(September 4, 2012 at 1:40 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 10:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: What can I say, but credit my audience for their spectacular mental deficiencies.

Yes, it's the fault of the audience. How dare they reject your ideas, how dare they actually point out how flawed your thinking is, how dare anyone believe anything other than what you think to be correct when in fact it sounds like the drivel the religious spew forth about atheists on a daily basis.

Get fuck over yourself, you tool.

I have not seen a single post point out a flaw in my thinking.

In fact, aside from apothecary (or something), I don't think anyone has even dared to engage any of my serious posts in any cogent, coherent manner. C-D tried once, a while back, but he became butthurt for some reason or another.

Honestly, you sound deluded, amico mio.

Focus on the arguments, not on your fantasies.

(September 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Boccacio, your wit sounds like it was plagiarized from the business end of a used toilet brush.

It was original shit just for you.

By the way, either you lie or you are as thick as a brick.

(September 4, 2012 at 1:54 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I have not seen a single post point out a flaw in my thinking.

... I don't think anyone has even dared to engage any of my serious posts in any cogent, coherent manner.

I have raised questions and evidence for you and also provided relevant comments and research in response to Polaris and to Atom. Zero response from Vinny, who either does not understand or does not want to do so.

I guess trolls don't learn to read, so here is a place to practise your blasphemy.

LOL "for some reason or another". You know precisely why I won't engage you seriously. But please, go ahead and be a disingenuous twat and claim you don't.

(September 4, 2012 at 1:54 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I have not seen a single post point out a flaw in my thinking.

What. The. Fuck?

What colour is the sky where you are?

(September 4, 2012 at 1:54 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I have not seen a single post point out a flaw in my thinking.

And you're blaming us for your poor eyesight?

[in response to Post #60, by DeistPaladin]

Good idea, and I agree. I'll stick to portions of the post for sake of clarity and real estate.

(August 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: "Sales were $XYZ last month" is an objective statement. "Our salesperson is doing a good job" is a subjective evaluation, one hopefully backed up by objective or empirical evidence.

This much of it I agree with you: that is to say the numbers are going to be the numbers, regardless of whether someone 'likes' them or not.
Whether those numbers are "good" or "bad," are up to subjective interpretation- the numbers still remain the same, not contingent upon anyone's belief about them. As you say as well:

Quote:I tend to see any evaluation of anything as "good" or "bad" as being subjective in nature.

Re: God's attributes
I think arguing about God's attributes is an argument for another day, but what you proposed I feel we can work with nevertheless:

Quote:The term "God" only means "First Cause" or the mysterious mind behind the [universe]... the only qualities one must attribute to "God" are "conscious" and "powerful enough to get the ball rolling".

Would you agree then that a conscious being able to create the universe, must necessarily have greater power and knowledge than that within the universe which would otherwise be or would be the most powerful and/or most knowledgable? This gives us a being of great power and intelligence; a independent being itself, which humans and all of existence are contingent upon (thus objective). This, to me at least, makes for (literally) a great authority. This was essentially what was meant from:

Quote:In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives?

(August 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm not sure I follow your argument. It might help me if you would clarify which of the three scenarios you believe:

1. God decides what is moral and sets the rules for what is good.
   
2. God evaluates what is moral and wills things because they are good
   
3. God's will is how we define what is good and so God is good because God wills what God wills
   

Pick one and we'll discuss further. If you wish to save time, none of these answers will put theistic morality on a more solid footing than secular morality.

Yes, the Euthyphro Dilemma, though you've added what I would answer in #3- God wills something because he is good. If I were to then be accused of special pleading, or that the concept is incoherent/circular, I could point to an opponent's own subjective appeals to moral values & duties, i.e.: "it's bad to murder in society because murder would be bad for society." My appeal at least has the benefit of an independent law-giver, attributes of which previously stated, all of which lend significant advantage over human attributes.

Quote:To use your pedophile priests example, I'm quite outspoken about how wrong that is. To justify my evaluation, I would point out how it victimizes a child and how it harms them both in the short term and long term. The "social contract" is a useful tool in discussing issues like these.
-
Your use of the unforeseen future to justify religions obsession with victimless crimes seems to smack of an argument from ignorance (also known as "The Lord works in mysterious ways" argument). If we were to debate the reasons why blasphemy is morally wrong, the burden of proof would be on you to show reasons to think so.
-
Absolutely not, and this was my point in saying "subjective =/= anything goes".

This issue comes up when atheists condemn certain cruel religious practices, such as "honor killings" as practiced in certain Islamic countries. Such practices are considered "normal" in their culture but I have no problem saying they are morally wrong. To justify that evaluation, I can point to the cruelty of the practice, how it violates the rights of the woman, how it destroys a life and what that life might have brought, how it sows fear into society.

While these activities are not necessarily something you yourself may perpetrate, there lacks any ground or basis to declare them "wrong." The "Social Contract" is indeed a useful tool to discuss this issue- these societies that practice these things you find wrong created these very social contracts! They may say, that the fact that you don't practice them makes you wrong! I'm afraid that, it seems to me, morals being subjective does in fact mean anything goes. "Cruelty," "rights violations," etc., would all be subjective terms- merely your opinion on the matter (and one not apparently shared by the people of that society), and in fact altogther baseless. Perhaps practicing these alleged 'atrocities' does in fact better the society as a whole beyond our immediate vision- how can we possibly say it doesn't? Furthermore, there is nothing at all to say "fear" is a "bad" or "evil" thing- there appears to be such things as "healthy fears."

Unfortunately, "that which increases the sum total of pleasure or reduces the sum total of pain is morally correct," is also unforeseen. It makes a declaration, but it says nothing about how to do so, and frankly, it cannot, as I've pointed out previously. How could it, especially if one says our morality is "evolving?"

So, are morals then personally-relative to everyone (subjective), or are some things in fact really wrong, regardless of what people actually think of those things?

---

(August 31, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Boccaccio Wrote: I have moral objectives related to staying alive and breeding and taking pleasure in the exercise of my senses and abilities and, remarkably enough, these objectives prove best satisfied by treating other people well rather than by casual murder or abuse. The theist notion that radiating circles of interest lead inexorably to mutual destruction is just plain silly really. Does that really need to be discussed?

My strategies include those I mentioned in that earlier post. You can toss a bit of Kant into the following although I am not trying to be rigorous here.
-
If you can identify that then you can measure the success of strategies toward those objectives using principles of utility and consequences, for example.

While noble objectives, I don't see any objective prescription of what you "ought" to do other than what is only self-identified, making your values and duties arbitrary. Someone may see things differently than you- are they wrong? Couldn't a case be made that foricble copulation is a 'good' method of staying alive, breeding, and taking pleasure in the exercise with regards to one's survival? Just like what happens in the animal kingdom? Especially if it produces a citizen of the world who makes significant beneficial contributions- something that could and would certainly be a measured success. Is the preservation of one woman's liberty worth precluding a benefit of the world? Your view doesn't suggest it is.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: In answer to genkaus, Stephen wrote

stephenmills1000 Wrote:They are dependent upon that entity yes, but that entity is independent of me, therefore is by definition objective.

Are you really saying, Stephen, that the determinant of whether something is objectively moral depends on it being dependent on something which is independent of you?

Yes.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: If so, I can provide you with a perfectly objective morality, not dependent on any mind beyond that you have agreed to follow the rules emerging. To say the only objective morality comes from a deity is false. To say morality comes from a deity serves only the purpose of absolute followership, like any dictatorship, and strips your moral judgement from you leaving you only to follow orders.

You could be right! I await your case. In the meantime I will further my own: Indeed, my moral judgement is stripped of me- judgment is reserved to that which is a more knowledgable, more powerful, more loving, universe-creating, eternal being. Being a fallible and imperfect human I am (end everyone I posit), better the world is for having such an authority rule over mine. Which in part answers your following question(s):

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: If [you obtain your morality from] the bible, how do you determine what is true or literal, symbolic or false, or human error in the transcription?

If [from] godly commands, by what means do you receive them?

As I have stated, my morals are based on God’s revelation in Scripture. I have good reason to believe that Scripture is a revelation from God, that God’s commands to us supply our moral duties. Moral duties are rooted in the divine commands; values are rooted in God’s nature, therefore objective because they are rooted in God’s commands and nature. Again, I am a fallible, imperfect being, so it follows I won't get everything (maybe anything!) right. But my interpretations of what is right have no bearing whatsoever on God's authority being true. If I get it all wrong, God's good nature and fair judgment does not change in anyway.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: Incidentally, chocolate or vanilla, pie or cake, are not moral questions as you well know, Stephen, so why did you pretend such a question was pertinent to moral decisions without a god? Are you being misleading or merely misled?

I fail to see your point here, for what makes your 'moral objectives' (as stated previously), the 'right' ones? How do you justify those beliefs?

(September 4, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Would you agree then that a conscious being able to create the universe, must necessarily have greater power and knowledge than that within the universe which would otherwise be or would be the most powerful and/or most knowledgable?

Nope. There is no justification for this.

(September 4, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: This gives us a being of great power and intelligence; a independent being itself, which humans and all of existence are contingent upon (thus objective). This, to me at least, makes for (literally) a great authority. This was essentially what was meant from:

Quote:In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives?

Except, you are using the word "objective" incorrectly here and you simply have no idea what this being could be contingent upon.

(September 4, 2012 at 9:40 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Would you agree then that a conscious being able to create the universe, must necessarily have greater power and knowledge than that within the universe which would otherwise be or would be the most powerful and/or most knowledgable?

Nope. There is no justification for this.

(September 4, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: This gives us a being of great power and intelligence; a independent being itself, which humans and all of existence are contingent upon (thus objective). This, to me at least, makes for (literally) a great authority. This was essentially what was meant from:

Except, you are using the word "objective" incorrectly here and you simply have no idea what this being could be contingent upon.

This was not an argument to justify such a being's existence, only the attributes it would necessarily possess to be what was described previously. You may freely treat it hypothetically. Also, if the being was contingent upon something else, then that being would have greater power, and thus be the subject of this discussion.

In that light, would you agree then?

(September 4, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Would you agree then that a conscious being able to create the universe, must necessarily have greater power and knowledge than that within the universe which would otherwise be or would be the most powerful and/or most knowledgable?

This... just this... is reason enough to ditch your theism.

If the universe can't possibly be explained without a creator... how can something more complex than the universe escape that same necessity?

It can't. Accept that, and welcome to atheism.

Y'welcome.

A major nitpick with the idea that any god would simply have to possess greater power and knowledge (or whatever) than what it created. Specifically with regards to a "got the ball rolling" god.

Suppose this god sparked some event approx 13.75 billion years ago, the level of complexity that has emerged since then from the multitudes of interactions and including sentient things such as ourselves could easily surpass whatever was involved in that event.

To use a more "down to earth" example. Just because some entity is capable of doing something that we aren't doesn't make it wise or powerful. Plants engage in photosynthesis without any consciousness, "power" or knowledge whatsoever, and yet we are unable to replicate the activity. Perhaps this "ball rolling god" sparking the universe did so in the same manner that a plant converts UV in useful energy. Not through knowledge or power (or even intent) but as a function of it's machinery.