(May 14, 2014 at 1:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 8:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: Better to say that prosocial behavioral dispositions evolved because they had survival value. Does that make them moral? No. Does it underpin what we describe as moral. Most likely. Morality is more like beauty than it is like reality. There is no objective basis for morality.

Perhaps. Morality has practical applications that extend into personal and public life much differently than aesthetics. It sounds like you put morality in the category of preference rather than proprietary. If so then the concept of justice has no foundation and I hate to say this because I know it peeves you but that's moral nihilism.

I only know "justice" as an attempt by people to use collective force to impose agreed upon norms on themselves. I don't think there is a Platonic perfect "justice" floating out beyond the ether which the attempts of men fall short of or approach to some degree. In any attempt to codify fair play, there are likely to be some who lose out in some way. I'm not at all sure that there is always a perfect path to justice. There may always be winners and losers in the best of all possible worlds.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I see. So, whenever someone presents information that shows your argument is bogus, rather than confront it, you pretend it's not topical.

No, when something is not relevant to the topic I properly identify it as such. The argument is that atheist’s cannot postulate a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality unless god exists and then you come in from left field babbling on about how few atheists are in prison. It has nothing to do with the topic. Nobody is arguing that atheists never do nice deeds or must believe in God in order to do so; we are arguing that nice and good are completely meaningless terms in a purely natural world. Besides, disproportionate representation in prisons does nothing to demonstrate that that people group is somehow more immoral than any other.

Quote: I don't buy into your presuppositional bullshit, from your 2000-year-old tradition that has no claim to general ethics nor morality other than what they've stolen from other extant cultures.

Whether or not you buy into it is irrelevant, people do not get to simply opt out of the moral imperative contained in God’s commandments. Secondly, making an appeal to the age of the book is also logically fallacious.

Quote: Try to stay on topic, yourself. Repeating a claim doesn't validate the claim, it simply shows you have nothing else to support it.

Which claim are you referring to? Pointing out your fallacious logic?

Quote: You don't have an "argument." You have dishonest trickery aimed at fooling the reader into believing your petty religious tradition has any bearing on the moral framework that existed far before your Abrahamic, myth-stealing tradition.

Well if I do not have an argument then it should be pretty easy to refute, give me a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality that would apply in a purely material universe. I’ll wait…

Quote:
You advanced the claim there is no moral action without your God.

Correct, no action can be defined as moral or immoral without God existing.

Quote: I presented statistics that show your claim is false.

No, you did not; you presented statistics dealing with the religious affiliation of prisoners. This has nothing to do with whether or not an act can be defined as right or wrong without God.

Quote: You repeated the claim, and seek to restrict the debate to within the fallacious claim you've hijacked this thread with, hoping no one would notice. What's it like to be a Compulsive Liar For Jesus?

No, I corrected your fallacious logic and attempted to steer you back on course so we could have a rational discussion. You seem to be perfectly content with dragging the discussion down rabbit holes about the irrelevant and then whining when I cast light upon your irrationality. Lying for Jesus? No, we live in a Christian Universe which means lying is morally wrong. Being logical for Jesus? Absolutely.

Quote: The same unsupported assertion, with nothing to back it up. What are you afraid of?

I asked you a question; I did not repeat any assertion. I figured you could not answer it.

Quote: Your holy book supports abortion, ordained and ordered by God. Red herring.

That’s actually false; even an accidentally induced miscarriage was punishable by death. They were far more civilized on the subject than we are today.

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”- Exodus 21:22 (NASB)

Quote: Again, you are the one who entered a thread and threw down presupposed claims with nothing to back them up that "Without God, people behave immorally," and then ignored the statistics that show you're full of shit. What's it like being that full of shit?

No, the original post was concerning a very specific Christian argument. Namely, that the very definition of goodness requires that God exists. If you want to be ignorant and think the argument is something else and waste your time arguing for the irrelevant by all means continue to do so. However, every time you run into a theist who understands the argument you are going to get drubbed just like you were against me. Your stubbornness and ignorance makes my job easy so I cannot say I mind it.

Quote: Sniveling and backpedaling has no bearing on relevance. If you can't support your argument by anything other than bald assertion, tap out.

First you claimed that your statistics refuted my argument, next you claimed that my argument was something different from the one in the original post, and now you seem to think it is something entirely different. It seems you’re going to have to get on the same sheet of music with yourself before any sort of debate is even remotely possible.

(May 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: [Are behavioral dispositions moral because they evolved or did they evolve because they are moral?

That’s awesome Chad; Plato just smiled a bit in his grave.

(May 13, 2014 at 8:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: Better to say that prosocial behavioral dispositions evolved because they had survival value. Does that make them moral? No. Does it underpin what we describe as moral. Most likely. Morality is more like beauty than it is like reality. There is no objective basis for morality.

If morality is like beauty then could someone stipulate that raping children is a morally good act? You still seem to be supporting the Christians’ position on this. Without God, morality is meaningless because any act could be arbitrarily defined as a morally good act.

Quote:Humanity evolved morality, much like ants, bees, and termites, because moral action is evolutionarily conductive to the survival of the species.

Did humans evolve the ability to commit murder, rape, theft, molestation, torture, bestiality, adultery, infanticide, homosexuality, and deceit? If all evolved actions and desires are morally good then so too are all of those actions. This sort of utilitarianism reduces to absurdity when it’s given anything more than a cursory examination. Without God, anything and everything is permissible.

(May 13, 2014 at 10:34 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Rampant insults others because he's a mindless dick with no adequate response to the question he's been asked.

There’s no need to insult the male sex organ like that Chad.

(May 14, 2014 at 12:34 am)max-greece Wrote: Were we not social mammals the selfish attitude would be the more beneficial, however, being social animals its simply not how things are.

Then why do some humans kill, rape, and steal if they did not evolve to do so?

Quote: We know this through the history of our species. There are many examples of activities that would never have happened were my version of human morality not correct. Farming is an example. Can you understand why?

I do not see how this would require your version of morality to be correct. In Genesis man is compelled to work the fields for food. Additionally, I think the history of our species has taught us that many humans get very far in life by doing things that I am sure you and I would both agree are immoral.

Quote:Humans do engage in all the activities they are capable of. Some are moral, some are not. Implementation of the tools that support morality through natural selection is merely good enough to maintain the species. If it isn't, the species doesn't survive. No society condones murder or theft from individuals or groups it recognises as being part of that society. If it did, that society would be very short lived indeed.

If species cannot survive by murdering and raping one another then how come many species-including humans-murder and rape one another and seem to survive just fine? Moreover, if these actions are only immoral when done within a society are they then moral when done to other societies?

Quote: Religion (and politics) act to identify non-group members within the society enabling people to murder, rape and steal from them with impunity, often with the blessing of their God.

Using your definition of morality what you seem to be complaining about would have to actually be classified as morally good. Since the vast majority of societies are religious then this must serve a particular survival advantage for those societies and therefore according to your definition would be a morally good belief and institution. Being non-religious would then be the outlier and therefore an immoral position.

Quote:You didn't understand what I was saying. Our natural behaviours are empathy, reciprocation and fairness. Those are the ones we can overcome to "do evil."

I do not believe that those are our natural predispositions at all. Humans kill one another daily, they steal from one another daily, they rape one another daily. I do not see how you are choosing which of these behaviors are normal and which ones are not when people do them all.

Quote: No other animal makes war on itself.

I believe ants wage war. Chimps will fight and steal from other groups of chimps. Most apes will commit rape. Lions commit infanticide. All animals kill. How can you possibly reason from the premise that whatever animals do is morally good?

Quote: Survival of the species is the driver for any and all species on the planet. We are no different. God has nothing to do with it. God is about establishing power and allegiance between humans for the lowest cost.

Are you saying that any action that helps to perpetuate the species is morally good?

Quote:No - it was morally abhorrent. You are correct, however, that religion is not the only way to get people to behave appallingly. Political ideology is a good substitute. In the case you mentioned it was communism but it could equally have been fascism.

Now wait a second, what if those acts did aid the survival of the Russian people? Would they then be morally good acts?

Quote:Within the society, yes, you would be considered morally wrong. Were you in a different place at the same time or in another time you would be considered morally correct. Its easy to see which of these 2 positions is correct - just compare to our inherited characteristics.

I am having trouble pinning you down on this. What ultimately determines whether any particular act is good or bad? The society you live in? Whether it helps the species as a whole? Whether other animals also do the act? I am having difficulty figuring out what exactly your position is.

Quote:We determine good or bad morality by our inherited standard. Its not hard to do.

Inherited standard? You mean by what we “feel” is good or bad?

Quote: Interesting how useless God's consideration is, to us. What Stalin cared about is not the species concern. Ideally the species is concerned with is learning from the lessons of Stalin, or Hitler, Pol Pot and so on so we don't let those things happen again. Sadly we don't seem to be too good at learning. Maybe that will be the thing that actually kills off our species.

Why should Stalin have cared about the species? He got absolutely everything he wanted in life, why should he sacrifice his well-being so that humans who are born after he’s feeding the worms may benefit? This does not seem to make any sense. Now if there is a God who owns Stalin, hates sins, and possesses the ultimate prerogative to judge him for his sins after his material body has died then it would make sense.

(May 14, 2014 at 4:54 am)Esquilax Wrote: Whoa, whoa, when did I ever say that only sentient beings who engage in moral thought are a part of our moral metrics? My definition concerns the well-being of all living creatures, whether or not they engage in moral thought; even if an animal can't participate in moral conversations, causing it unnecessary pain would still be immoral by virtue of the pointlessness of doing it. Why negatively impact any being for no reason?

You seemed to imply we were only concerned with beings capable of moral thought yes. We can alter the emphasis though and allow them in if you like.
It’s morally wrong to torture animals because it hurts the animal and it is pointless? Why is it morally wrong for someone to inflict pointless pain? What if the person gets a lot of enjoyment out of it? I do not believe they would find it pointless then. What if they just think you are wrong? Is there a morlal imperative for them to follow your definition of morality? It just seems like you have an inherent knowledge of what is good and evil and you are contriving some sort of ad hoc definition of morality in order to hopefully support what you already know is good and to condemn what you already know is evil.

Quote:
Arbitrary? The more sentient an organism is, the more potential it has for complex thought, emotional nuance, and so on. You lose more potential good, potential anything, through the elimination of a person than you do a fish.

Well allow me to extrapolate then; therefore would the lives and well-being of more intelligent people hold more moral value than the lives of less intelligent people?

Quote:
You're conflating the sensation itself with the cause of the sensation. When I say we dislike pain, it's precisely because the purpose of pain is to notify us of bodily damage and to warn us away from danger. There's no sense in which pain ever signifies that something good is happening to you.

I am sorry but I simply have to disagree. When an athlete is training and getting stronger they will experience pain in their muscles. Something good is actually happening however. Also, what about the people who enjoy pain? I am not one of them but we both know such people do exist.

Quote: Yes, it does sound familiar: Confucius was saying it years before Jesus did.

That may be the case; although the earliest confirmed copies of the Analects we have postdate Christ by over 150 years and even postdate manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Be that as it may, all humans have a knowledge of the truth so Confucius was certainly capable of getting it right (Romans 1). However, in Matthew Jesus was referencing the Ten Commandments which significantly predate Confucius.
You did not answer my question though. I hope you address it later on.

Quote: Because we require each other to survive, and a world in which we allow indiscriminate injury for personal gain is demonstrably worse off for everyone involved; our society is what allows us to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet, and that is predicated on a certain level of trust between one another, that we can share resources and expertise with the expectation that we won't turn on one another violently at the first opportunity. We are disparate parts that come together to create a functioning whole, and without that trust our ability to do so breaks down.

You’re begging the question, I asked you why someone should put the well-being of others above their own and you answered by saying because it makes things better for everyone. I get that, but that does not answer my question. Why should Joseph Stalin have treated others as he wanted to be treated when he became the most powerful man on Earth by doing exactly the opposite? If all that exists is matter and there is no life or judgment after death I think you’d have a difficult time convincing anyone in his position they should do anything different than what got them to that position in the first place.

Quote: Your local supermarket stays open because the people working there can rely on you to keep to the social contracts and pay them money for your food, rather than just murdering them for it. If they couldn't, there would be no reason for them not to act in their own self interest and not come to work. Consequently, there would also be no reason for the producers of that food to sell it to the supermarket, as they'd have no assurance that the buyers wouldn't simply murder them and take the food. It all breaks down.

What if we only did these things to other societies? We could still have things functioning in our society while treating the people in different societies terribly. This is what the entire antebellum slave trade was based on, whites figured out that as long as they enslaved the people from a society thousands of miles away they could still behave “civilized” in their own society and even benefit from the free labor. Was that morally wrong? This social contract utilitarianism sounds great but ends up being inadequate and rather arbitrary at times.

Quote: Is this really such a complicated concept that you needed to be told it, Stat?

It’s only complicated if God does not exist because it’s then rendered incoherent and arbitrary.

Quote:
Again, we live better cooperatively than competitively.

So? I do not see how that creates a moral imperative to do what is best for everyone rather than the individual. Furthermore, are you say that any act that benefits the society is by definition morally good?

Quote: Yes, and he became that on the back of the death and suffering of many other people, and most notably, his regime was in no way self-sustaining. If it had continued, things would only have gotten progressively worse; you can't build a society like that.

What does that have to do with him? He was quite prosperous and I do not see how you can judge anything he did as being morally evil if there is no transcendent law-giver who owns everyone. If this life is all we are given and we all end up feeding the worms then why not put our self-interest above all other things?

Quote: It's another facet of the social contract: we stand on the foundations given us by the previous generation, and we pass that along to ensure the survival of our species.

Why ought we to do so? I do not see how you are arriving at that.

Quote: Incidentally, are you saying that you only do any good work now because you expect eternal reward later? And you question my moral foundation?

No, I do good deeds now because Christ’s redeeming work made such actions possible, my fellow men are created in the image of God, and I am commanded to do so by He who owns all of creation. That seems to make more sense than sacrificing my well-being for other sentient bags of tissue whom may or may not even exist in the future, whom may or may not even benefit from my sacrifices, and who may or may not be kind to other sentient bags of tissue.

Quote: Answered above.

It was not answered though, you simply say because it helps everyone out, but I am asking why should a person help everyone? Simply because you say so?

Quote:Unconscious is not non-sentient, Stat. It's a temporary cessation of certain brain functions, but it's not a lack of sentience.

Yes it is. Sentient is defined as “having the power of perception by the senses; conscious (Webster’s)”; so it follows that if you are not conscious you are not sentient.

Quote: Adultery is the deliberate breaking of a social contract, albeit a less vital one. I've already explained why it's in our best interests to maintain our social contracts, even if we aren't caught breaking them.

How? If the two people never got caught then how can you say they did anything wrong given your utilitarian definition of morality?

Is there a way to opt out of these social contracts or are they forced upon everyone? Who determines what’s in the contract? This just seems like a garbled mess.

(May 14, 2014 at 5:21 am)Cato Wrote: If you don't know what compatibilism is you should refrain from participating in discussions of morality that are more than surface deep.

You really think that I was using the term incorrectly rather than just poking fun at the fact that you were using a term that can have a theological meaning? Oops! You just made yourself look dumb.

“Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.”- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is a theological term that deals with the topics of free will and predestination. It seeks to show that God's exhaustive sovereignty is compatible with human freedom, or in other words, it claims that determinism and free will are compatible.”- Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Since you clearly were ignorant that I was absolutely using the term correctly are you going to heed your own advice and refrain from any further discussions on the subject matter?

Quote: You have this backward. I gave a concrete example. You must then be looking for something more general or abstract.

No, I know what I am doing. Your example was conveniently vague. I wanted to know specifically why you brought up stoning children, what the “obvious answer” was, why this would make morality extra-Biblical, and how this is anything more than the Tu quoque fallacy since even if your points were supported with something specific it would not do anything to refute the original claim that atheists cannot coherently and consistently define a moral system. If you thought your response was specific then I’d hate to see you respond with something you know to be vague.

Quote: Believers don't follow all the moral edicts written in the Bible; therefore, the standard of good and evil is outside the Bible.

That’s false because it commits the fallacy of bifurcation. When the New Testament says that certain covenantal moral laws were replaced then believers are still following an intra-Biblical moral system when they follow this teaching. This is where I ought to tell you that if you are ignorant of such basic theological teachings then you should refrain from participating in discussions of Biblical morality that are more than surface deep. However, since I value the opportunity to teach you and gently correct your errors concerning my faith, I will not do so.

(May 14, 2014 at 5:30 am)CharnelRC Wrote: You ask me to logically prove it to you while not knowing that logic is universal? That's like trying to prove an equation to someone who can't count.

Nonsense, I know logic is universal because the Universe is the creation of a logical God. Of course as an atheist you cannot use my justification so I am asking how you know logic is universal. That’s quite the claim. It seems like you do not know why logic would be universal in a purely natural universe and now you are just stalling.

Quote: First learn why logic is universal and then I'll show you the correlation between the two.

…so you are saying that logic is universal because the god who created the Universe is logical?

(May 14, 2014 at 5:33 am)Tonus Wrote: I can empathize and sympathize with others, and I would not want to be killed. I am aware that some people kill themselves, but usually it is because they are in a poor state of mind. Therefore I think it's reasonable to think that people do not want to die, and that being killed is bad from that standpoint.

…so goodness is defined as whatever people want?

Quote:I think there are two levels; that of the individual, and that of the society or community. A person on his own can use his sense of empathy or sympathy and his life experiences to form opinions on what is good or bad, or right or wrong, and these provide his moral framework. The more isolated he is, the more varied those might be. A society forms laws and cultural attitudes in a similar way, but they do so more via committee. It probably takes longer for a society to determine a set of morals, but those can also be in effect much longer.

Are there any external standards that the individual or society should use to correct and alter their moral framework with?

(May 14, 2014 at 9:23 pm)whateverist Wrote: I'll try not to be peevish toward the word. Is the absence of an objectively based morality identical to moral nihilism? Why not moral relativist? I guess I'd rather not focus on the words. If you mean to attribute to me the belief that morality is personal, elastic and resistant to absolutes then yes, count me in. I don't find that description at all alarming. Should I?

Is morality absolutely personal, elastic and resistant to absolutes? If someone believes in moral objectivism are you going to force them to ascribe to moral relativism?

(May 11, 2014 at 9:39 pm)leodeo Wrote: Someone on another Atheist chat gave me a 'cheat sheet' which had all the answers to what to say when Christians ask stuff long time ago, but i lost it.

but seems frequently christian people tell me that without god we are all douches and if it wasn't for god there would be no good in mankind - so what do we say again for that?

sometimes i feel like 99% of people are pretty mean and it feels pretty spiritual when someone is nice to me, but i dont agree that without Christianity people are bad cus i know lotta nice people who aren't Christians. and seems to me like people on christian forums are the most mean, they don't use bad words but the things they say are much more mean IMO

i say same place as you do.

---

(May 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 1:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Perhaps. Morality has practical applications that extend into personal and public life much differently than aesthetics. It sounds like you put morality in the category of preference rather than proprietary. If so then the concept of justice has no foundation and I hate to say this because I know it peeves you but that's moral nihilism.

I only know "justice" as an attempt by people to use collective force to impose agreed upon norms on themselves. I don't think there is a Platonic perfect "justice" floating out beyond the ether which the attempts of men fall short of or approach to some degree. In any attempt to codify fair play, there are likely to be some who lose out in some way. I'm not at all sure that there is always a perfect path to justice. There may always be winners and losers in the best of all possible worlds.

without the loser there is no winner.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: [Are behavioral dispositions moral because they evolved or did they evolve because they are moral?

That’s awesome Chad; Plato just smiled a bit in his grave.

Many thoughtful Christians really are Platonists, aren't they? Never could make that work for me.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 8:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: Better to say that prosocial behavioral dispositions evolved because they had survival value. Does that make them moral? No. Does it underpin what we describe as moral. Most likely. Morality is more like beauty than it is like reality. There is no objective basis for morality.

If morality is like beauty then could someone stipulate that raping children is a morally good act? You still seem to be supporting the Christians’ position on this. Without God, morality is meaningless because any act could be arbitrarily defined as a morally good act.

I don't think beauty is absolutely flexible anymore than morality is. In either case, not just anything goes even though there is enormous flexibility in expression. Partly owing to individual differences but also in part because every situation is unique and impacts individuals in a differing ways.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 9:23 pm)whateverist Wrote: I'll try not to be peevish toward the word. Is the absence of an objectively based morality identical to moral nihilism? Why not moral relativist? I guess I'd rather not focus on the words. If you mean to attribute to me the belief that morality is personal, elastic and resistant to absolutes then yes, count me in. I don't find that description at all alarming. Should I?

Is morality absolutely personal, elastic and resistant to absolutes? If someone believes in moral objectivism are you going to force them to ascribe to moral relativism?

Are you being humorous deliberately? If moral absolutes is the best a person can do why should I fault them or attempt to change them. It is absolutely there call.

---

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: [Are behavioral dispositions moral because they evolved or did they evolve because they are moral?

That’s awesome Chad; Plato just smiled a bit in his grave.

Many thoughtful Christians really are Platonists, aren't they? Never could make that work for me.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 8:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: Better to say that prosocial behavioral dispositions evolved because they had survival value. Does that make them moral? No. Does it underpin what we describe as moral. Most likely. Morality is more like beauty than it is like reality. There is no objective basis for morality.

If morality is like beauty then could someone stipulate that raping children is a morally good act? You still seem to be supporting the Christians’ position on this. Without God, morality is meaningless because any act could be arbitrarily defined as a morally good act.

I don't think beauty is absolutely flexible anymore than morality is. In either case, not just anything goes even though there is enormous flexibility in expression .. partly owing to individual differences but also in part because every situation is unique and impacts individuals in a differing ways.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 9:23 pm)whateverist Wrote: I'll try not to be peevish toward the word. Is the absence of an objectively based morality identical to moral nihilism? Why not moral relativist? I guess I'd rather not focus on the words. If you mean to attribute to me the belief that morality is personal, elastic and resistant to absolutes then yes, count me in. I don't find that description at all alarming. Should I?

Is morality absolutely personal, elastic and resistant to absolutes? If someone believes in moral objectivism are you going to force them to ascribe to moral relativism?

Are you being humorous deliberately? If moral absolutes is the best a person can do why should I fault them or attempt to change them. It is absolutely there call.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I see. So, whenever someone presents information that shows your argument is bogus, rather than confront it, you pretend it's not topical.

No, when something is not relevant to the topic I properly identify it as such. The argument is that atheist’s cannot postulate a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality unless god exists and then you come in from left field babbling on about how few atheists are in prison.

Surely you're not actually dense enough to call demonstrable evidence of secular people having a better grasp of morality than Christians "babbling out of left field," then turn around and crap out a presuppositional platitude that "Morality ain't possible without no Jesus, mhmhm."

Are you really this stupid?

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It has nothing to do with the topic. Nobody is arguing that atheists never do nice deeds or must believe in God in order to do so

Oh no: You misunderstand. The point was that secular people don't murder, or commit violent crimes, or end up in prison nearly as often as Christians do; and yet you somehow think this doesn't apply to your "Morality comes from God" argument.

It does?! Well, why hasn't it reached the Christians?

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: we are arguing that nice and good are completely meaningless terms in a purely natural world. Besides, disproportionate representation in prisons does nothing to demonstrate that that people group is somehow more immoral than any other.

Really? You don't think the fact that there are more Christians in prison than any other group, or that secular countries boast lower crime rates and decreased violence demonstrates anything? Did you not claim "morality comes from God," and unless you're talking about the God of the Sikahs or the B'hai, your argument falls flat on its face before it even gets out the door.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I don't buy into your presuppositional bullshit, from your 2000-year-old tradition that has no claim to general ethics nor morality other than what they've stolen from other extant cultures.

Whether or not you buy into it is irrelevant, people do not get to simply opt out of the moral imperative contained in God’s commandments.

Oh, really? Do you have anything to support that claim? No? How about the statistics that clearly show a majority of Christians DO opt out of moral imperatives, and end up in prison?

I do not buy in to your presuppositions, if you can't support them logically there's no reason to

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Secondly, making an appeal to the age of the book is also logically fallacious.

The guy making unsupported assertions is whining about logical fallacies? Referring to the age of the book because the morality contained within was culturally relevant in that day and age, and still contains bronze-age values you like to skim over and pretend aren't there.

Moreover, the ideas you've attempted to claim as unique to Christianity, like The Golden Rule and The 10 Commandments were stolen from other cultures and other traditions.

Put another way: I'm not saying your source material is outdated, I'm saying large parts of it are stolen from are moral traditions far predating Christianity, and the claim "All Morals Come From My God" is farcical. Your God did not invent morality, your God can't even follow basic moral principles as illustrated throughout both of your holy books.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Try to stay on topic, yourself. Repeating a claim doesn't validate the claim, it simply shows you have nothing else to support it.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Which claim are you referring to? Pointing out your fallacious logic?

The clam that all morality comes from God, and ethical behavior cannot exist without God, which you have still failed to support. You made the claim, you must support your claim. This is very basic, why are you having such a hard time with it? Because you believe your God is the source of all morality, therefore everyone should agree with you? That's not special pleading, that's straight-up special Walmart screaming tantrum in line because the guy in front of you won't buy your case of beer and the new Pokemon card set for you.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You don't have an "argument." You have dishonest trickery aimed at fooling the reader into believing your petty religious tradition has any bearing on the moral framework that existed far before your Abrahamic, myth-stealing tradition.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if I do not have an argument then it should be pretty easy to refute, give me a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality that would apply in a purely material universe. I’ll wait…

There's nothing to refute. Thump your bible and howl about all morality originating from God. Until you can support that claim, you're just another noisy, irrational loon.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You advanced the claim there is no moral action without your God.

Correct, no action can be defined as moral or immoral without God existing. [/quote]

What is this, fucking amateur hour? You think your unsupported conclusion is fooling anyone but you? What are the logical premises leading to that conclusion? I've asked you many times to provide them, and yet you have failed utterly to do so. Why is that?

Because you have nothing but a claim.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I presented statistics that show your claim is false.

No, you did not; you presented statistics dealing with the religious affiliation of prisoners. This has nothing to do with whether or not an act can be defined as right or wrong without God.

Didn't work out so well for all those Christians in prison, did it. Did your parents have any children that lived? Or did they raise a parrot?

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You repeated the claim, and seek to restrict the debate to within the fallacious claim you've hijacked this thread with, hoping no one would notice. What's it like to be a Compulsive Liar For Jesus?

No, I corrected your fallacious logic and attempted to steer you back on course so we could have a rational discussion. You seem to be perfectly content with dragging the discussion down rabbit holes about the irrelevant and then whining when I cast light upon your irrationality. Lying for Jesus? No, we live in a Christian Universe which means lying is morally wrong. Being logical for Jesus? Absolutely.

Where? What logic? How many times do you need to be asked to support the claim <without God there can be no morality> before it becomes abundantly clear to even you that it's an unsupported assertion, and calling it "logical" without any good reason to support it is circular?

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The same unsupported assertion, with nothing to back it up. What are you afraid of?

I asked you a question; I did not repeat any assertion. I figured you could not answer it.

Answer what? If you can't support your claim, there's nothing to disprove!



It's just you making dumb fucking assertions that aren't connected to reality.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Your holy book supports abortion, ordained and ordered by God. Red herring.

That’s actually false; even an accidentally induced miscarriage was punishable by death. They were far more civilized on the subject than we are today.

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”- Exodus 21:22 (NASB)

Hosea 13:16 - Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

2 Kings 8:12 - And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

2 Kings 15:16 - Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that [were] therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not [to him], therefore he smote [it; and] all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, you are the one who entered a thread and threw down presupposed claims with nothing to back them up that "Without God, people behave immorally," and then ignored the statistics that show you're full of shit. What's it like being that full of shit?

No, the original post was concerning a very specific Christian argument. Namely, that the very definition of goodness requires that God exists. If you want to be ignorant and think the argument is something else and waste your time arguing for the irrelevant by all means continue to do so. However, every time you run into a theist who understands the argument you are going to get drubbed just like you were against me. Your stubbornness and ignorance makes my job easy so I cannot say I mind it.

Sucks you can't support your claim, though. You keep on repeating it, and saying it's logical, but can't support it.

And not for lack of me asking you to provide logical reasoning. All you have is "nuh uh but there's no morals without God though."

(May 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Sniveling and backpedaling has no bearing on relevance. If you can't support your argument by anything other than bald assertion, tap out.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: First you claimed that your statistics refuted my argument,

Incorrect, your argument lacks support, and relies on presupposition. The statistics refute the plausibility of such a claim even being advanced.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: next you claimed that my argument was something different from the one in the original post, and now you seem to think it is something entirely different. It seems you’re going to have to get on the same sheet of music with yourself before any sort of debate is even remotely possible.

What argument? *Squak* "Ain't no morals without God! *Squak!* is not an argument. You came into this thread with a bottle of lotion and a box of kleenex, dropped your pants, and expect no one to ask just what the hell you think you're doing?

If you can't present and defend your argument -- which, by the way, should be posted in a separate thread, possible titles of which being:
"Who Wants to Hold Little Statler And Apply Lotion"
"Here's My Unsupported Claim: Make My Argument For Me"
Or "Morality Comes From God: But I Come To God"

Then you don't have a leg to stand on. You have a conclusion that is not supported, by anything other than your personal enthusiastic acceptance of anything apologetics shovels out.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 12:34 am)max-greece Wrote: Were we not social mammals the selfish attitude would be the more beneficial, however, being social animals its simply not how things are.

Then why do some humans kill, rape, and steal if they did not evolve to do so?

I've answered this question a couple of times now. In a way, you just have too. Some humans kill, rape and steal. This is exceptional behaviour and therefore not the norm. How many killings, rapes and robberies have you committed? I'm batting zero on that score - I'd expect you are the same.

The norm is cooperation and compromise.

Quote:

Quote: We know this through the history of our species. There are many examples of activities that would never have happened were my version of human morality not correct. Farming is an example. Can you understand why?

I do not see how this would require your version of morality to be correct. In Genesis man is compelled to work the fields for food. Additionally, I think the history of our species has taught us that many humans get very far in life by doing things that I am sure you and I would both agree are immoral.

Genesis? I have to ask at this point - are you actually a YEC? If you are then this conversation just became a bit pointless, however:

Farming started about 10,000 years ago. It requires considerable investment of time and energy and is done in the expectation that the farmer(s) will reap the rewards.

If your version of humanity were correct they would not have that expectation. They would be murdered and robbed as soon as their crop was ready by bigger stronger individuals. Even if they were foolish enough to have the expectation, wrongly, they would have been murdered and robbed to their surprise. Farming would have died out. To farm would be akin to a death sentence. It didn't. It wasn't. History began.

Quote:

Quote:Humans do engage in all the activities they are capable of. Some are moral, some are not. Implementation of the tools that support morality through natural selection is merely good enough to maintain the species. If it isn't, the species doesn't survive. No society condones murder or theft from individuals or groups it recognises as being part of that society. If it did, that society would be very short lived indeed.

If species cannot survive by murdering and raping one another then how come many species-including humans-murder and rape one another and seem to survive just fine? Moreover, if these actions are only immoral when done within a society are they then moral when done to other societies?

Intra-species murder is VERY rare amongst other species. Rape is also very rare but not as rare. The cooperative instincts apply to the group but when 2 groups come into contact there are 2 choices. Cooperate or war. Of the 2 cooperate appears to work better. In modern parlance cooperation is trade.

Quote:

Quote: Religion (and politics) act to identify non-group members within the society enabling people to murder, rape and steal from them with impunity, often with the blessing of their God.

Using your definition of morality what you seem to be complaining about would have to actually be classified as morally good. Since the vast majority of societies are religious then this must serve a particular survival advantage for those societies and therefore according to your definition would be a morally good belief and institution. Being non-religious would then be the outlier and therefore an immoral position.

This is where, if you are a YEC, we have a problem with further discussion. Religion is a fairly recent phenomenon. Humanity (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) got by without it for about 70,000 years.

This is not to say religion may not carry an evolutionary benefit - strengthening group identity, for example. But as with many evolutionary developments there are good and bad things associated with it. One of these is the strengthening of division between groups.

There are many examples of evolutionary change bringing costs. There are also examples of temporary benefit that ultimately become dis-advantageous. I would argue religion is in this category.

Quote:

Quote:You didn't understand what I was saying. Our natural behaviours are empathy, reciprocation and fairness. Those are the ones we can overcome to "do evil."

I do not believe that those are our natural predispositions at all. Humans kill one another daily, they steal from one another daily, they rape one another daily. I do not see how you are choosing which of these behaviors are normal and which ones are not when people do them all.

I cannot help what you believe. As I have already stated murder, theft and so on are the minority positions.

Quote:

Quote: No other animal makes war on itself.

I believe ants wage war. Chimps will fight and steal from other groups of chimps. Most apes will commit rape. Lions commit infanticide. All animals kill. How can you possibly reason from the premise that whatever animals do is morally good?

My bad - no other species wages war on itself. One species of ant may attack another but not, as far as I know, one of the same species.

Lions commit infanticide - true. But this is not a moral issue. I never claimed lions were moral. They work on instinct. Lions only commit infanticide under certain circumstances - when the old male leader of the pride has been replaced by a new one. The new one then kills the remaining off-spring of the old lion and the females respond by immediately coming into season. That way the new lion maximizes his chance of continuing his genetic line. As long as the new alpha male lion is in place no further infanticide will occur.

Quote:

Quote: Survival of the species is the driver for any and all species on the planet. We are no different. God has nothing to do with it. God is about establishing power and allegiance between humans for the lowest cost.

Are you saying that any action that helps to perpetuate the species is morally good?

I am saying the function of morality, or probably the founding principles of morality (empathy, reciprocation and fairness) are there to maximize the chances of species survival. I doubt you could expand that to "any action" without coming upon exceptions.

Quote:

Quote:No - it was morally abhorrent. You are correct, however, that religion is not the only way to get people to behave appallingly. Political ideology is a good substitute. In the case you mentioned it was communism but it could equally have been fascism.

Now wait a second, what if those acts did aid the survival of the Russian people? Would they then be morally good acts?

How would you even go about proving that? I'd work on the basis that Stalin killing some 40 million of the Russian people makes the question redundant.

Quote:

Quote:Within the society, yes, you would be considered morally wrong. Were you in a different place at the same time or in another time you would be considered morally correct. Its easy to see which of these 2 positions is correct - just compare to our inherited characteristics.

I am having trouble pinning you down on this. What ultimately determines whether any particular act is good or bad? The society you live in? Whether it helps the species as a whole? Whether other animals also do the act? I am having difficulty figuring out what exactly your position is.

The basic standard is empathy, reciprocation and fairness. How actions compare to those determines whether an act is good or bad. Will there be grey areas? Obviously - its one of the reasons morality varies so much from one culture to another.

Quote:

Quote:We determine good or bad morality by our inherited standard. Its not hard to do.

Inherited standard? You mean by what we “feel” is good or bad?

No - empathy, reciprocation and fairness.

Quote:

Quote: Interesting how useless God's consideration is, to us. What Stalin cared about is not the species concern. Ideally the species is concerned with is learning from the lessons of Stalin, or Hitler, Pol Pot and so on so we don't let those things happen again. Sadly we don't seem to be too good at learning. Maybe that will be the thing that actually kills off our species.

Why should Stalin have cared about the species? He got absolutely everything he wanted in life, why should he sacrifice his well-being so that humans who are born after he’s feeding the worms may benefit? This does not seem to make any sense. Now if there is a God who owns Stalin, hates sins, and possesses the ultimate prerogative to judge him for his sins after his material body has died then it would make sense.

[/quote]

Stalin was a malfunctioning individual by the standard measures (empathy, reciprocation and fairness.) The lesson to learn is how to stop individuals like him coming to power.

Your justification for God makes him even more useless than I would. How does it benefit anyone that Stalin is punished in the afterlife? Why did God let Stalin be borne in the first place. Was Stalin's free will (I am pre-supposing your argument here) worth the lives of 40 million Russians? Your God's morality appears wanting.

I'm going to chime in with my first post. I don't know if it's been mentioned already as I don't have patience to read the whole thread, but I think there is a evolutionary source of morality as well.

For example for a social species such as ours, it is beneficial for our survival if we can be accepted into the social group or tribe or pack or whatever. And so a mechanism has evolved in our brains that make us feel good when we do altruistic acts and feel bad when we do things that that are detrimental to the group.

Traits for behaviors that are harmful to the group (such murder, or greed) will lead you to be excluded from the group and decrease your survival chances. And traits for behaviors that are beneficial to the group (such as sharing food, or looking after someone) will make you more accepted into the group, raising your survival chances of yourself and the group and increasing your chances of passing on your good morality genes you could say. You know what I mean?

Bur if the Christian doesn't believe in evolution in the first place then this answer isn't going to be much good.

(May 17, 2014 at 6:06 am)sixchins Wrote: I'm going to chime in with my first post. I don't know if it's been mentioned already as I don't have patience to read the whole thread, but I think there is a evolutionary source of morality as well.

For example for a social species such as ours, it is beneficial for our survival if we can be accepted into the social group or tribe or pack or whatever. And so a mechanism has evolved in our brains that make us feel good when we do altruistic acts and feel bad when we do things that that are detrimental to the group.

Traits for behaviors that are harmful to the group (such murder, or greed) will lead you to be excluded from the group and decrease your survival chances. And traits for behaviors that are beneficial to the group (such as sharing food, or looking after someone) will make you more accepted into the group, raising your survival chances of yourself and the group and increasing your chances of passing on your good morality genes you could say. You know what I mean?

Bur if the Christian doesn't believe in evolution in the first place then this answer isn't going to be much good.

My point exactly - have some Kudos for your first post.

Now go and do an intro thread.

(May 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You seemed to imply we were only concerned with beings capable of moral thought yes. We can alter the emphasis though and allow them in if you like.
It’s morally wrong to torture animals because it hurts the animal and it is pointless? Why is it morally wrong for someone to inflict pointless pain? What if the person gets a lot of enjoyment out of it? I do not believe they would find it pointless then. What if they just think you are wrong? Is there a morlal imperative for them to follow your definition of morality? It just seems like you have an inherent knowledge of what is good and evil and you are contriving some sort of ad hoc definition of morality in order to hopefully support what you already know is good and to condemn what you already know is evil.

It's a simple logical deduction, Stat; what, does the idea that someone might have reasons for being moral frighten you? The question you have to ask when considering moral action is "what would my world look like if everyone was allowed to do this?" And you don't consider it from your perspective alone, because you aren't the only living thing and morality isn't just about what you want, but from the perspective of living beings. Why should inflicting pointless suffering be immoral? Well, because a world in which we allow everyone to inflict pointless suffering is a world that's demonstrably worse off for each individual person. As it stands, most of us at least know somebody who is a victim of crime, imagine that played out in a world where there aren't any restrictions on it.

The sociopaths and psychopaths that so often get brought up in these discussions, the "what about those people who like hurting people?" folks that you theists think are some clever counter to the idea of context-based ethics, they aren't representative of the entire population, and more importantly, bringing them up misses the point anyway, because I'm not claiming that morality is derived from any one person's enjoyment of a given situation.

There are probably people out there who'd take great pleasure from killing people; unfortunately for them, we live in a reality that isn't just some solipsistic fantasy, and their ability to seek out the things they enjoy must necessarily stop when it starts impacting others because that too would effectively hamstring the social landscape we've erected for ourselves.

Quote:
Well allow me to extrapolate then; therefore would the lives and well-being of more intelligent people hold more moral value than the lives of less intelligent people?

In a sheer potential sense, yes, I suppose so. However, within the system I'm discussing any harm done to a living being is to be avoided, making this a moot point. That said, you probably agree with me: in a binary situation where you have to save one person and let another die, would you save a healthy man, or one in a permanent coma? Would you save ten citizens, or ten life-sentenced prisoners?

Moral dilemmas are supposed to be difficult and uncomfortable, but just because there can be a hierarchy when we're backed against a wall doesn't mean the whole system isn't valuable. Especially since you have to add in a set of additional metrics anyway, like one's right to self determination; I mention that one in particular because I know your next move will be to propose a scenario to me in which we harm a certain group of people to advantage another, as though this will be a problem for what I'm saying. I hope to obviate having to explain yet another element of this system to you.

Quote:
I am sorry but I simply have to disagree. When an athlete is training and getting stronger they will experience pain in their muscles. Something good is actually happening however. Also, what about the people who enjoy pain? I am not one of them but we both know such people do exist.

Yes, and what's actually happening when those athletes train is that their muscles are tearing and being replaced by additional muscle tissue; it's not exactly the happiest of things in the world, now is it?

As to masochists, you're falling prey to a common misconception that they enjoy pain in general, which simply isn't true. If you stabbed a masochist they wouldn't enjoy it, because this is more than a simplistic "pain is good," thing; it'd be more accurate to say that masochists enjoy consensual pain that they can meter through various safety practices and safewords. And even if we took what you say as true, we also sometimes take a person's well being to be more important than what they might want to happen anyway; when a person is a suicide risk or a self harmer they generally aren't just allowed to continue without observation and help for a reason.

Quote:
That may be the case; although the earliest confirmed copies of the Analects we have postdate Christ by over 150 years and even postdate manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Be that as it may, all humans have a knowledge of the truth so Confucius was certainly capable of getting it right (Romans 1). However, in Matthew Jesus was referencing the Ten Commandments which significantly predate Confucius.

And there are Babylonian and Egyptian iterations of the golden rule that seem to predate the old testament by quite a margin.

Quote:You did not answer my question though. I hope you address it later on.

Did you ask a question? You just said that what I was saying sounded familiar.

Quote:
You’re begging the question, I asked you why someone should put the well-being of others above their own and you answered by saying because it makes things better for everyone. I get that, but that does not answer my question. Why should Joseph Stalin have treated others as he wanted to be treated when he became the most powerful man on Earth by doing exactly the opposite? If all that exists is matter and there is no life or judgment after death I think you’d have a difficult time convincing anyone in his position they should do anything different than what got them to that position in the first place.

And again, morality isn't about one person's benefit. The fact that I'd have a hard time convincing Stalin to step down from power for the benefit of others isn't a black mark against my reasoning; people can behave immorally, what a shocker! The fact that some people will decide to act immorally for their own personal benefit is no more a rebuttal to what I'm saying as it is a rebuttal of your own moral beliefs; after all, we both live in a world where this happens.

People can be immoral. I know: so what? If the fact that people don't have to follow what I believe to be our moral metrics is a problem for me, then it's equally a problem for you, so I guess that all our ideas of morality must be wrong because not everyone follows them, huh?

Quote:
What if we only did these things to other societies? We could still have things functioning in our society while treating the people in different societies terribly. This is what the entire antebellum slave trade was based on, whites figured out that as long as they enslaved the people from a society thousands of miles away they could still behave “civilized” in their own society and even benefit from the free labor. Was that morally wrong? This social contract utilitarianism sounds great but ends up being inadequate and rather arbitrary at times.

So, like, do you just seize on the first potential contention you think of, and then stop thinking of what comes next? Because from where I'm sitting, we live in a world that has benefited greatly from international cooperation and communication, and solely detrimented from international conflict. How much of our technology is developed by blended international teams? How much have we all gained from sharing our knowledge? All this stuff stops if we start sealing our borders and preying off of others.

Slavery is another one of those things that gets brought up a lot in these debates, and again the response is simple: self determination is an important concept for humans, both logically in terms of how it aids us in finding fulfillment in our lives, which in turn gives us a greater chance of being of benefit to the group, and psychologically. Additionally, slavery is bad for the slaves from numerous angles, and once again, morality isn't just about you, and it isn't limited to just one group or another.

Everyone participates in morality in some small way. It doesn't just stop at our doorstep. Why is this so difficult?

Quote:It’s only complicated if God does not exist because it’s then rendered incoherent and arbitrary.

Nope. Moving on.

Quote:
So? I do not see how that creates a moral imperative to do what is best for everyone rather than the individual. Furthermore, are you say that any act that benefits the society is by definition morally good?

That really depends on what you mean by moral imperative, Stat; I've already discussed the benefits, both personal and social, to following these moral metrics. If that's not enough, if you're looking for some externally derived force that should make us follow them, then there isn't one, and it's you that's begging the question by expecting that one should exist.

As to your second point, the answer is no, because morality is inherently contextual and I could not possibly account for every scenario one might dream up. Broad, blanket generalizations aren't very helpful here.

Quote:
What does that have to do with him? He was quite prosperous and I do not see how you can judge anything he did as being morally evil if there is no transcendent law-giver who owns everyone. If this life is all we are given and we all end up feeding the worms then why not put our self-interest above all other things?

Because morality isn't just about the individual, Stat. You keep attempting to ignore my definitions and force me to address this issue from a stance that you know I don't hold, which is weird. As to all this transcendent law giver nonsense, I find that a little hilarious; you're presenting Stalin to me as though his opinion differing from mine is a problem for me, and then to show how your system is better you appeal to... someone else's opinions.

It doesn't matter how magic that someone is, that's what you're doing. And so my question to you is, if god told you to become the next Stalin, would it be moral for you to do that?

Quote:
Why ought we to do so? I do not see how you are arriving at that.

Because we have a survival drive as a species that compels us to set up our descendants to survive? Because we love our children and would like them to live in a better world? Because we're naturally empathetic beings due to our evolutionary path as social animals?

Quote:No, I do good deeds now because Christ’s redeeming work made such actions possible, my fellow men are created in the image of God, and I am commanded to do so by He who owns all of creation. That seems to make more sense than sacrificing my well-being for other sentient bags of tissue whom may or may not even exist in the future, whom may or may not even benefit from my sacrifices, and who may or may not be kind to other sentient bags of tissue.

Do you also not ever eat food because it may or may not taste good? Uncertain does not equal meaningless, Stat.

Quote:
It was not answered though, you simply say because it helps everyone out, but I am asking why should a person help everyone? Simply because you say so?

Because helping people leads to real, objective benefits in our lives, according to criteria determined by our existence as biological entities that exist in an externally derived, objective world!

Quote:Yes it is. Sentient is defined as “having the power of perception by the senses; conscious (Webster’s)”; so it follows that if you are not conscious you are not sentient.

If I shake you while you're asleep, you'll wake up; your sense of touch is still active. If I make a loud noise, you'll wake up; your sense of hearing is still active. If I shine a bright light in your eyes, you'll wake up; your sense of sight is still active. etc etc.

Additionally, as I mentioned previously, there's a reasonable expectation that you'll return to full consciousness at a later time, and so your existence as a sentient entity has at most been suspended, not completely stopped. We're still capable of applying moral metrics to that person because in time they'll return to consciousness and have to deal with the repercussions of things done to them while they were asleep.

Quote:
How? If the two people never got caught then how can you say they did anything wrong given your utilitarian definition of morality?

Having broken a social contract and gotten away with it, it's possible they may do so again.

Quote:Is there a way to opt out of these social contracts or are they forced upon everyone? Who determines what’s in the contract? This just seems like a garbled mess.

Sure, you can opt out, but if you try to do so by negatively impacting other people they'll want to stop you, as it's in the best interests of everyone to do so.

And there's no "who," involved in what does into the contract, it's a system that changes and hopefully improves over time as we learn more and make mistakes.

(May 17, 2014 at 1:32 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because we have a survival drive as a species that compels us to set up our descendants to survive? Because we love our children and would like them to live in a better world? Because we're naturally empathetic beings due to our evolutionary path as social animals?

http://youtu.be/FRvVFW85IcU

Studies even show empathy is part of human nature from birth.