(January 28, 2019 at 12:56 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 28, 2019 at 11:40 am)unfogged Wrote: No, it doesn't say "all is permissible".  It doesn't say anything at all.  

Exactly, in a reality that says nothing at all, all is permissible.

That does not follow; the fact that one possible source for a moral code is silent does not mean there there is no other source for developing a moral code. There are plenty of rational reasons for limiting actions that have nothing to do with the fact that the universe does not impose limits. You are arguing a strawman that few, if any, atheists hold to.

Quote:

Quote:What you are saying, in essence, is that you are unable to find any reason to be a decent human being without having some authority figure hold a carrot and stick over your head.  

Did I say anything about an authority figure holding a carrot and stick over our head? I said a reality that posses moral purpose and aims.

Please provide an example of a moral purpose or aim that is provided to us by a reality.

Quote:It’s existence is not dependent on my beliefs, nor are it’s implications. The law of gravity, doesn’t require my beliefs to be applicable to me.

In fact any moral claim or statement from an atheists or anyone else, to not be reducible to the decorative frills of personal opinion, like your taste in food or movies, requires the existence of such a reality to make your  moral pronouncement mean anything more than gibberish.

Atheists might struggle with a ton of cognitive dissonance trying to deny this but the very existence of dissonance, just confirms the implications of such a reality, even among those who think they don’t believe in it.

Morality is not based on "the decorative frills of personal opinion". It is based on a rational evaluation of the consequences of actions in relation to goals for creating an equitable, harmonious existence for sentient beings. If you are not talking about at least that much then you are not talking about morality in any way that I can relate to.

The facts of reality must be taken into account when evaluating moral decisions but they do not tell us what is or is not moral.

(January 28, 2019 at 3:31 pm)unfogged Wrote: Please provide an example of a moral purpose or aim that is provided to us by a reality.

One ought to be good.

One ought to do what is good, one ought not do what is bad.

Is there some rock, somewhere, telling you that? How about anywhere? Is there a rock anywhere telling you that?

(January 28, 2019 at 3:47 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 28, 2019 at 3:31 pm)unfogged Wrote: Please provide an example of a moral purpose or aim that is provided to us by a reality.

One ought to be good.

One ought to do what is good, one ought not do what is bad.

Neither of those is an example of what I asked for as they are nothing more than opinion and, without a definitions of "good" and "bad" they are effectively meaningless. If somebody defines "good" as "slaughtering the Midianites and keeping the virgin women for yourself" then wholesale slaughter, salvery, and sex trafficking become moral. There is no reality, other than the actions of people who disagree with you, to prevent you from declaring that as "good". The universe does not care; only the opinions of other thinking agents will get in your way. If you decide, on the other hand, that gravity should be a repulsive force you will quickly learn that your opinion is at odds with actual reality.

(January 28, 2019 at 4:41 pm)unfogged Wrote:

(January 28, 2019 at 3:47 pm)Acrobat Wrote: One ought to be good.

One ought to do what is good, one ought not do what is bad.

Neither of those is an example of what I asked for as they are nothing more than opinion and, without a definitions of "good" and "bad" they are effectively meaningless. If somebody defines "good" as "slaughtering the Midianites and keeping the virgin women for yourself" then wholesale slaughter, salvery, and sex trafficking become moral. There is no reality, other than the actions of people who disagree with you, to prevent you from declaring that as "good". The universe does not care; only the opinions of other thinking agents will get in your way. If you decide, on the other hand, that gravity should be a repulsive force you will quickly learn that your opinion is at odds with actual reality.

You asked for a moral aim or goal.

I gave you one, that one ought to do good. One ought not do what is bad.

It doesn’t matter how you define good, if one recognize what is good, he recognizes that he ought to do it, if one recognize what’s bad he recognizes he ought not to do it. Nazis may have been deluded as to the evil of the holocaust, but there belief that it was morally good is false. Everyone outside of someone delusional or a sociopath can recognizes this.

In fact you yourself said morality isn’t reducible to personal opinion, indicating it’s rational. And all morality is built on this fundamental truth, than one ought do what is good, ought not do what is bad. All religious people can agree that this is true, but atheists like yourself can’t right?

Reason might lead you to this truth, but reason isn’t reducible to it.

Such a belief underlies the moral views of folks like MLK as well, so not sure how the same atheists that deny this, think out of such a denial an MLK could have risen from it.

(January 28, 2019 at 3:47 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 28, 2019 at 3:31 pm)unfogged Wrote: Please provide an example of a moral purpose or aim that is provided to us by a reality.

One ought to be good.

One ought to do what is good, one ought not do what is bad.

How is one to know the difference?  Situationally, the same act can be good OR bad.  Furthermore, a well-intentioned 'good' act may have unforeseen bad consequences.

Boru

(January 28, 2019 at 4:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote: You asked for a moral aim or goal.

No, that is utterly dishonest. You said there was "a reality that posses moral purpose and aims" and I asked for a moral aim or goal provide by a reality.

Quote:I gave you one, that one ought to do good. One ought not do what is bad.

It doesn’t matter how you define good, if one recognize what is good, he recognizes that he ought to do it, if one recognize what’s bad he recognizes he ought not to do it.
[quote]

That is a tautology at best and conveys nothing useful.

[quote]
Nazis may have been deluded as to the evil of the holocaust, but there belief that it was morally good is false. Everyone outside of someone delusional or a sociopath can recognizes this.

If there s something that everybody agrees on then all that tells you is that there is a unanimous opinion on the subject. It does NOT mean that reality is dictating a moral directive; it means that humans generally agree on a particular act being moral or not. The universe doesn't care and will not act in any way to punish somebody who has a different opinion.

Quote:In fact you yourself said morality isn’t reducible to personal opinion, indicating it’s rational.

That is also dishonest. I objected to morality being "reducible to the decorative frills of personal opinion, like your taste in food or movies". There is a subjective component but reason is a major component as well.

Quote:And all morality is built on this fundamental truth, than one ought do what is good, ought not do what is bad. All religious people can agree that this is true, but atheists like yourself can’t right?

Your statement is far too trivial to be useful in any way at all. Equating "moral" and "good" is pointless without defining what is good and that depends on what your goals are. Once we agree on the goal then we can use the facts of reality to evaluate which actions move us closer to that goal or further from that goal. Setting the goal IS subjective and not defined by the universe/reality/whatever.

(January 28, 2019 at 5:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 28, 2019 at 3:47 pm)Acrobat Wrote: One ought to be good.

One ought to do what is good, one ought not do what is bad.

How is one to know the difference?  Situationally, the same act can be good OR bad.  Furthermore, a well-intentioned 'good' act may have unforeseen bad consequences.

Boru

That’s a question of epistemology, but it’s irrelevant, since my point pertains to ontology. Even if we’re in agreement about all things good and bad, there has to be an overarching principle that we ought to do what’s good, or else try decipher what’s good in any particular scenario is irrelevant.

Secondly everyday moral problems, are almost never an issue of definition.

---

(January 28, 2019 at 5:53 pm)unfogged Wrote: No, that is utterly dishonest. You said there was "a reality that posses moral purpose and aims" and I asked for a moral aim or goal provide by a reality.

It is provided by reality. Reality reveals that we ought to do
Good.

Quote:If there s something that everybody agrees on then all that tells you is that there is a unanimous opinion on the subject. It does NOT mean that reality is dictating a moral directive; it means that humans generally agree on a particular act being moral or not. The universe doesn't care and will not act in any way to punish somebody who has a different opinion.

If everybody acknowledges an elephant in front of them, you can be pretty sure there’s an elephant in front of us.

Most people acknowledges that that there a moral reality, that obligated us to do good. We perceive every-time we recognize good and evil, and this isn’t just in our heads, or a product of our imagination, but out there. Atheists like yourself may deny that such a reality exists, but I would view as a solipsist, or someone who believes the earth is flat. In fact your inability to hold morality as reducible to personal opinions, like your taste in clothes, or to say all is permissible, reveals the underlying deception and delusion you’re operating on.

Quote:That is also dishonest. I objected to morality being "reducible to the decorative frills of personal opinion, like your taste in food or movies". There is a subjective component but reason is a major component as well.

Yes, the basis for why reason is a component, unlike subjective frills of personal opinions, is because morality requires truth. The only way morality can be discerned through reason is because morality is a matter of objective truth. Further evidence atheists such as yourself are confused, and contradictory.

Quote:Your statement is far too trivial to be useful in any way at all. Equating "moral" and "good" is pointless without defining what is good and that depends on what your goals are. Once we agree on the goal then we can use the facts of reality to evaluate which actions move us closer to that goal or further from that goal. Setting the goal IS subjective and not defined by the universe/reality/whatever.

The goal is to be Good. Discerning what’s good is means of achieving that goal. All religious people are capable of acknowledging that they ought to be good, that this is an objective truth, not one dependent on some sort of subjective agreement.

The goal is defined by reality, the arc of the moral universe as MLK put it, it’s not subjective, the reality that you try to sell that lacks this is a lie, one that requires delusion to be believed.

And once again, folks like MLK, abolitionism, civil rights etc.., even our founding documents, with concepts such as inalienable rights, are built on such a recognition of the reality you claim does not exist. If people actually believe this, there wouldn’t be any MLK.

Then it would seem that anyone who has a goal of being good is fully supplied on compulsion you find acceptable even if they don't possess whatever superstitious beliefs you have about good.

Reality doesn't, in point of fact, reveal that we ought to do good - or even gush forth with revelation about what good is or isn't. We have a personal goal.

Your superstitions are irrelevant to my personal goals, and thus irrelevant to my moral compulsions. Just as MLKs superstitions are irrelevant to my agreement with his broad position on the issue of civil rights.

What you have, is a tired old line parroted endlessly and breathlessly by fundy dipshits..that you imagine to be some profound comment on the nature of morality or rights. You could disabuse yourself of this misapprehension quickly and thoroughly if you listened to what people are telling you, rather than insisting that they must be x y and z.

(January 28, 2019 at 11:49 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Then it would seem that anyone who has a goal of being good is fully supplied on compulsion you find acceptable even if they don't possess whatever superstitious beliefs you have about good.

Reality doesn't, in point of fact, reveal that we ought to do good - or even gush forth with revelation about what good is or isn't.  We have a personal goal.  

Your superstitions are irrelevant to my personal goals, and thus irrelevant to my moral compulsions.  Just as MLKs superstitions are irrelevant to my agreement with his broad position on the issue of civil rights.

A person who truly believe it was his personal goals, could never arise to the status of an MLK. "I have a wish, that everyone follows my personal goals". Hence why atheists like yourself are destined at best to follow, rather than lead.

Secondly if it were just a personal goal, you should easily be able to discard it, to have no such goal at all, for all to be permissible, just like I can discard my personal goal of running everyday. Yet a person who believed they did that, would be akin to a sociopath, someone delusional.

Thirdly, I, like pretty much everyone else's moral perceptions can be traced all the way to when we were babies, showing basic conceptions of right and wrong. We seem to be innately aware of this goal, and it's not something we acquire from society, or from our parents, or one we at some point place on ourselves, it appears to us as imposed on us, rather than something we willfully imposed on ourself, like personal goals.

Fourthly, morality is grounded in such a goal, if it is as you say a personal goal, then it's subjectivism you're preaching, not moral realism. The grounding of morality isn't reality but our personal subjective goals, according to what you're implying.

Quote:What you have, is a tired old line parroted endlessly and breathlessly by fundy dipshits..that you imagine to be some profound comment on the nature of morality or rights.  You could disabuse yourself of this misapprehension quickly and thoroughly if you listened to what people are telling you, rather than insisting that they must be x y and z.

I do listen, that's why I continually point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in your moral views, and why you run and hide from simple yes or no questions. I can listen to what someone delusional is telling me, or suffering from cognitive dissonance is telling me, but I can't expect them to fully grasp their delusions and dissonance. Such as your insistence of believing in moral realism, while at the same time arguing as if moral subjectivism is true.