Science and religion

[jstrodel]

No, it is true. You will find the moral argument to be a more serious problem if you care about the nature of objective morality. If you don't care about whether objective morality is true, the argument will have no force.

Ad hominem is only fallacious if it is irrelevant. it is certainly relevant how much atheists care about morality to the veracity of theistic claims. If people don't care whether they should be living a different way, they won't act.

Define propaganda. What makes propaganda different from other things?


What makes you so sure that peoples habbit of living has no effect on the way that they perceive God to be evident or probable from the arguments? Do you think it has any bearing what so ever, for instance, if someone has spent an hour or two every single day of his life trying to understand God, whereas, someone else has spent maybe 100 hours in their whole life thinking about ethical issues?

I think that statements describing the flying spaggetti monster and things like this typically come from people who have spent less amount of time thinking about morality and the problems and ways in which people deal with this, which would cause them to come into appreciation of different ways in which people have done this. I think it is certainly relevant.


Do you think that all arguments should follow the form of appearing to come out of a "critical thinker"? What if that form was itself a kind of propaganda, obviously it is, aren't all words aimed at persuading?

[Darkstar]

Do you think it has any bearing what so ever, for instance, if someone has spent an hour or two every single day of his life trying to understand God, whereas, someone else has spent maybe 100 hours in their whole life thinking about ethical issues?

Here's your problem. God =/= morality. I care very much about morals. I don't believe in god. So in your mind I must be lying about one of those two. It is fallacious to claim that people will disregard god's existence because they don't care about morals, and it is fallacious to imply that not caring about morals is a strong factor in the non-belief in god.

I think that statements describing the flying spaggetti monster and things like this typically come from people who have spent less amount of time thinking about morality and the problems and ways in which people deal with this, which would cause them to come into appreciation of different ways in which people have done this. I think it is certainly relevant.

I'm not sure what you just said, but it sounded like "you compared god to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore you have no morals". Would it help to tell you that you that this isn't our debate on morals? That was in a different thread, and not what we are discussing here.

Do you think that all arguments should follow the form of appearing to come out of a "critical thinker"? What if that form was itself a kind of propaganda, obviously it is, aren't all words aimed at persuading?

No...you could tell someone about your day. How is that persuasion?
Propaganda

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.

"If you cared about morality, you would find god claims more convincing" is most certainly a sweeping ad homenim attack on atheists, and a form of propaganda, as outlined above. Not to mention it isn't true...

[The Reality Salesman01]

No, it is true. You will find the moral argument to be a more serious problem if you care about the nature of objective morality. If you don't care about whether objective morality is true, the argument will have no force.

Ad hominem is only fallacious if it is irrelevant. it is certainly relevant how much atheists care about morality to the veracity of theistic claims. If people don't care whether they should be living a different way, they won't act.

Define propaganda. What makes propaganda different from other things?


What makes you so sure that peoples habbit of living has no effect on the way that they perceive God to be evident or probable from the arguments? Do you think it has any bearing what so ever, for instance, if someone has spent an hour or two every single day of his life trying to understand God, whereas, someone else has spent maybe 100 hours in their whole life thinking about ethical issues?

I think that statements describing the flying spaggetti monster and things like this typically come from people who have spent less amount of time thinking about morality and the problems and ways in which people deal with this, which would cause them to come into appreciation of different ways in which people have done this. I think it is certainly relevant.


Do you think that all arguments should follow the form of appearing to come out of a "critical thinker"? What if that form was itself a kind of propaganda, obviously it is, aren't all words aimed at persuading?

I would agree to that. Yes. They most certainly are. The disagreement here is whether or not these things should be used to determine truth or facts.

If you were trying to sway me into agreeing that Coke was better than Pepsi. Any of the above methods of persuasion would be acceptable.

If you are trying to convince me of something real that exists in my observable universe that is equally real as everything else that I experience, then your opinion or propaganda are not adequate forms of persuasion. Your opinion of what qualifies as what is real to you is different than the criteria that must be met in order for me to accept that something is real.

If you care at all about actually winning one of these, you have to appeal to OUR qualifying criteria for what is real.

The spaghetti monster is just an example to show you that the same methods fail to meet YOUR criteria as an equal example for what is real. The God you are trying to show is real cannot be proven to us by any other means than logic or evidence. That's it. Anything else sounds just like saying Coke is better because you've been drinking it for a long time and it just tastes better. There are lots of different brands of soda out there. Why is yours the best? Why is your God real and the spaghetti monster isn't? Popularity, or longevity of the religion are not convincing arguments for this topic. Appeals to authority that agree with you mean nothing. However stupid you think the suggested equals to your argument are doesn't matter. Your personal experience is of no interest to us. How long it took you to convince yourself doesn't matter to us. How much time you devoted to your belief doesn't matter to us. If it's the best explanation to YOU for something it doesn't make it true unless you are using the same criteria for truth that we are. None of these arguments hold any water in such a debate. Until you understand this, you will not win. I am open to a legitimate argument. But, you have to recognize if it fails and attempt to examine why it fails. Scientists put every hypothesis under the utmost scrutiny. They try from every angle to make sure that what they think is true is, and from every angle. If they avoid accepting certain flaws, there can be no progress. You must approach yours the same way. It's a two way exchange and opinions are not welcomed in such an exchange. Its not what you think, its what you can prove.

[jstrodel]

Do you think it has any bearing what so ever, for instance, if someone has spent an hour or two every single day of his life trying to understand God, whereas, someone else has spent maybe 100 hours in their whole life thinking about ethical issues?

Here's your problem. God =/= morality. I care very much about morals. I don't believe in god. So in your mind I must be lying about one of those two. It is fallacious to claim that people will disregard god's existence because they don't care about morals, and it is fallacious to imply that not caring about morals is a strong factor in the non-belief in god.

Where does this break down?
All atheists are moral relativists
All moral relativists are nihilists
All atheists are nihilists (whether they call themselves nihilists or not it doesnt matter or having any bearing on whether their beliefs imply that or not)

---

It's a two way exchange and opinions are not welcomed in such an exchange. Its not what you think, its what you can prove.

You have your own methods that you presuppose that determine your conclusions, and you will insist that you win every debate you are in, because you only look at from your own presuppositions. You are brainwashed and your mind is set on a technocratic liberal worldview, and you won't budge. Whatever.

[Darkstar]

All atheists are moral relativists

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.

Which one do you mean?

Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral

^Agree

meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong

^depends on the disagreement. Sometimes morals are subjective, sometimes people can legitimately argue in favor of the morality or immorality of an action.

normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

^Stereotypical free-for-all scenario? No thank you.

Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought," but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.

[jstrodel]

Argue for that position from self evident principles to conclusion. How do morals become absolute?

How is moral relatavism not nihlism?

[Darkstar]

Argue for that position from self evident principles to conclusion. How do morals become absolute?

They don't...you ultimately have to apply general guidelines to specific situations. It would be impossible to make a separate moral rule for each and every possible exception to a general guideline.

How is moral relatavism not nihlism?

Because there are varying degrees of moral relativism. The first degree would not be considered nihilism at all (descriptive moral relativism).

[jstrodel]

Yes, I realize that you have posted someone elses ideas, but why are they true? You have not argued for them? You can't just pick on because it fits your beliefs. What is the reason that one follows but the other does not?


You said "no thank you" as if you get to choose what your beliefs imply. You don't get to choose, they either imply moral relativism, which is nihilism, or they do not.

Demonstrate how an example of a statement for instance, "It is always wrong to murder" is defended. How does that statement work?

You are covering over some very serious philosophical problems in your beliefs and I would advise you to look closely at them, not because it is edifying to be a nihilist, but because you must have a zeal for the truth and purge yourself from all false ideas.

[Darkstar]

Yes, I realize that you have posted someone elses ideas, but why are they true? You have not argued for them? You can't just pick on because it fits your beliefs. What is the reason that one follows but the other does not?


You said "no thank you" as if you get to choose what your beliefs imply. You don't get to choose, they either imply moral relativism, which is nihilism, or they do not.

I think you're misunderstanding me. There are three degrees of moral relativism, the first of which states that people have different ideas on what morals are, the second states that no one's ideas are better than anyone elses', and the third states, therefore free-for-all. Since I do not think that morals are mere unsubstantiated opinion (as in, I only agree with the first degree in it's entirety), the my beliefs don't imply free-for-all.

Demonstrate how an example of a statement for instance, "It is always wrong to murder" is defended. How does that statement work?

Murder and kill are two different things (as in murder is a legal term). If you kill in self defense, it isn't murder. If the killing of bacteria were outlawed, that would then be murder. Even if you say murder, it is possible to imagine a scenario in which the best option would be killing someone (did not say they were innocent) in a way that would be legally defined as murder. So, the absolute quantifier "always" makes it very tricky.

[jstrodel]

But you have not argued for that, you have only shown that you have faith that it is so. What is your argument for it?


If you read something on wikipedia that seems like it could be true, and you accept some but not all of it, that doesn't actually mean it is acceptable to hold those views. What is the evidence for believing your belief is one type of moral relativism but not another?