Jump to content


Photo

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#101 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:15 PM

Will you reply to my post #88 or are you doing the exact thing you accuse creationists and running away from evidence / rebuttals.... (Hypocrite much?)

You know why I'm ignoring you and are being dishonest by pretending not to. I've explained it many times at this point.

#102 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

You know why I'm ignoring you and are being dishonest by pretending not to. I've explained it many times at this point.

Therefore this rant you've made all thoughout the forum is based on your own inability to comprehend what I said. I said that I prefered YOU to post words rather than just a video since it holds you accountable, I've had it happen in the past when evolutionists post videos, I go to the time and effort to debunk said video and then the evolutionist back away claiming they never said what was on the video...

Only after you have stated a claim would I then proceed to dismantle the arguments, since the claim you'd make would ground you to the argument meaning you cannot back out of it.

Additionally I responded to 18 other points in the same post, so if responding to 18 points is not discussing the evidence then I don't know what is.

Ergo your comments here are a waste of time and an attempt to sideline the issue of YOU providing evidence and DEMONSTRATING how this evidence is actual evidence for evolution.

#103 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:59 AM

Well that is not what I have argued. I have said that : 1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.

And that is what people actually do. To some Christians, dancing is wrong. To G*ys, their h***sXuality is not wrong. When I was young, Baptists thought speaking in tongues was wrong but Assembly of God churches said it was right. There for ethics must be subjective.


This does not seem to be a response to the first premise at all. You say that people are inclined to think that wrong is just a point of view. And to support this claim you show examples that different people have different moral views. But that has nothing to do with the premise. The point is that if moral is subjective people should behave as if knew that moral matters where just a point of view in the same regard as we know that our favorite color is something that is not shared by everyone. But it's seems like people actually believe that their own moral standard might be right or wrong, not just a point of view. For example g*y people seem to think that all who does not agree with their moral view have some sort of homophobia and is morally wrong.

People seems to try to justify their own moral standard and that their standard is right and actually act as if their own moral standard is normative and correct even for other people that say that they have other moral standards.

2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.

Yes...sort of. People who think it is wrong to steal money from them, will have no problem defrauding the government, an insurance company, or a large business. So, they think it's wrong if it happens to them but not wrong if they do it to a non-personal entity like the taxpayers of the U.S. To me, that shows just how subjective morals are.


Again your not addressing the premise. The premise does not say anything about people having double standards. The premise says that if you are the victim of something you believe to be morally wrong then according to yourself you have been a victim of something wrong, regardless of what the perpetrator believes. If moral was subjective that is not how we would expect people to behave according to the 1st premise. Premise 2 just shows that people do not act in accordance to premise 1.

Compare that with your beliefs in favorite colors. If someone likes another color more than your favorite color you don't think that they are "wrong", it's just another point of view.

3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.

Neither one of your premises support your conclusion. Perhaps you need to modify your premises or explain them better.


Or perhaps you should start to try and actually address what the premises says instead of things like different moral standards and moral double standards, which the premises do not even address.

If nature is not the basis then it must be something that is not nature. Supernatural, perhaps? Are you saying that the objective moral values are supernatural? Is that why you can't name one irrefutable objective moral value...because you don't have insight into the supernatural? If objective moral values must be of a supernatural basis, and no one knows the supernatural, how can anyone,claim that objective moral values even exist? You can't see the basis for them and you cannot even show one moral value that is objective.


First lets ask :

1 - Do objective moral values exist or not?
2 - If yes, can we use nature as the basis for objective moral values?

For myself I answer that objective moral values do exists, and that you can logically infer that this is the case by looking at the world around us. The argument above is one example of that. And I also mean that nature can't be the ground for objective moral values. Which animals, which behaviors or which impulses should we say is moral or immoral based on nature?

And this all leads us to the theistic moral argument for the existence of God, namely :
  • If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  • Objective moral values do exist.
  • Therefore, God exists.

The next step would be to see what God says is the objective ground for morals. And as a Christian I'd like to cite Jesus Christ here:

Mark 12:28-31

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

#104 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:54 AM

This does not seem to be a response to the first premise at all. You say that people are inclined to think that wrong is just a point of view. And to support this claim you show examples that different people have different moral views. But that has nothing to do with the premise. The point is that if moral is subjective people should behave as if knew that moral matters where just a point of view in the same regard as we know that our favorite color is something that is not shared by everyone. But it's seems like people actually believe that their own moral standard might be right or wrong, not just a point of view. For example g*y people seem to think that all who does not agree with their moral view have some sort of homophobia and is morally wrong.

People seems to try to justify their own moral standard and that their standard is right and actually act as if their own moral standard is normative and correct even for other people that say that they have other moral standards.

Yeah, I realized that I was not really addressing the premise about a day after I had written it. I just figured I would wait for your response because I couldn't edit what I had written anyway. Besides, editing a post that long after writing it seems a little dishonest to me.

Addressing the premise: You are saying that because individuals believe that what they think is morally right applies to all other people, then there must be an absolute moral rightness. How does one follow from the other?


Again your not addressing the premise. The premise does not say anything about people having double standards. The premise says that if you are the victim of something you believe to be morally wrong then according to yourself you have been a victim of something wrong, regardless of what the perpetrator believes. If moral was subjective that is not how we would expect people to behave according to the 1st premise. Premise 2 just shows that people do not act in accordance to premise 1.

Compare that with your beliefs in favorite colors. If someone likes another color more than your favorite color you don't think that they are "wrong", it's just another point of view.

The fact that individuals believe they were wronged regardless of the intent of the person performing the action does not show that there is an absolute moral value. It just shows that they have made a moral judgement about a particular incident.
Most people have similar moral judgement because of how they were raised and the fact that we have the ability to conclude that others probably feel similarly to us about what happens to them. We feel that people don't like to be physically harmed, or have things taken from them. That's empathy. Having empathy with others doesn't mean that there is an absolute moral standard.


First lets ask :

1 - Do objective moral values exist or not?
2 - If yes, can we use nature as the basis for objective moral values?

For myself I answer that objective moral values do exists, and that you can logically infer that this is the case by looking at the world around us. The argument above is one example of that. And I also mean that nature can't be the ground for objective moral values. Which animals, which behaviors or which impulses should we say is moral or immoral based on nature?

And this all leads us to the theistic moral argument for the existence of God, namely :

  • If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  • Objective moral values do exist.
  • Therefore, God exists.

This doesn't logically follow and leads to at least one conundrum.

First, you cannot show that God must exist in order for objective moral values to exist...that is your assumption. So the rest does not really follow.
  • Now if objective morals depend on the existence of God, that implies that God determines what moral values are good and what moral values are bad.
  • God is an intelligent being with the capability of choice.
  • God can choose what is morally good and what is morally bad.
  • How can there be moral absolutes if they are subject to God? By definition morals that are subject to an intelligent being are subjective morals.


The next step would be to see what God says is the objective ground for morals. And as a Christian I'd like to cite Jesus Christ here:

Mark 12:28-31

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

However, this can lead to all sorts of "greater good" scenarios.

Example: A Christian loves his neighbor as himself. However, his neighbor is a non-believer and is teaching his 1-year-old and 3-year-old children that there is no God and Christianity is just for the weak. Those children are most likely never going to come to Christ. But you, knowing that you want to go to heaven, believe these children would want to go to heaven also. So, should you teach his children about Christ despite his wishes? How far should you go in that. Should you forcibly take the children and give them a Christian upbringing? If all of heaven rejoices at the conversion of one, wouldn't 2 be worth the pain that you put the non-believer through? Is his happiness worth the souls of those children?

What is the absolute right thing to do in that case? Which is closer to the morally right thing to do, taking his children, leading them to Christ, and hurting their father...OR...leaving them with him, very likely condemning them to hell, and having him be a happy father? What moral absolute are you comparing these choices to in order to determine the right thing to do...Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind? Those children will likely not be able to do that because they won't believe in God.

#105 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:20 AM

Yeah, I realized that I was not really addressing the premise about a day after I had written it. I just figured I would wait for your response because I couldn't edit what I had written anyway. Besides, editing a post that long after writing it seems a little dishonest to me.

Addressing the premise: You are saying that because individuals believe that what they think is morally right applies to all other people, then there must be an absolute moral rightness. How does one follow from the other?


Through premise 1. If moral is subjective people should behave as if they knew that moral matters is only a point of view. They do that for other subjective preferences like favorite colors.

The fact that individuals believe they were wronged regardless of the intent of the person performing the action does not show that there is an absolute moral value. It just shows that they have made a moral judgement about a particular incident.
Most people have similar moral judgement because of how they were raised and the fact that we have the ability to conclude that others probably feel similarly to us about what happens to them. We feel that people don't like to be physically harmed, or have things taken from them. That's empathy. Having empathy with others doesn't mean that there is an absolute moral standard.


If I understand you correctly I do agree, premise 2 alone does not show anything. It's in conjunction with premise 1 it tells us something.

This doesn't logically follow and leads to at least one conundrum.

First, you cannot show that God must exist in order for objective moral values to exist...that is your assumption. So the rest does not really follow.

  • Now if objective morals depend on the existence of God, that implies that God determines what moral values are good and what moral values are bad.
  • God is an intelligent being with the capability of choice.
  • God can choose what is morally good and what is morally bad.
  • How can there be moral absolutes if they are subject to God? By definition morals that are subject to an intelligent being are subjective morals


It's the moral argument for God's existence. I might not be able to give a 100% watertight proof that objective moral values needs God. But I have yet to see this premise challenged in some logical coherent way. As long as no one can give good reasons that shows that this premise is false it's seems logical to accept that this belief is true. You can't just dismiss a premise in a logical argument just because you think there might exist things that you can imagine. You have to argue why you think the premise is false. Traditionally even atheists, like Sartre or Dawkins, acknowledge this point.

According to theism God is immutable, or as Psalm 119:89 says "Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven." But this is even more complex than that because one could argue that morality is part of Gods nature or essence rather than a mere decision. But I will not try to become to philosophical.

However, this can lead to all sorts of "greater good" scenarios.

Example: A Christian loves his neighbor as himself. However, his neighbor is a non-believer and is teaching his 1-year-old and 3-year-old children that there is no God and Christianity is just for the weak. Those children are most likely never going to come to Christ. But you, knowing that you want to go to heaven, believe these children would want to go to heaven also. So, should you teach his children about Christ despite his wishes? How far should you go in that. Should you forcibly take the children and give them a Christian upbringing? If all of heaven rejoices at the conversion of one, wouldn't 2 be worth the pain that you put the non-believer through? Is his happiness worth the souls of those children?

What is the absolute right thing to do in that case? Which is closer to the morally right thing to do, taking his children, leading them to Christ, and hurting their father...OR...leaving them with him, very likely condemning them to hell, and having him be a happy father? What moral absolute are you comparing these choices to in order to determine the right thing to do...Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind? Those children will likely not be able to do that because they won't believe in God.


Most things can be misused, but if the objective moral law is : "Love your neighbor as yourself" is it then morally right to act in a way that is not loving towards that neighbor because <fill in anything here>.

In the scenario above you should probably try to create a respectful relation to the neighbor and show through your actions that he is loved. Then you could set an example for his children as well, showing that their fathers view of Christianity is just based on his own unfounded preconceptions. When you have a personal relationship towards the father all sort of things could happen.

#106 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

Through premise 1. If moral is subjective people should behave as if they knew that moral matters is only a point of view. They do that for other subjective preferences like favorite colors.


That's not really an answer. I know that people tend to believe that what they believe is morally right is morally right for all people. That's just a testament to how important morals are to those people. That doesn't say or imply anything else other than they believe their moral standard is the one all others should use. Why does this imply that morals are not subjective?

If I understand you correctly I do agree, premise 2 alone does not show anything. It's in conjunction with premise 1 it tells us something.

Not really, because premise 1 does not support objective morality.

It's the moral argument for God's existence. I might not be able to give a 100% watertight proof that objective moral values needs God. But I have yet to see this premise challenged in some logical coherent way. As long as no one can give good reasons that shows that this premise is false it's seems logical to accept that this belief is true. You can't just dismiss a premise in a logical argument just because you think there might exist things that you can imagine. You have to argue why you think the premise is false. Traditionally even atheists, like Sartre or Dawkins, acknowledge this point.

According to theism God is immutable, or as Psalm 119:89 says "Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven." But this is even more complex than that because one could argue that morality is part of Gods nature or essence rather than a mere decision. But I will not try to become to philosophical.

Now you are saying that God doesn't change. That may be but His morality seems to be situational.

You believe it is wrong to purposely kill small children. Why? God doesn't have any problem ordering His followers to kill them. So what objective morality tells you killing small children is morally wrong? Maybe it is morally neutral.

If we assume that a moral absolute is to do what God tells us to do, how can we determine the morality of any other action by any other person? You have no idea what God told any other person to do, so the morality of their actions cannot be known. It is worse than having morality that is determined by society. At least with subjective morality determined by society, we have some idea what actions are right and what are wrong.

#107 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:40 AM

That's not really an answer. I know that people tend to believe that what they believe is morally right is morally right for all people. That's just a testament to how important morals are to those people. That doesn't say or imply anything else other than they believe their moral standard is the one all others should use. Why does this imply that morals are not subjective?

Not really, because premise 1 does not support objective morality.


Do you understand that it is premise 1 and 2 together that lets us conclude that objective moral values seems to exist. It's really two questions:

How should we expect people to act if morality was subjective?
How do they in fact act regarding morality?

And when answering the questions we draw the conclusion that morality seems to be objective rather than subjective. You yourself admit that people act as morality was objective, but that is not what we would expect and that is not how people act in regard to other subjective preferences.

Now you are saying that God doesn't change. That may be but His morality seems to be situational. You believe it is wrong to purposely kill small children. Why? God doesn't have any problem ordering His followers to kill them. So what objective morality tells you killing small children is morally wrong? Maybe it is morally neutral.

If we assume that a moral absolute is to do what God tells us to do, how can we determine the morality of any other action by any other person? You have no idea what God told any other person to do, so the morality of their actions cannot be known. It is worse than having morality that is determined by society. At least with subjective morality determined by society, we have some idea what actions are right and what are wrong.


The immutability of God in theology is an attribute where God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises. But are we ready to start our little Bible study, there are some points to understand first.

1 - Do you know the difference between the covenant in the old and new testament?
2 - Does God have any moral duties to fulfill?
3 - Is God allowed to give and take life as He chooses?

#108 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:42 PM

Do you understand that it is premise 1 and 2 together that lets us conclude that objective moral values seems to exist. It's really two questions:

How should we expect people to act if morality was subjective?
How do they in fact act regarding morality?

And when answering the questions we draw the conclusion that morality seems to be objective rather than subjective. You yourself admit that people act as morality was objective, but that is not what we would expect and that is not how people act in regard to other subjective preferences.

Just because people see their personal morals as applicable to all other people, does not make their personal morals objective, nor does it mean that there is an objective morality.



The immutability of God in theology is an attribute where God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises. But are we ready to start our little Bible study, there are some points to understand first.

1 - Do you know the difference between the covenant in the old and new testament?
2 - Does God have any moral duties to fulfill?
3 - Is God allowed to give and take life as He chooses?

1. The new covenant makes all peoples who wish to do so, into God's people and makes Him their God. The covenant is not limited to the children of Abraham any more.
2. I don't know. What does the Bible say about this?
3. I assume He can kill anyone He chooses for any reason He chooses or no reason at all.

You going somewhere with this?

#109 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:15 AM

Just because people see their personal morals as applicable to all other people, does not make their personal morals objective, nor does it mean that there is an objective morality.


You agree that people act as if moral is objective. And you don't seem to disagree with how people ought to act if moral was subjective.

So why is this not a very good argument for that moral is objective?

1. The new covenant makes all peoples who wish to do so, into God's people and makes Him their God. The covenant is not limited to the children of Abraham any more.
2. I don't know. What does the Bible say about this?
3. I assume He can kill anyone He chooses for any reason He chooses or no reason at all.

You going somewhere with this?


I do think so. From a moral perspective the difference between the old and new covenant is that God have reconciled the world to himself through Christ and does not count peoples sin against them any more (2 Cor 5:18-19). And this forgiveness is for everyone, regardless if someone accept Christ as savior or not. But to be saved you still have to believe (John 3:16).

God does not have any moral duties to fulfill and God may give and take his gift of life at anytime from anyone. So in the old testament God did count the sins of people and nations against them. So that mean that he judged them for their sin according to the old covenant. So the killing of the Canaanite for example was justified by the sins of the Canaanite, and they had time to turn from their ways before God acted.

#110 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:09 AM

You agree that people act as if moral is objective. And you don't seem to disagree with how people ought to act if moral was subjective.

So why is this not a very good argument for that moral is objective?

Belief does not make something true. Just because someone believes that their morals are the correct ones does not make that true nor does it mean that there are actually unchangable morals that are correct.

I do think so. From a moral perspective the difference between the old and new covenant is that God have reconciled the world to himself through Christ and does not count peoples sin against them any more (2 Cor 5:18-19). And this forgiveness is for everyone, regardless if someone accept Christ as savior or not. But to be saved you still have to believe (John 3:16).

God does not have any moral duties to fulfill and God may give and take his gift of life at anytime from anyone. So in the old testament God did count the sins of people and nations against them. So that mean that he judged them for their sin according to the old covenant. So the killing of the Canaanite for example was justified by the sins of the Canaanite, and they had time to turn from their ways before God acted.

The sins of the adults justified the killing of the babies? That statement supports my contention that, even if morals are objective, you cannot tell if any action by a person is moral or not because you don't know if the action is condoned by God or not.
Not having any moral duties to fulfill means that God's actions are always moral? Then morality is subject to God's whim, which makes it subjective. Yee-haw...I win!!!

#111 Kristof

Kristof

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Art, Video Games, Basketball.
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:56 PM

This discussion is ridiculous.
All atheists should conclude that morality is subjective because morality and ethics are but an evolutionary product to help a species/society survive.
Evolution produces different survival tactics, so we should come to expect moral variety among different cultures or even individuals.

If evolution somehow produces a culture that thrives on devouring and raping its neighbors, its just another wonder of nature.

The bigger question for atheists is whether there is human free will at all.
If natural laws are the only agents at play, then every thought in a brain is destined by a chain of chemical and physical events that go back to the beginning of time. Since natural laws destine every single event in the universe, all the torturing and raping of children are intrinsically the same as a specific raindrop running down my window.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#112 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:06 AM

This discussion is ridiculous. All atheists should conclude that morality is subjective because morality and ethics are but an evolutionary product to help a species/society survive. Evolution produces different survival tactics, so we should come to expect moral variety among different cultures or even individuals. If evolution somehow produces a culture that thrives on devouring and raping its neighbors, its just another wonder of nature. The bigger question for atheists is whether there is human free will at all. If natural laws are the only agents at play, then every thought in a brain is destined by a chain of chemical and physical events that go back to the beginning of time. Since natural laws destine every single event in the universe, all the torturing and raping of children are intrinsically the same as a specific raindrop running down my window.


This is where many atheists try and form their own version of atheism. They realise that strict atheism leads them to the belief that there are no moral absolutes, that anything is acceptable pertaining to an individuals own subjective morality. However (and thankfully) they know this to be wrong, that real moral absolutes do exist, however this conflicts with their atheist belief which means they only believe that nature exists and nothing else, ergo if our morality is derived from ourselves then it is subjective leading to the problem.


And yes there is no free-will in atheism. As Dawkins puts it, ' we are dancing to the tune of our genes' (paraphrased)... IF we are merely following our genetic disposition then no-one can claim the rapist or murderer a bad person since they are only following what they are genetically predisposed to, "dancing to their genes"..
  • Salsa likes this

#113 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:22 AM

1. Belief does not make something true.

2. Just because someone believes that their morals are the correct ones does not make that true nor does it mean that there are actually unchangable morals that are correct.

3. The sins of the adults justified the killing of the babies?

4. That statement supports my contention that, even if morals are objective, you cannot tell if any action by a person is moral or not because you don't know if the action is condoned by God or not. Not having any moral duties to fulfill means that God's actions are always moral? Then morality is subject to God's whim, which makes it subjective.

5. Yee-haw...I win!!!



1. This also applies to atheism (the belief in unbelief) and especially to evolution.

2. Do you really believe this? Its not that "someone believes" that torturing babies is immoral its because we all KNOW its immoral that is called a conscience and its in tune with objective morality, (some moreso than others)

3. This is my take on it. I believe its the same logic as when God put up the swords around the tree of life. He did so to prevent Adam and Eve from becoming immortal in their now cursed / sinful state, which would mean that there would be no hope for them if they ate the fruit as we are only redeemed once we leave this existence, therefore they'd be cursed for eternity. The same could be said here, the children were born into lives surrounded by sin where they would most likely sin against God and thus be condemned.. Its the same as children born into poverty are subject to live in poverty.. Rather than continue to have more and more people condemned because of being brought up in sin (and not know any better), I think God wanted to end it so that way there could be a fresh slate. (Same with the flood too). This is my own opinion, I don't think killing babies is good, however from what I believe here I think that it was justified by God)

4. We have the Bible to tell us what is condoned, (or other texts of scripture by other Religions, since all are quite similar, follow the Golden Rule etc).. Where do you get your objective morality?

Morality subject to God doesn't mean its subjective for us since subjective for us only counts when it is subjected from us... (You're trying to redefine subjective)... It would be subjective to God, however God is the ultimate being hence I'm not sure it would matter if morals to him were subjective.. The point here is that for US morals are objective.

5. You keep thinking that ;)
  • Tirian likes this

#114 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:53 AM

This discussion is ridiculous. All atheists should conclude that morality is subjective because morality and ethics are but an evolutionary product to help a species/society survive. Evolution produces different survival tactics, so we should come to expect moral variety among different cultures or even individuals. If evolution somehow produces a culture that thrives on devouring and raping its neighbors, its just another wonder of nature. The bigger question for atheists is whether there is human free will at all. If natural laws are the only agents at play, then every thought in a brain is destined by a chain of chemical and physical events that go back to the beginning of time. Since natural laws destine every single event in the universe, all the torturing and raping of children are intrinsically the same as a specific raindrop running down my window.


I've always been confused about what "free will" means, completely independently from materialistic or deterministic ideas. When you make a decision, is that decision caused or uncaused ?
I don't think my decisions being random means they're free, quite the opposite, it would mean my decisions are outside of my control and subject to some cosmic coin-flipping.
If my decisions aren't random but are actually a consequence of me weighing the pros and cons and making a choice depending on my tastes, my values, and my personality... That sounds like the kind of decisions I want to be making, but that decision is clearly caused by the overall situation I'm making my choice in, and my own tastes and values; given that situation, and what my personality is like, I would never make a different decision. Someone who knew me well enough and looked at the same situation I did could probably predict what my "free" choice would be, and if they knew me and what I know of the situation perfectly well they could predict my decision exactly. Unless it is impossible to know someone perfectly well because our basic personality is undetermined at a basic level... and that re-introduces the random component.

What does free will mean to you ?

#115 Kristof

Kristof

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Art, Video Games, Basketball.
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:29 PM

I've always been confused about what "free will" means, completely independently from materialistic or deterministic ideas. When you make a decision, is that decision caused or uncaused ? I don't think my decisions being random means they're free, quite the opposite, it would mean my decisions are outside of my control and subject to some cosmic coin-flipping. If my decisions aren't random but are actually a consequence of me weighing the pros and cons and making a choice depending on my tastes, my values, and my personality... That sounds like the kind of decisions I want to be making, but that decision is clearly caused by the overall situation I'm making my choice in, and my own tastes and values; given that situation, and what my personality is like, I would never make a different decision. Someone who knew me well enough and looked at the same situation I did could probably predict what my "free" choice would be, and if they knew me and what I know of the situation perfectly well they could predict my decision exactly. Unless it is impossible to know someone perfectly well because our basic personality is undetermined at a basic level... and that re-introduces the random component. What does free will mean to you ?


As far as science goes, we know there are events that strictly follow the chain of cause and effect and are predestined to happen. We also know that there are random events in quantum mechanics that are unpredictable by nature.To me, free will is that which is neither of the first two events nor a combination of them.

IMHO, Free will is the concept that there is a conscientious mind that exists beyond the physical world as we know it. I cannot clearly define free will, because it is the most fundamental part of my existence. Everything I experience and demonstrate are only derivatives of my free will, thus I cannot prove that I have free will. All I have is the sensation of wielding free will, and I have no choice but to believe in it.
To claim my free will is only an illusion, would mean I have to deny logic, reason and all other cognitive abilities that are only activated through my sensation of free will. If i can't trust my sense of agency in my own actions, how can I trust conclusions of my actions? (such as using logic to analyze...etc)

I agree with you when you say having random events dictating our thoughts is not free will. That would just mean we're a complicated equation with an random number generator at the input end. A machine.

I believe an act of free will is an event caused by the free thinking agent, or the "person", or his "soul" or whatever we want to call it.

#116 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:16 PM

I've always been confused about what "free will" means, completely independently from materialistic or deterministic ideas. When you make a decision, is that decision caused or uncaused ? I don't think my decisions being random means they're free, quite the opposite, it would mean my decisions are outside of my control and subject to some cosmic coin-flipping. If my decisions aren't random but are actually a consequence of me weighing the pros and cons and making a choice depending on my tastes, my values, and my personality... That sounds like the kind of decisions I want to be making, but that decision is clearly caused by the overall situation I'm making my choice in, and my own tastes and values; given that situation, and what my personality is like, I would never make a different decision. Someone who knew me well enough and looked at the same situation I did could probably predict what my "free" choice would be, and if they knew me and what I know of the situation perfectly well they could predict my decision exactly. Unless it is impossible to know someone perfectly well because our basic personality is undetermined at a basic level... and that re-introduces the random component. What does free will mean to you ?


Freewill is the power to choose, when you say that you make choices you actually defy the naturalist's concept Dawkins idea of the gene controling everything, since if the gene controlled everything then we can never make a choice since it was already made before-hand.

Ergo Dawkin's book is wrong, (just like how he was wrong about memes, cultural genes)

#117 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:14 AM

Freewill is the power to choose, when you say that you make choices you actually defy the naturalist's concept Dawkins idea of the gene controling everything, since if the gene controlled everything then we can never make a choice since it was already made before-hand. Ergo Dawkin's book is wrong, (just like how he was wrong about memes, cultural genes)

Yeah, that's not what Dawkins says, maybe you should actually read “The Selfish Gene”.

You're begging the question though, I'm asking what the “power to choose” is. Are choices uncaused ? And if they are caused, do we have the power to affect those causes ? Conversely if someone puts a gun to my head and threatens to kill me if I don't give them a thousand dollars, is my choice to give them the money “free” in the context of “free will” as you're talking about it now ? After all I had the power to choose between giving them money and dying.

#118 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:20 AM

Belief does not make something true. Just because someone believes that their morals are the correct ones does not make that true nor does it mean that there are actually unchangeable morals that are correct.


Have you heard of the term inductive reasoning? That's what the argument is all about, it's an inductive argument based how people act and how they ought to act. And the argument shows that morality seems to be objective rather than subjective. An inductive argument is refuted by showing that either premise is false or that the argument is not logically coherent. Instead of just stating your beliefs you could try to falsify either premise. If not it seems that the argument holds. So my question to you seem to be unanswered.

Why is this not a very good argument for that moral is objective?

The sins of the adults justified the killing of the babies?


As Gilbo said, perhaps God wanted to end the sinful way of the Canaanite once and for all. Perhaps it was meant to send a strong messages to other nations as well. But you yourself agreed that God had the right to determine how long any person get to live, why could he not decide the life length of these children? And according to God life does not end with the death of your physical body, so how do you know what happened to these children after death?

That statement supports my contention that, even if morals are objective, you cannot tell if any action by a person is moral or not because you don't know if the action is condoned by God or not. Not having any moral duties to fulfill means that God's actions are always moral? Then morality is subject to God's whim, which makes it subjective. Yee-haw...I win!!!


Actually that is incorrect. God is immutable which means that God do not change His mind on what is and what is not wrong. For example torturing small children for pleasure has always been wrong, so that is one objective moral value that may be derived from the Bible. God did use the children of Israel (as the Bible calls them) to bring Gods judgement on nations, but that is in context of the old covenant at a particular time in history. Remember that the children of Israel was led out of Egypt by a pillar of cloud/fire, so Gods presence was much more concrete at that time.

And according to the new covenant God does not count peoples sin (regardless of their nationality or worldview) against them any more. So from a christian perspective anyone telling you that God have asked him/her to do something that is morally wrong is just lying. You can derive objective moral values from the Bible and you can know if peoples actions are condoned by God or not, but to do so you must have some basic understanding of what the Bible actually says.

So I guess you aren't winning after all :)

#119 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:57 AM

Yeah, that's not what Dawkins says, maybe you should actually read “The Selfish Gene”. You're begging the question though, I'm asking what the “power to choose” is. Are choices uncaused ? And if they are caused, do we have the power to affect those causes ? Conversely if someone puts a gun to my head and threatens to kill me if I don't give them a thousand dollars, is my choice to give them the money “free” in the context of “free will” as you're talking about it now ? After all I had the power to choose between giving them money and dying.


Would you like me to scour the internet for the quote from Dawkins book stating that we are merely 'dancing to the tune of our genes'... Because that statement fits entirely with what I have said...

Not sure how your analogy has any relevance since you're merely demonstrating a person in a situation of a tough choice. However a choice is still given, the gunman hasn't automatically taken the money, you are given a choice. You are free to choose the outcome which the situation presents you... Claiming freewill doesn't mean we are immune to circumstance, sometimes the outcomes of a particular choice are thrust on us, however still having a choice means we get to choose which of those outcomes occur.

Now the "power of choice" in that it means we can choose to do unique things that have no anticedent conditions within ourselves.. For example I can choose to go make a movie, even though I have never done such a thing, nor even considered it. Essentially each minute of each day we have the capacity to re-invent ourselves based on our choices, is this not powerful?

People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates. ~Thomas Szasz, "Personal Conduct," The Second Sin, 1973

#120 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:31 AM

1. This also applies to atheism (the belief in unbelief) and especially to evolution.

I don't recall saying it didn't apply to my beliefs. So, how do we determine what beliefs are closer to being true?

2. Do you really believe this? Its not that "someone believes" that torturing babies is immoral its because we all KNOW its immoral that is called a conscience and its in tune with objective morality, (some moreso than others)

You don't "KNOW" any such thing. If you believed that your God told you to torture babies then you would have to say it was not immoral and would have to do it. You wouldn't have any choice but to obey if you wanted to avoid sinning.

3. This is my take on it. I believe its the same logic as when God put up the swords around the tree of life. He did so to prevent Adam and Eve from becoming immortal in their now cursed / sinful state, which would mean that there would be no hope for them if they ate the fruit as we are only redeemed once we leave this existence, therefore they'd be cursed for eternity. The same could be said here, the children were born into lives surrounded by sin where they would most likely sin against God and thus be condemned.. Its the same as children born into poverty are subject to live in poverty.. Rather than continue to have more and more people condemned because of being brought up in sin (and not know any better), I think God wanted to end it so that way there could be a fresh slate. (Same with the flood too). This is my own opinion, I don't think killing babies is good, however from what I believe here I think that it was justified by God)

You believe that killing babies can be justified by God so killing babies can be good. You must believe that because the Bible says God ordered those killings.

I'm not sure why God couldn't have the Hebrews adopt those babies and teach them to obey the Law? Maybe He just wasn't powerfull enough then or maybe those babies were too mired in their parents' sin that they couldn't be prevented from eventually being condemned. Were they condemned already or did they get spared that by being killed while they were still babies?

4. We have the Bible to tell us what is condoned, (or other texts of scripture by other Religions, since all are quite similar, follow the Golden Rule etc).. Where do you get your objective morality?

I never said my morality was objective.

Morality subject to God doesn't mean its subjective for us since subjective for us only counts when it is subjected from us... (You're trying to redefine subjective)... It would be subjective to God, however God is the ultimate being hence I'm not sure it would matter if morals to him were subjective.. The point here is that for US morals are objective.

So, you change subjective to mean they only apply to us and then say I am redefining "subjective". Strange.
So we have an "objective" morality that can be changed by God and still be objective. Torturing and killing babies is not ok... today. However, it might be ok tomorrow if someone gets a devine revelation.
I see how that works now. If you don't mind though, I'll keep my morality rather than start killing babies based on some religious leader's say so.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users