(October 11, 2021 at 7:07 pm)ayost Wrote:

---

(October 11, 2021 at 6:45 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's a bunch of yapping either way.  

Who, upon meeting the bloodgod, would suddenly think "well, fuck me, I was wrong about gods existing.  I'm now utterly compelled by godlaw to be an asshole.  I've got rocks, who's got babbies!"

Nobody who wouldn't have dashed em on the rocks already, that's who.

Instead of trying to honestly approach the debate, let’s use childish sarcasm. Because I don’t live in an atheist world I can’t do that. I have to have integrity and treat you with respect.

Still waiting for you to demolish my worldview.

(October 11, 2021 at 7:07 pm)ayost Wrote: So  an we all see how your morality is completely subjective. There’s so many unknowns and variables and there’s no way to know what provides the most suffering or the least suffering. You’re literally just making it up as you go. This is the opposite of an objective morality. It’s a mish mash of whatever feels right at the time. Which is fine, I just need you to be consistent and commit all the way. In a world where morality is subjective you have no right to complain about anything that anybody does in your worldview.

Would you go around murdering just because you don't believe in God?  Given that most people don't believe in Jesus, how it is possible that most people don't go around murdering, and every society has rules against it?  Is a god the only possible explanation?

Sure, a society could choose to see the movie "The Purge" as a holy inspiration, and decide that Purges are moral imperatives.  However, the suffering is real, and those with empathy would fight against it.  It doesn't take a belief in God to realize that its a screwed up idea.  In fact, it is a belief in God (or a belief in other extreme ideologies) that allows many to ignore things like empathy and the suffering of others, and do what most of us would consider "evil".

Where do morals come from?  Our common humanity and empathy, and our ability to understand how principles affect future happiness or suffering.  Yes, people disagree on the principles of that last point.  Some thing that dancing is wrong because will arouse unstoppable lecherous desires, while some think that being free with sexuality leads to a happier life.  Different principles, but both ideally have a the aim to reduce suffering and maximize happiness.

(October 11, 2021 at 3:21 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 3:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: How does objective religious morality solve this problem?

Well, if you have an infallible, objective moral standard that you appeal to then when fallible people (Christians) have a dispute you go to the infallible, objective moral standard for a resolution.

So, which Christians get to decide what the correct interpretation of the infallible moral word is, and how can we tell if their interpretation is right? Should we be putting gay men to death?

Infallibility is redundant in a subjectivist view. Our opinions and feelings are our opinions and feelings. If someone asked me if I was feeling happy, and I said yes, it's not like it's a question I could get wrong. Similarly, if the question of morality boils down to whether or not god likes gay men - it doesn't really matter who interprets what. Getting things right or wrong with respect to some fact isn't the good or bad making property. How god feels about homosexuality is. Hell, god may love gay men, but love that other men hate gay men, and that would be what made being gay wrong.

I notice he wasn't keen on any of his bros getting hitched.

(October 11, 2021 at 7:32 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 7:07 pm)ayost Wrote: So  an we all see how your morality is completely subjective. There’s so many unknowns and variables and there’s no way to know what provides the most suffering or the least suffering. You’re literally just making it up as you go. This is the opposite of an objective morality. It’s a mish mash of whatever feels right at the time. Which is fine, I just need you to be consistent and commit all the way. In a world where morality is subjective you have no right to complain about anything that anybody does in your worldview.

Would you go around murdering just because you don't believe in God?  Given that most people don't believe in Jesus, how it is possible that most people don't go around murdering, and every society has rules against it?  Is a god the only possible explanation?

Sure, a society could choose to see the movie "The Purge" as a holy inspiration, and decide that Purges are moral imperatives.  However, the suffering is real, and those with empathy would fight against it.  It doesn't take a belief in God to realize that its a screwed up idea.  In fact, it is a belief in God (or a belief in other extreme ideologies) that allows many to ignore things like empathy and the suffering of others, and do what most of us would consider "evil".

Where do morals come from?  Our common humanity and empathy, and our ability to understand how principles affect future happiness or suffering.  Yes, people disagree on the principles of that last point.  Some thing that dancing is wrong because will arouse unstoppable lecherous desires, while some think that being free with sexuality leads to a happier life.  Different principles, but both ideally have a the aim to reduce suffering and maximize happiness.

You’re being way to flippant and not truly looking at the depth of the world’s depravity. Obviously, there’s the atrocities in China and North Korea. There’s genital mutilation in the Middle East. Cannibals in India. Sex trafficking in America. Slavery in Africa. There’s a tribe in Papua New Guinea where boys are required to perform oral sex on the elders until the boys are old enough ejaculate. Trust me, the world is not full of people who all agree on what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s not true in any sense.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 7:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 3:21 pm)ayost Wrote: Well, if you have an infallible, objective moral standard that you appeal to then when fallible people (Christians) have a dispute you go to the infallible, objective moral standard for a resolution.

So, which Christians get to decide what the correct interpretation of the infallible moral word is, and how can we tell if their interpretation is right? Should we be putting gay men to death?

I already granted that there’s not God to start this conversation so that we could fully explore the inconsistency in the atheist moral worldview.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 7:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 7:07 pm)ayost Wrote:

---

Instead of trying to honestly approach the debate, let’s use childish sarcasm. Because I don’t live in an atheist world I can’t do that. I have to have integrity and treat you with respect.

Still waiting for you to demolish my worldview.

That’s been happening since you started talking. You’ll never admit it, but your worldview is bankrupt.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 5:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 5:39 pm)ayost Wrote: We've been trying to stop abuse. We can't. Killing foster kids still meets the definition of moral here.

And that is why they commit suicide.
Like TGN said, killing does involve increasing the amount of suffering and I don't think anyone can have the authority to ascertain if the suffering due to abuse is greater than the suffering due to being killed. That should be left to the criteria of the person in the particular situation.
And, since you like the parallel, it's like abortion. Leave it to the person who is in the particular situation (and I mean the potential mother).

I just made a compelling argument, using your worldview, that killing foster kids reduces suffering. All you did is arbitrarily assume that suffering increases to a point my example fails without actually addressing the foundation of the argument, which is that moral system is bankrupt and it doesn’t work. Its arbitrary and inconsistent and it only works when people do what you already agree with.

It’s actually an argument that abortion advocates use to defend abortion. As a side note, she’s not a potential mother, she’s a mother and if she gets and abortion she’s just the mother of a dead baby.

---

In my opinion, a more compelling argument than the “arbitrary levels of unmeasurable suffering” is the idea that an immoral action is any action that, should everyone do that action all of the time, would bring an end to humanity.

Of course, the person who says that has to admit homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are immoral. Obviously, since no one is a neutral truth seeker, their political views will override their need for consistency and they will violate their own moral system and say those things aren’t immoral.

But, should that person be consistent, I would be compelled by that argument.

(October 11, 2021 at 8:10 pm)ayost Wrote: You’re being way to flippant and not truly looking at the depth of the world’s depravity. Obviously, there’s the atrocities in China and North Korea. There’s genital mutilation in the Middle East. Cannibals in India. Sex trafficking in America. Slavery in Africa. There’s a tribe in Papua New Guinea where boys are required to perform oral sex on the elders until the boys are old enough ejaculate. Trust me, the world is not full of people who all agree on what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s not true in any sense.

Yes, when all voices are not heard, morality can be skewed.  I would suggest that when more voices are heard, and we become more empathetic to each other, a better morality will result.

Moral systems can also be out of whack when survival is at stake.  I often think that our current morality is a result of everyone having things relatively easy.  In harsher situations, social systems have a far larger emphasis on survival of the group, and less on things like personal happiness.  It is one of the reasons why the Old Testament morality is so utterly foreign to us.  We would have to understand the culture it evolved in, and then determine if it was adaptive or mal-adaptive in that setting.  We can't just transplant our moral sensibility elsewhere.  Perhaps our morals are demonstrably superior, but they would have to face the test of that time and situation to know.

(October 11, 2021 at 8:10 pm)ayost Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 7:32 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Would you go around murdering just because you don't believe in God?  Given that most people don't believe in Jesus, how it is possible that most people don't go around murdering, and every society has rules against it?  Is a god the only possible explanation?

Sure, a society could choose to see the movie "The Purge" as a holy inspiration, and decide that Purges are moral imperatives.  However, the suffering is real, and those with empathy would fight against it.  It doesn't take a belief in God to realize that its a screwed up idea.  In fact, it is a belief in God (or a belief in other extreme ideologies) that allows many to ignore things like empathy and the suffering of others, and do what most of us would consider "evil".

Where do morals come from?  Our common humanity and empathy, and our ability to understand how principles affect future happiness or suffering.  Yes, people disagree on the principles of that last point.  Some thing that dancing is wrong because will arouse unstoppable lecherous desires, while some think that being free with sexuality leads to a happier life.  Different principles, but both ideally have a the aim to reduce suffering and maximize happiness.

You’re being way to flippant and not truly looking at the depth of the world’s depravity. Obviously, there’s the atrocities in China and North Korea. There’s genital mutilation in the Middle East. Cannibals in India. Sex trafficking in America. Slavery in Africa. There’s a tribe in Papua New Guinea where boys are required to perform oral sex on the elders until the boys are old enough ejaculate. Trust me, the world is not full of people who all agree on what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s not true in any sense.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 7:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: So, which Christians get to decide what the correct interpretation of the infallible moral word is, and how can we tell if their interpretation is right? Should we be putting gay men to death?

I already granted that there’s not God to start this conversation so that we could fully explore the inconsistency in the atheist moral worldview.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 7:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still waiting for you to demolish my worldview.

That’s been happening since you started talking. You’ll never admit it, but your worldview is bankrupt.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 5:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And that is why they commit suicide.
Like TGN said, killing does involve increasing the amount of suffering and I don't think anyone can have the authority to ascertain if the suffering due to abuse is greater than the suffering due to being killed. That should be left to the criteria of the person in the particular situation.
And, since you like the parallel, it's like abortion. Leave it to the person who is in the particular situation (and I mean the potential mother).

I just made a compelling argument, using your worldview, that killing foster kids reduces suffering. All you did is arbitrarily assume that suffering increases to a point my example fails without actually addressing the foundation of the argument, which is that moral system is bankrupt and it doesn’t work. Its arbitrary and inconsistent and it only works when people do what you already agree with.

It’s actually an argument that abortion advocates use to defend abortion. As a side note, she’s not a potential mother, she’s a mother and if she gets and abortion she’s just the mother of a dead baby.

---

In my opinion, a more compelling argument than the “arbitrary levels of unmeasurable suffering” is the idea that an immoral action is any action that, should everyone do that action all of the time, would bring an end to humanity.

Of course, the person who says that has to admit homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are immoral. Obviously, since no one is a neutral truth seeker, their political views will override their need for consistency and they will violate their own moral system.

But, should that person be consistent, I would be compelled by that argument.

I know no one’s talking to me, but I’d like to interject just for a moment and point out that a foetus is not a baby.

You may now return to your previously scheduled screeching.

Boru

Anecdotally, the first time I heard that argument my immediate response was

“So you think homosexuality is immoral?”

To which he replied “Well it depends on what brings the most well being to the most humans.”

And I said “So the order of the “is it moral?” checklist is:
1) It brings the most well being to the most people
2) It doesn’t annihilate humanity
That’s the order? Seems backwards

He said “Well it depends on what your goal is.”

And I said “Shouldn’t not annihilating humanity kind of always be one of your goals?”

“Not always”, he said.

🤷🏻‍♂️

And this is how it goes. Round and round and where it stops nobody knows.

It also could just be that people do what they evolved to do. Some people evolved to terrorize other people. You don’t chastise a lion for terrorizing the plains of Africa.

---

(October 11, 2021 at 8:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 11, 2021 at 8:10 pm)ayost Wrote: You’re being way to flippant and not truly looking at the depth of the world’s depravity. Obviously, there’s the atrocities in China and North Korea. There’s genital mutilation in the Middle East. Cannibals in India. Sex trafficking in America. Slavery in Africa. There’s a tribe in Papua New Guinea where boys are required to perform oral sex on the elders until the boys are old enough ejaculate. Trust me, the world is not full of people who all agree on what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s not true in any sense.

---

I already granted that there’s not God to start this conversation so that we could fully explore the inconsistency in the atheist moral worldview.

---

That’s been happening since you started talking. You’ll never admit it, but your worldview is bankrupt.

---

I just made a compelling argument, using your worldview, that killing foster kids reduces suffering. All you did is arbitrarily assume that suffering increases to a point my example fails without actually addressing the foundation of the argument, which is that moral system is bankrupt and it doesn’t work. Its arbitrary and inconsistent and it only works when people do what you already agree with.

It’s actually an argument that abortion advocates use to defend abortion. As a side note, she’s not a potential mother, she’s a mother and if she gets and abortion she’s just the mother of a dead baby.

---

In my opinion, a more compelling argument than the “arbitrary levels of unmeasurable suffering” is the idea that an immoral action is any action that, should everyone do that action all of the time, would bring an end to humanity.

Of course, the person who says that has to admit homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are immoral. Obviously, since no one is a neutral truth seeker, their political views will override their need for consistency and they will violate their own moral system.

But, should that person be consistent, I would be compelled by that argument.

I know no one’s talking to me, but I’d like to interject just for a moment and point out that a foetus is not a baby.

You may now return to your previously scheduled screeching.

Boru

I, and all of biology, respectfully say that is 100% untrue.

(October 11, 2021 at 8:39 pm)ayost Wrote: I, and all of biology, respectfully say that is 100% untrue.

Please define your biological terms and conditions for fetus and baby. Maybe using your definitions it could be considered accurate. But maybe not true.

(October 11, 2021 at 8:10 pm)ayost Wrote:

---

(October 11, 2021 at 7:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still waiting for you to demolish my worldview.

That’s been happening since you started talking. You’ll never admit it, but your worldview is bankrupt.

IDK bud, I'm still pretty convinced that moral statements can report facts.  You say that's a bankrupt worldview, but if so, then there are no moral facts for your god to get right.

Seems like a steep cost to pay.