1712 replies to this topic

[Vardarac]

What do you mean by, "there are no ethics"? Do you mean no given behaviors would be any more or less preferable to any given person? People with preferences, I'm sure, would beg to differ.

 

"The value of money must be grounded objectively or there is no value to money."

"The meaning of language must be grounded objectively or there is no meaning to language."

"How awesome a sports team is must be deemed by God or there is no value to a sports team."

 

All of these things are derived from mutual agreements. Of course a Ravens fan is not going to find the Seahawks terribly valuable. Two people might argue over whether "irregardless" is actually a word. People will haggle over the monetary worth of an item. None of these standards exist objectively, and it is rare to find 100% agreement on any of them, but that doesn't mean that they are without any validity or value anywhere to anyone.

 

I'm sure this is not exactly what you meant, but as written "there are no ethics" is terribly confusing.

Edited by Vardarac, 14 August 2015 - 07:07 PM.

[shadowhawk]

This is a logical fallacy or a group of them.  There is a big difference between liking a football team and objective ethics

[shadowhawk]

[Vardarac]

That's because you're reading my comparison incorrectly. It's between subjective ethics and a number of other things to which humans give value. The value is given based partly on inborn preference, partly on other objective facts (i.e. consequences of actions).

 

Also, your video effectively makes an appeal to emotions and social pressures. It doesn't actually establish that things are objectively wrong.

[shadowhawk]

Objective moral values are based on the very person of God as the video manes clear.

[shadowhawk]

[Vardarac]

Yes, it says that, but it provides as evidence of objective moral values ("and therefore" of God) the appeals to which I just referred.

[Vardarac]

But let's get back to the point. You are trying to say something like, "if God doesn't exist, then what the Nazis did is okay." What that statement ignores is that the very concept of okay depends on a mind to conceive it, which means that billions of people, whether influenced or naturally inclined to say so, will continue to find the Holocaust abhorrent regardless of whether God exists or not. That will not change even in the absence of some objective moral standard; value and meaning don't just get magicked away because another standard is added or taken away from the mix.

[sthira]

The existence of morality is grounded in the human experience. What we call good or right, bad and wrong are rules of thumb. We attempt to live better with each other by abiding by these rules of thumb. Instructions against coveting, dishonesty, theft, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, murder -- all are attempts at learning to more peacefully live with each other. Respect and love one another. Or at least don't trample my rights, and I won't trample yours. We aim through agreed upon legislation to prevent as much human pain and suffering as possible. We call slavery wrong because it causes pain and suffering to those enslaved. We call abortion wrong (after fetal viability) because it causes pain and suffering. We call killing other people wrong because it causes pain and suffering. These ideas we created for ourselves, and I just don't see the reason for divine intervention here. We needn't be atheist or theist to abide by treating others with dignity and respect.

[shadowhawk]

Yes, it says that, but it provides as evidence of objective moral values ("and therefore" of God) the appeals to which I just referred.

 

You appealed to liking two different ball teams and claimed this was the same as objective values.  How about the whole league?  This is a good example where each person doing what is right in their own eyes does not morality make.
 

[Vardarac]

 

Yes, it says that, but it provides as evidence of objective moral values ("and therefore" of God) the appeals to which I just referred.

 

You appealed to liking two different ball teams and claimed this was the same as objective values.  How about the whole league?  This is a good example where each person doing what is right in their own eyes does not morality make.

 

Yet even if a sports team has a poor performance, their fans often still stand behind them out of a sense of tribal or regional loyalty. I was not pointing out how this constitutes an objectively existing value, but rather that the non-existence of an objective standard (or, as you helpfully have pointed out for me, even the actual existence of an agreed-upon objective standard) does not mean that subjective values will not continue to exist and be found meaningful.

 

"There can be no ethics" implies that humans have no preferences on the subject of behavior desirability, and that there is no concurrence between any such opinions. But both these preferences and the agreements exist, hence there are ethics. Whether you find them acceptable or not is irrelevant.

Edited by Vardarac, 14 August 2015 - 08:53 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The existence of morality is grounded in the human experience. What we call good or right, bad and wrong are rules of thumb. We attempt to live better with each other by abiding by these rules of thumb. Instructions against coveting, dishonesty, theft, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, murder -- all are attempts at learning to more peacefully live with each other. Respect and love one another. Or at least don't trample my rights, and I won't trample yours. We aim through agreed upon legislation to prevent as much human pain and suffering as possible. We call slavery wrong because it causes pain and suffering to those enslaved. We call abortion wrong (after fetal viability) because it causes pain and suffering. We call killing other people wrong because it causes pain and suffering. These ideas we created for ourselves, and I just don't see the reason for divine intervention here. We needn't be atheist or theist to abide by treating others with dignity and respect.

The human experience can be and has been the grounds of all kinds of so called moral actions.  Why get along with Nazis or racists?  Why be respectful to someone you do not respect?  Rights do not come from feeling good.  Given Atheism, pain  is natural and without it nothing would survive.  Subjectivity can not be the grounds of morality because it is each person doing what is right in their own eyes. As I said Abortion is a good example of this in our present society.  Pain in your example is bad and life is worthless without pain.

 

I have repeatedly said an Atheist can be moral but by whose standards.  Atheism is built on the primes that materialism is all there is.  Given that alone what ever happens, happens and there is no morality about it.  You are hijacking values from Theism when you speak of morals.

 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Yes, it says that, but it provides as evidence of objective moral values ("and therefore" of God) the appeals to which I just referred.

 

You appealed to liking two different ball teams and claimed this was the same as objective values.  How about the whole league?  This is a good example where each person doing what is right in their own eyes does not morality make.

 

Yet even if a sports team has a poor performance, their fans often still stand behind them out of a sense of tribal or regional loyalty. I was not pointing out how this constitutes an objectively existing value, but rather that the non-existence of an objective standard (or, as you helpfully have pointed out for me, even the actual existence of an agreed-upon objective standard) does not mean that subjective values will not continue to exist and be found meaningful.

 

"There can be no ethics" implies that humans have no preferences on the subject of behavior desirability, and that there is no concurrence between any such opinions. But both these preferences and the agreements exist, hence there are ethics. Whether you find them acceptable or not is irrelevant.

 

All you have done is point to tribalism as grounds for atheistic morality.  On that basis there is no morality and you can justify anything.  Tribes have done every kind of evil.

d

[Vardarac]

Atheism is not materialism. Even you defined it simply as the position that there is no God, which is to say nothing about anything else. An atheist could believe in spirits or vampires, but not in Gods.

 

Anyway... This discussion seems to keep circling around to you asking, "If Big Man isn't saying it, then why bother?" For purpose, for morality, for just about anything. And we keep telling you, "Because we want it that way." We have our own feelings; if there are no objective morals, then why would the video say something like "we should treat a criminal no differently than we treat an animal just doing what is in its nature"? That shouldness presupposes an objective morality, or, if not, presupposes that our feelings have nothing whatever to do with shouldness.

[Vardarac]

On that basis there is no morality and you can justify anything.

 

You can't justify eating loads of cheesecake if you claim to value being thin.

Edited by Vardarac, 14 August 2015 - 09:18 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I think I understand you,  Atheism is not materialistic.  There is something beside the materialistic world.  What?

[Vardarac]

Atheism can be materialistic, or it could be non-materialistic. I personally don't know whether or not the material universe is all there is, but I still retain the opinion that there isn't a God.

[shadowhawk]

 

On that basis there is no morality and you can justify anything.

 

 

You can't justify eating loads of cheesecake if you claim to value being thin.

 

 

But if being heavy is of value then subjectively being thin is not good.
 

[shadowhawk]

Atheism can be materialistic, or it could be non-materialistic. I personally don't know whether or not the material universe is all there is, but I still retain the opinion that there isn't a God.

No Theism, what else is there?

[Vardarac]

 

Atheism can be materialistic, or it could be non-materialistic. I personally don't know whether or not the material universe is all there is, but I still retain the opinion that there isn't a God.

No Theism, what else is there?

 

Who knows? You're asking the wrong atheist.

 

 

But if being heavy is of value then subjectively being thin is not good.

 

Then cheesecake eating would be justified among those who value being heavy, while it would continue not being justified among those who value being thin. Certainly, as with earlier examples, you could openly state that you value causing others pain and suffering, but you might find yourself unpopular very quickly. "What gives? No one has an official right here!" But that's not going to stop opinions on good or bad from existing and systems from being built on those opinions. When I say "ethics exists", I mean people will continue to have moral opinions and create frameworks from them, even if there is no one standard that we can be absolutely certain of, not that there is some objective basis for morality. (Note that there are objective bases for behavior, however, that make sense given the objectively true existence of a person's moral preference. Hence the remarks about cheesecake-eating.)

Edited by Vardarac, 14 August 2015 - 09:36 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Well as I said before there is a difference between objective and subjective and it is real.  Many Atheists hide behind making like they are so confused that the words mean anything but English.  Perhaps we have wore out the topic except a bit of Plato might be fun regarding where to place objective values.  One thing is sure Given Atheism they are subjective.  You can get anything you want at Alice's restraint.

[Dakman]

 

 

If it is based upon each person doing what is right in their own eyes than there is no morality.  Usually people hijack their ethics from religions or some other feel good source without thinking about it. At any rate it is subjective and could be anything.

 

 

Horseshit…you think morals and ethics weren't around before religion ?

 

It's religion that hijacks and steals from humanity to appear to have some code by which to live and bolster the fairy tale the bible sets out.

 

Horseshit, you were not around before religion so how could you know?  It appears from the archeological records that man has had a sense of God as long as there are records.  I know that is news to you but believe it.

 

Ah, the beginnings of the myth…

[sthira]

We get along just fine with Nazis and racists -- think and believe whatever you'd like, Mr Nazi, Mr Racist -- who cares what you think and believe. This is a free society: think, believe, even say whatever you'd like. Just don't DO whatever you'd like. Don't act on your beliefs. Don't put your hands on me. Act against me or anyone else, then we have problems, and these are typically solved by law enforcement and the court system. They are not problems solved by God and objective moral values.

You ask: why be respectful to someone you do not respect? Because to do so contributes to a better functioning society. When people learn to live together despite their differences, all is well. Just don't "trespass against me" and I won't against you, and we're cool. This has nothing to do with God or objective moral values. It has to do with a smoother running, easier functioning society.

Do you live in a crowded city, Shadowhawk? Urban dwellers tend to learn how to respect the differences of others -- don't pull shit against me, and I won't mess with you -- and I couldn't care less about what you think and believe as long as you don't act out against me. And despite our huge ideological differences, we can live together peacefully in crowded, difficult situations. God and objective moral values are again irrelevant.

I think you know these things, but you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. We live in a secular society -- we are free of religious law, and we function far better as a society without religious law. Have you lived in a society that operates under religious law, Shadowhawk?

You keep writing over and again: "Subjectivity can not be the grounds of morality because it is each person doing what is right in their own eyes."

I've addressed this repeatedly, you simply ignore it and keep using the same words. Can you address this: we live in a society that operates under human laws that were enacted through legislation by human beings in order to better serve and protect human beings from themselves and others. None of our laws are here because God said so, or because they conform to the religious idea of objective moral values. Our laws have to do with a better functioning society. Address this, please.

Regarding abortion, Roe v Wade has it correct, and that's not changing anytime soon. Terminating unwanted pregnancies is a woman's right until a fetus reaches viability, and then abortion becomes illegal. This is straight forward and clear. God and objective moral values are irrelevant here, too.

[shadowhawk]

Sounds subjective to me.  Good job illustrating my point.

[shadowhawk]

We get along just fine with Nazis and racists -- think and believe whatever you'd like, Mr Nazi, Mr Racist -- who cares what you think and believe. This is a free society: think, believe, even say whatever you'd like. Just don't DO whatever you'd like. Don't act on your beliefs. Don't put your hands on me. Act against me or anyone else, then we have problems, and these are typically solved by law enforcement and the court system. They are not problems solved by God and objective moral values.

You ask: why be respectful to someone you do not respect? Because to do so contributes to a better functioning society. When people learn to live together despite their differences, all is well. Just don't "trespass against me" and I won't against you, and we're cool. This has nothing to do with God or objective moral values. It has to do with a smoother running, easier functioning society.

Do you live in a crowded city, Shadowhawk? Urban dwellers tend to learn how to respect the differences of others -- don't pull shit against me, and I won't mess with you -- and I couldn't care less about what you think and believe as long as you don't act out against me. And despite our huge ideological differences, we can live together peacefully in crowded, difficult situations. God and objective moral values are again irrelevant.

I think you know these things, but you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. We live in a secular society -- we are free of religious law, and we function far better as a society without religious law. Have you lived in a society that operates under religious law, Shadowhawk?

You keep writing over and again: "Subjectivity can not be the grounds of morality because it is each person doing what is right in their own eyes."

I've addressed this repeatedly, you simply ignore it and keep using the same words. Can you address this: we live in a society that operates under human laws that were enacted through legislation by human beings in order to better serve and protect human beings from themselves and others. None of our laws are here because God said so, or because they conform to the religious idea of objective moral values. Our laws have to do with a better functioning society. Address this, please.

Regarding abortion, Roe v Wade has it correct, and that's not changing anytime soon. Terminating unwanted pregnancies is a woman's right until a fetus reaches viability, and then abortion becomes illegal. This is straight forward and clear. God and objective moral values are irrelevant here, too.

We live n a society endowed by our creator with certain moral rights not found in many other societies.  Common law is built largely on moral law.  That we have a functioning society as great as ours is due to a large part to our beginnings in objective moral law.  Row V Wade ignores the fact that the woman it is named after rejects it and resolutely speaks out against it.  Why?  Because the baby is Human and half of the babies aborted are living females.  You do not care but that is a subjective choice which devalues human life.  Objectively we are talking about a human life, the only difference being the age of the individual.

 

[sthira]

Our laws have nothing to do with being "endowed by our creator." Our laws are practical, ordinary, and mundane. And they mostly work -- with many many exceptions.

"Common law" is the only law that exists, and isn't built on moral rules from God. Laws exist because they are practical, and mostly work to keep us from trampling others' rights. We human beings enacted legislation in order to live in a more peaceful society. This has nothing to do with a God that may or may not exist. Again: address this, please.

Out of curiosity: did God's moral laws include trampling the rights of the indigenous American Indian population who lived on these lands long before white settlers showed up with their morals & crucifixes?

Out of more curiosity: why the need to color my words red and dramatize them? Why not just address them maturely and without added melodrama?

Edited by sthira, 15 August 2015 - 04:15 AM.

[Dakman]

He dramatize's because he's a drama queen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

……or is that a drama queer 

[shadowhawk]

Our laws have nothing to do with being "endowed by our creator." Our laws are practical, ordinary, and mundane. And they mostly work -- with many many exceptions.

"Common law" is the only law that exists, and isn't built on moral rules from God. Laws exist because they are practical, and mostly work to keep us from trampling others' rights. We human beings enacted legislation in order to live in a more peaceful society. This has nothing to do with a God that may or may not exist. Again: address this, please.

Out of curiosity: did God's moral laws include trampling the rights of the indigenous American Indian population who lived on these lands long before white settlers showed up with their morals & crucifixes?

Out of more curiosity: why the need to color my words red and dramatize them? Why not just address them maturely and without added melodrama?

 

Common law has much to do with religious beliefs of the people and utility is not the only issue.  It cannot be the basis for morality either.  Common law is not the only law that exists.  Since this topic is not about the history of law, I shall go on but I am totally open to talking about law in another topic. 

 

As a student of American Indian history and part Indian myself all peoples have oppressed one another. Indians even ate each other and robbed, raped enslaved and killed.  Not much different than whites.  Because there is a moral law written on our hearts does not mean we are going to obey it, Study the Kennywick Man who lived in Washington State who had many skull fractures and broken bones and who died with a leaf point in his hip and who was very old, predating most Indians.  He was white,  There were other such finds.  They appear to have come from Northern Japan which had a white tribe.  What makes me laugh is the ignorance and bigotry to suggest this is white Christians alone who were doing this kind of thing.  In California it was the Church which was trying to protect the Indians.  Every white man is not a Christian and most of the Indians died of disease.  Again this is off topic but I welcome a discussion of what happened to the Indians.

 

I highlighted your words so you would know what I was responding to.  It was to the last two issues.  I ignored your personal comments about me and how city boys handle moral issues.

 

 

[Dakman]

Would you eat an Indian to get into heaven and cosy up to god ?

[shadowhawk]

If atheism is true, our natural universe is nothing more than space, time, matter and the laws of physics and chemistry that govern such things.