then I barely have to type anything new.  To demonstrate this, I'm going to respond to our friend Hermit by just pasting things that I've previously written in this thread.

Funny that, we've thought the same way about 'you theists' for a long time..

http://www.rationalresponders.com/theist_argument_checklist

 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:You know

chuckg6261982 wrote:

You know what the best thing about debating with atheists is?  They make the same arguments over and over and over.  They don't read anything, they simply go into full robotic mode and spout of stock phrases like "if everything needs a creator, then who created God?".... and that makes my life easier because then I barely have to type anything new.  To demonstrate this, I'm going to respond to our friend Hermit by just pasting things that I've previously written in this thread.

Is this projection?  Anyway Why should I make a new argument for things you have yet to refute.  That is like saying you keep answering 4 to the question of 2 + 2 no matter how many times I have ask the question.  I think its funny that you think you don't need to justify a uncreated creator, but want us to justify a uncreated matter/energy universe.

chuckg6261982 wrote:

I'm already aware of how we learn our morals.  The question is not regarding the genesis of knowledge.  It is regarding the justification of knowledge.  What justification can you give me for the truth value of the moral claims that you espouse?  Is it just based on what you believe will benefit society in the long run?

Morals are justified through society. Without a society or without a group to belong too what is there to be moral toward?  Morals only come into play when we speak of more than an individual.  The justification comes in the continued success of the society.  Those acts that provide for a more successful society are considered more moral than those that hinder the society from growth.

Following this the only question to ask it what will benefit society.  If we allowed for murder and rape, many members of society would feel threatened, they could either fight back or leave the society.  If the fight back the numbers of the society dwindle,  if they leave the number of members in the society dwindle.  So a more fit society is one who prohibits said actions.  This does not negate many people have strong feelings that said actions are wrong.  We are using our empathy and other traits to actually feel for the member of our society.  Just as when creatures were evolving they had the desire protect ourselves, we now protect our fellow members of society.  Our biological and social needs give us desires for said society because it makes us (society) better suited for survival. 

chuckg6261982 wrote:

It exposes the holes in your moral framework, which is why you don't appreciate it.  You know that if the situation presented itself and one was to follow your moral guidelines, you could conceivably be justifying murder and rape.  I am able to bring up the hypothetical situations because in fact, they are not logical impossibilities. Instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "That couldn't happen!  That couldn't happen!"... you should stop and ask yourself some really important questions about the moral laws that you take for granted.

Society defines its morals. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Morals cannot work by

Morals cannot work by referring to a list of actions officially declred 'wrong', plus another list of approved actions.

Life is much too complicated for that. There will always be borderline, or ambiguous, or conficted, situations, or cases where situations simply don't fit into any convenient category.

Morality can only work on some underlying principle, such as 'least harm' to the indivdual, with consideration to the implications for society as a whole. IOW the sort of principles we have been describing in slightly different form here.

As an example , consider the case of a person killing another person. To insist that is always wrong means that most members of the armed forces are going to be condemned as sinners for doing their duty. Quite apart from many situations of smaller scale conflict, such as self-defence. So that just ain't gonna work.

The same sort of problem applies to lesser things like lying and theft. It is too easy to come up with scenarios where rigid application of prohibition of such actions will unquestionably cause more harm and injustice than the alternative. Situational, consequential ethics is the only true morality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Whoa, whoa, whoa!I

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but a hundred squeaky wheels that gang up on you at the same time? 

I'll choose one person that I'll respond to later on.  It will either be Bob Spence (because anyone who resembles Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull deserves a response) or Magus (because like me, he was clearly the creepy kid who could not get dates in high school).

Anyway, I have to go to work.  See you later.

 

MOD EDIT: Chuck, spamming is against the forum code of conduct. Posting responses that are nothing more than '.' is spam. Shape-up or shut-up.

 - Kevin R Brown


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
After careful consideration,

After careful consideration, I've decided to reply to Bob Spence.  He is actually pretty knowledgeable in his field and a formidable debater.  What this means is that I will respond to Bob and only Bob.  Anybody else who decides that Bob can't defend himself and needs to reply on his behalf-- don't bother.  I'm not even going to read your post.

Now Bob, I think you have the topic of discussion slightly confused.  You are turning this into a discussion about the practical use of reason instead of a discussion regarding the basis for the truth values of certain laws that we hold to be true. 

The question is as follows:  Why is the statement, "one ought not to rape and murder a little girl" true?  What makes it true instead of false? 

This is not a discussion about how we come to learn that this is an accepted moral law in our society.  I am fully aware that morality is not innate knowledge.  Certainly, knowledge of morality is a seed that needs to planted and made to grow.  Obviously, if we all had an innate moral sense, then there would be no need for our parents to discipline us.  There would be no need for us to learn anything.  We would just know.

I would agree that dealing with ethical dilemmas on a situational basis is the more pragmatic way to go.  To espouse a position of absolute morality is not saying that God writes a list of general rules that we all have to follow and refer to in times of ethical dismay.  We deal with morality on a situational basis because life is that complicated.

Where I draw the line is on the idea that moral statements are true ONLY on the basis that society will function better if they are true.  What that would mean was that if it was the case that an action that we consider immoral, such as rape, ended up not contributing to the destruction of a society, then it would be okay.  Now someone may say that such a situation is impossible.  That person clearly cannot wrap his or her mind around the philosophical meaning of "impossible".  Impossibility, at its core principles, simply refers to that which violates the principle of non-contradiction.  Strictly speaking, the only things that are impossible are things like squared circles or married bachelors.  Anything else is a possibility, at its most fundamental nature.  To ignore that such a scenario, like a society condoning rape and not suffering because of it, could actually happen is just sticking your head in the sand and not responding to the argument.  If you kill absolutism, you open the door for anybody to write their own moral rules and JUSTIFY them. 

Moral statements are true in themselves.  Acting in accordance with a moral law is an end in itself and KANT-not be for anything else.  They are simply axiomatic.  That doesn't mean that we do not have to learn it for ourselves.  That is just the way things are.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
There is no such thing as

There is no such thing as objective morality, and any attempt to create such a system necessarily results in nothing more than an arbitrary set of rules that can't be uniformly applied in any case. This is because actions without consequences cannot have moral consequences.

As defined, an immoral act is something which ought not be done, and this is determined by the consequences of the action. An action with negative consequences is something that ought not be done, and so by the very definition of morality, the determination of an action's morality requires a determination of its consequences. The question of 'what is a negative consequence?' necessarily creates an issue subjective to individuals, but this is not surprising. There is no morality without human interaction. Is it immoral for a wolf to eat a sheep? This subjective element of determination of the morality of action does not preclude the objective application of morality, however, and it is only in that sense that an "objective morality" has any meaning.

Confusion arises from the mistake of not labeling endangerment as an affirmative act. That is, despite the fact that a specific action may have no real harmful consequences, actively endangering another is still a potential negative consequence of an action, which would render it immoral.

Furthermore, the examples you provide in an attempt to demonstrate situations that are "objectively" immoral rely on what are essentially tautologies. Your examples of rape and torture make use of words that incorporate the negative consequences of actions within the definitions themselves. Rape and torture necessarily have negative consequences, and so to say that there is no time such acts could be moral is akin to saying "there is no way to illegally kill someone in a legal way." If a person consents to rape or torture, then the act would not actually be rape or torture under the common uses of the words (i.e. "I enjoy being hurt" is not the same as "I enjoy being tortured" under common usage, as, since torture is necessarily unejoyable, it would be saying "I enjoy things I don't enjoy")


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:After

chuckg6261982 wrote:

After careful consideration, I've decided to reply to Bob Spence.  He is actually pretty knowledgeable in his field and a formidable debater.  What this means is that I will respond to Bob and only Bob.  Anybody else who decides that Bob can't defend himself and needs to reply on his behalf-- don't bother.  I'm not even going to read your post.

In other words you are unable to even try to refute other peoples claims, and if they point this out you are putting your fingers in you ears classic.

 

 

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982 wrote:After

chuckg6261982 wrote:

After careful consideration, I've decided to reply to Bob Spence.  He is actually pretty knowledgeable in his field and a formidable debater.  What this means is that I will respond to Bob and only Bob.  Anybody else who decides that Bob can't defend himself and needs to reply on his behalf-- don't bother.  I'm not even going to read your post.

Now Bob, I think you have the topic of discussion slightly confused.  You are turning this into a discussion about the practical use of reason instead of a discussion regarding the basis for the truth values of certain laws that we hold to be true. 

The question is as follows:  Why is the statement, "one ought not to rape and murder a little girl" true?  What makes it true instead of false? 

In one sense in it may be meaningful to assign a 'true' or 'false' value to that statement within the context of a particular set of assumed values, because you use the verb 'ought'.

Actually,  it really is a simple tautology, since 'rape' and 'murder' are by definition 'wrong'.

But I guess I know what you are trying to express:

The principle that doing something to another person which they clearly object to, which is not in any way to their ultimate benefit (just to exclude medical or other therapeutic procedures which cause someone temporary unavoidable pain and/or distress in the process of treatment), or is not seen as the only way to prevent a greater harm, such as restraining a would-be killer,  should be actively discouraged, should not be problematic.

 

Since 'murder' and 'rape' are acts which are by definition committed against the victims wishes, of course they are wrong, whereas 'mercy killing', or 'assisted suicide', also involve causing or assisting the death of another person, are not automatically 'wrong'.

And of course, consensual sexual acts are also not automatically 'wrong' either, unlike rape.

Quote:

This is not a discussion about how we come to learn that this is an accepted moral law in our society.  I am fully aware that morality is not innate knowledge.  Certainly, knowledge of morality is a seed that needs to planted and made to grow.  Obviously, if we all had an innate moral sense, then there would be no need for our parents to discipline us.  There would be no need for us to learn anything.  We would just know.

I would agree that dealing with ethical dilemmas on a situational basis is the more pragmatic way to go.  To espouse a position of absolute morality is not saying that God writes a list of general rules that we all have to follow and refer to in times of ethical dismay.  We deal with morality on a situational basis because life is that complicated.

Where I draw the line is on the idea that moral statements are true ONLY on the basis that society will function better if they are true.  What that would mean was that if it was the case that an action that we consider immoral, such as rape, ended up not contributing to the destruction of a society, then it would be okay.  Now someone may say that such a situation is impossible.  That person clearly cannot wrap his or her mind around the philosophical meaning of "impossible".  Impossibility, at its core principles, simply refers to that which violates the principle of non-contradiction.  Strictly speaking, the only things that are impossible are things like squared circles or married bachelors.  Anything else is a possibility, at its most fundamental nature.  To ignore that such a scenario, like a society condoning rape and not suffering because of it, could actually happen is just sticking your head in the sand and not responding to the argument.  If you kill absolutism, you open the door for anybody to write their own moral rules and JUSTIFY them. 

Moral statements are true in themselves.  Acting in accordance with a moral law is an end in itself and KANT-not be for anything else.  They are simply axiomatic.  That doesn't mean that we do not have to learn it for ourselves.  That is just the way things are.

Actually I don't think the 'destruction of society' would be an appropriate justification for declaring something 'morally wrong'. It is conceivable, in the same philosophical sense you already have defined, that virtually everyone in that society has decided to let the society die, and is 'happy' with that, then that is their decision, and I don't see we have any basis to declare their decision 'wrong' in an ethical sense, although we might think it ill-advised.

I am not sure what if any universal guidelines for ethical conduct could apply to all conceivable (in the philosphical sense) societies. If we find some aspect of a very different society 'morally' objectionable, I think that would be arguably an example of true 'moral relativism', ie based on our culture and world-view.

The sort of thing which I personally think comes closest to being a universal moral rule is 'unjustifiable coercion', as I discussed earlier. Especially if we pull back from the wilder fantasies of philosophy.

If some individuals within a society are being abused in some way, without their consent, with no apparent adequately demonstrable longer term benefit to them, I would have serious concerns about the 'morality' of such a society. So I don't see morality as truly arbitrary.

I should finally make it clear that I see no point in discussing 'morality' in anything beyond the contexts I have discussed here. Regarding further 'philosophical' discussion, read my sig.

You see, I see 'moraiity', our sense of 'right' and 'wrong', as deeply, but not wholly, subjective, and even the feeling that many people, such as yourself, share, that it must be, or 'should' be, based on some external absolutes, is itself a personal subjective judgement.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology