(September 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm)StatCrux Wrote: As an aside,

"Philosopher Simon Blackburn made a similar criticism,[16] and explains that moral relativism fails as a moral system simply because it cannot arbitrate disagreements." Wikipedia.

Simon Blackburn is a well respected humanist, so this is not an atheist vs Christian problem.

Right. Which naturally explains the lack of secular legal systems in the world.

Disputes are arbitrated according to standards established via law, subject to change as the values of those represented by lawmakers in democratic systems.

Blackburn should try stepping outside of his ivory tower every now and then.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, everyone here knows more about your education than anyone should know (and especially more than you should have ever owned up to).

Don't hate me because I am more educated than you, try and address my points and stay on target for once. Thanks.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Shell Wrote:Must have been just before the time you decided you wouldn't read the whole thread, but would comment on the behavior in the entirety of the thread, despite not having read it.

Found it! Why is it wrong to hurt others? Seems like you kind of just side stepped the question.

Speaking of side-stepping things. Way to avoid responsibility for your bullshit assertion. I'm not fucking talking to you about morality. You can't even admit you were wrong and apologize for making a statement which you had no authority to make, given your cursory glance at this thread. Eat a poop.

---

(September 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: try and address my points and stay on target for once. Thanks.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:28 pm)Shell B Wrote: Speaking of side-stepping things. Way to avoid responsibility for your bullshit assertion. I'm not fucking talking to you about morality. You can't even admit you were wrong and apologize for making a statement which you had no authority to make, given your cursory glance at this thread. Eat a poop.

It was a mere generalization I’d gathered from what I had read; don’t get so butt hurt all the time you big baby. If you can’t justify morality then why would you ask for an apology? Why is it wrong to lie? Why is it wrong to distort the statements of others? You seriously can’t justify any of this stuff? You can’t answer the questions of a child? Pretty sad.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It was a mere generalization I’d gathered from what I had read; don’t get so butt hurt all the time you big baby. If you can’t justify morality then why would you ask for an apology? Why is it wrong to lie? Why is it wrong to distort the statements of others? You seriously can’t justify any of this stuff? You can’t answer the questions of a child? Pretty sad.

Yes, it was a generalization disguised as fact, you big-headed prick. Again, I'm not answering your questions. You are no child. You are an adult with an inflammatory way of speaking to people here. You're not even curious. You're just a petty tool.

(September 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm)StatCrux Wrote: The discussion is about finding a basis for moral concensus, the actions of atheists or people of faith have no relevance to the discussion. Many people have never questioned the basis of their moral beliefs, "it comes naturally" or "its just common sense" are commonly used terms by such people. It doesn't! humans can be brutal uncaring and ruthless with no moral conditioning.

(BTW, welcome to AF. I don't think we've exchanged words before.)

The most basic basis for moral consensus is that we are social animals, descended from and related to other social animals. Human social behavior pre-dates monotheism by a very, very long margin - and similar behavior (and morality) almost certainly existed in ancient pre-homo hominids.

It's simply in our individual and collective best interest to adopt certain moral behaviors (e.g. don't harm or others, or steal) so that individuals and society as a whole can be secured against the immoral (murder, assault, rape, theft, etc).

This sort of social behavior is not limited to humans, and certainly does not require a theistic basis. As is also seen in humans, the social cooperation that is seen in the animal kingdom often breaks down in inter-societal relationships. Additionally, individuals that threaten the social order are subject to sanctions by society even in the animal kingdom.

I posit that that theistic morality is derived from social morality, not the other way around.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:48 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yes, it was a generalization disguised as fact, you big-headed prick. Again, I'm not answering your questions. You are no child. You are an adult with an inflammatory way of speaking to people here. You're not even curious. You're just a petty tool.

Yes it's true; my view of morality can answer the questions of a child, that's irrelevant to the fact that yours can't though. Are you implying it is wrong to pass a generalization off as fact? Why given your views on morality? These should not be hard questions to answer.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes it's true; my view of morality can answer the questions of a child, that's irrelevant to the fact that yours can't though. Are you implying it is wrong to pass a generalization off as fact? Why given your views on morality? These should not be hard questions to answer.

They are not hard questions to answer. Do I have to answer them?

(September 16, 2011 at 8:16 pm)Shell B Wrote: They are not hard questions to answer. Do I have to answer them?

No you don’t “have” to do anything, but if you want to behave in a manner that is rational you must give account for every belief system other than your ultimate axiomatic presupposition. Your moral belief system that you keep appealing to is certainly one of those things that must be accounted for.

(September 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No you don’t “have” to do anything, but if you want to behave in a manner that is rational you must give account for every belief system other than your ultimate axiomatic presupposition. Your moral belief system that you keep appealing to is certainly one of those things that must be accounted for.

Do I really? Hm, I wonder why you think I must give you account of anything.