Quote:Yes you are correct, the inquisition was in opposition to the 'golden rule' and so against the will of God.

That really depends on what part of the bible you're reading. You can't just brush it off as "not the will of god", because I can guarantee people can find as many verses as you can to justify their beliefs. They may get it from the first two thirds (OT), instead of the last third (NT), but it doesn't make their point less valid.

(March 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: What do you mean by 'objective meaning'?

Externally granted by some function of the universe. I mean, you do take god's commandments as inviolable and given by a perfect source, yes?

Quote:Sure, but why deny the cause while enjoying the effect.

We would need evidence of the cause first, before we could believe in it. So far all we've established is that X action produces beneficial effects, and that this was written in a book. Since we've just shown that human beings can notice this, it rather detracts from the notion that such things must be divine in nature.

Quote:Yes, although the atheist would have no rational foundation for his/her explanation apart from circular reasoning and the moral system would be subjective.

How would reasoning that out be circular? What part of "X action produces Y effect, and Y effect is beneficial/detrimental for my group, and therefore it should be encouraged/discouraged if I wish for the group to flourish," is circular? As for subjectivity, kinda, i guess. Two problems though; the effects of the actions are objective in that they are concretely real and not up for debate, and more importantly, the only way you could say that a subjective morality is bad is if you could demonstrate that there's something objective that could provide a better one. After all, if our own thoughts are all we have and there's nothing above them, what alternative do we have but to use them?

Quote:All agreeable statements. The number of people killed by other people is objectively measured. What those numbers mean or how they are interpreted is subjective.

Only slightly: a society requires at least some people to... be, right? I mean, that's just objectively true. Larger social groups can accomplish more, that's also just true. And a world in which everyone is allowed to kill anyone else runs the risk of losing all those people that are required to form a society, and therefore, in an objective sense, there's more of a risk associated with allowing indiscriminate killing than with preventing it.

Quote: The fact that you named the statistic (at least some number within that category) 'murder' presupposes morality.

I don't need to presuppose morality; morality demonstrably exists in people. We're arguing about the source of it.

Quote: You view a high murder rate (people killing people) as a negative effect (as do I). However, some people hold to a different interpretation of the number of people killed. Take for example people who subscribe to the Georgia Guidestones. One of their commandments states that in order to keep a society cohesive, earth's population shouldn't exceed 500 million people (some would even go with less: Ted Turner and Dave Foreman). To them a high murder rate within society would be beneficial because it accomplishes the goal of reducing population down to a number that creates a condition to keep society cohesive (ie a population of 500 million or less). And thus people killing people would be moral. It is the individuals subjective interpretation of the objective data that does not allow for an explanation of morality.

Yes, people can disagree on moral precepts. That's where evidence and rational argument comes in. I'm not claiming that human morality is perfect or unanimously agreed upon, just that it can be determined through discourse and evidence without the need for a divine source.

Quote:Point taken. Although you would agree that eye and hair color are preexisting genetic information. Communication with animals would require not just different preexisting genes being activated but entirely new functioning genes. As a note they (prophet species) must not have been able to mate with the human species since we don't see them today!

All mutations are derived from pre-existing genetic information, whether they result in an entirely new trait, or just a modification on an existing one.

(March 18, 2014 at 10:21 am)Esquilax Wrote: Externally granted by some function of the universe. I mean, you do take god's commandments as inviolable and given by a perfect source, yes?

To answer your question, Yes I do. To address the definition of 'objective': perhaps I was assuming a definition you didn't intend. I was taking it to mean: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. I was also interpreting 'objective' to be measured quantitatively. Could you explain your definition a bit more? What is the 'external' that 'granted' it?

(March 18, 2014 at 10:21 am)Esquilax Wrote: We would need evidence of the cause first, before we could believe in it. So far all we've established is that X action produces beneficial effects, and that this was written in a book. Since we've just shown that human beings can notice this, it rather detracts from the notion that such things must be divine in nature.

I'm taking the effect to be evidence of a cause. An observation of the effect is not itself the cause.(further development in next response)

(March 18, 2014 at 10:21 am)Esquilax Wrote: How would reasoning that out be circular? What part of "X action produces Y effect, and Y effect is beneficial/detrimental for my group, and therefore it should be encouraged/discouraged if I wish for the group to flourish," is circular?

When discussing the origin of morality I'm looking for the cause. I'm looking for a logical argument/proof that would have 'Therefore morality exists' as it's conclusion. If said logical proof would have a premise(s) like, we observe morality, or we observe the benefit, or this is bad, or that is bad, etc, all of these premises assume a standard of morality. This is how the argument becomes circular reasoning. If one assumes the conclusion within one of the premises that is circular reasoning. The argument you have written above is not circular because it does not argue for the origin of morality because the observation of morality is not an explanation of the origin of morality.

(March 18, 2014 at 10:21 am)Esquilax Wrote: Only slightly: a society requires at least some people to... be, right? I mean, that's just objectively true. Larger social groups can accomplish more, that's also just true. And a world in which everyone is allowed to kill anyone else runs the risk of losing all those people that are required to form a society, and therefore, in an objective sense, there's more of a risk associated with allowing indiscriminate killing than with preventing it.

I agree the first statement is objective, without people there can be no society. The second statement is subjective. It depends what the specific task is as to whether a larger social group can accomplish more or less. For example building a house. A larger group could accomplish more. On the other hand, for example, accomplishing world peace. It's more reasonable in this example that the smaller the group the greater the chance of world peace and the larger the group the less chance of world peace. So here larger social group equates to less, not more. I do agree with your argument that indiscriminate killing runs the risk of eliminating all the people within the society and therefore should be discouraged. These statements are based upon our personal biases (society is a good construct, human life should be preserved to accomplish tasks, etc) and are therefore not objective.

(March 18, 2014 at 10:21 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, people can disagree on moral precepts. That's where evidence and rational argument comes in. I'm not claiming that human morality is perfect or unanimously agreed upon, just that it can be determined through discourse and evidence without the need for a divine source.

I've heard it said that human morality isn't perfect. I understand things to be judged as relative to something else. In other words measurement requires a standard to measure against. What is the standard by which human morality is measured so as to determine it is not perfect?

Why did God murder children for making fun of a bald guy? , I don't know, back in those days they had nothing better to do I suppose ?.

(March 26, 2014 at 2:46 am)psychoslice Wrote: Why did God murder children for making fun of a bald guy? , I don't know, back in those days they had nothing better to do I suppose ?.

Cos he's a cunt. Simple as that.

(March 26, 2014 at 1:53 am)orangebox21 Wrote: What is the standard by which human morality is measured so as to determine it is not perfect?

The ideal standard i.e. the one we come up with ourselves after having conscious experiences and witnessing others in states of happiness or suffering that we're in some way or another familiar with.

(March 26, 2014 at 5:00 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The ideal standard i.e. the one we come up with ourselves after having conscious experiences and witnessing others in states of happiness or suffering that we're in some way or another familiar with.

If the ideal standard (a perfect standard) is derived from observed states of happiness of others is it then a standard that is in a state of change? I'm seeking clarification for the thought that the same situation can result in different states for different people (some people gain great joy from country music, other people are angered by it). Does the ideal standard change from person to person?

Hmm... is God murdering children SEXY?!

Nope.

What God should be doing is LICKING EVERY PUSSY IN EXISTENCE.

LOL

(March 28, 2014 at 3:01 am)My imaginary friend is GOD Wrote: Hmm... is God murdering children SEXY?!

Nope.

What God should be doing is LICKING EVERY PUSSY IN EXISTENCE.

:D LOL

That would be so omnipresenly awesome.

(March 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm)My imaginary friend is GOD Wrote: Cinjin, those bears look like wolves.

That's because they are Polarizing Bears.