(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: i think the christians have a point here

from what i can tell most atheists still get their morality from fear of the law or being publicly shamed, a lot of which was originally to do with religious intervention

an example would be murder

i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it

And does the law or being shamed come from religion? The law is secular. so is social shame.

(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: i think the christians have a point here

from what i can tell most atheists still get their morality from fear of the law or being publicly shamed, a lot of which was originally to do with religious intervention

Only a psychopath/sociopath or the like would think that way. So this does not apply to most atheists or most people for that matter.

Quote:an example would be murder

i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it

Doesn't matter what the reason is (at least practically speaking). People are subconsciously conditioned to see killing, in most cases, to be wrong regardless.

(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: i think the christians have a point here

from what i can tell most atheists still get their morality from fear of the law or being publicly shamed, a lot of which was originally to do with religious intervention

an example would be murder

i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it

I can. For one thing, one would have many fewer avenues of succour in the face of danger; one could not call on the help of dead tribe-mates to help slay the lion at the cave's mouth. A solitary human hunter is much less efficient, not to mention much more vulnerable. In the modern world that interconnectedness is deeper, as you rely on doctors for you health, farmers for your food, laborers to build your shelter, and so on. And if you're willing to forgo those comforts, you're right back at a life that is "nasty, short, and brutish", without any family, lovers, or friends to ameliorate it.

Also, you might break your glasses:



Finally, how did you arrive at your assessment of "most" atheists?

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: That's your claim. You need to logically support this claim, otherwise it can and will continue to be dismissed out of hand.

Negative claims do not have the burden of proof so I do not have to support anything. However, you’ve supported it for me by being incapable of defining any particular act as good or evil without appealing to the existence of YHWH. Thanks again.

You haven't proved YHWH even exists, confirm that I don't except claims lacking evidence, and you expect me to accept "GodDidIt" as an explanation? Did your parents have children that lived?

What's the method of God transmitting morals to man? How do we grasp morality simply because God does? Why can we deem actions performed by God immoral if God is our only source of morality? Why does morality vary between people if God is unchanging? Why does moral consensus differ from the time the bible was written if God is unchanging?

You pretend to have presented anything of value, but the only thing you've presented is "God Did It, duh!" and then paragraphs of scream-crying about how no one has presented a better argument.

An argument from willfully maintained ignorance does not support your assertion that "God is the source of morality."

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Are you capable of presenting an argument to support this?

Whether or not I can is irrelevant because I am not required to do so; negative claims my child…negative claims. I do not have to support the claim that morality cannot exist without God any more than I have to support the claim that pigs cannot naturally fly.

Translation: You confirm aren't capable of presenting an argument to support your claims, and only by straw manning and questioning proven facts can you maintain the illusion that you've advanced even the most rudimentary argument.

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Hint: "Nuuuuh but you dunno whar yur moral come frum an um a geddum frum mah bible" is not good enough.

Tell us how a system of morality can exist in a purely material Universe; I am still waiting for you to support your claim that it is possible. Tell me how a pig can naturally fly.

I have, repeatedly, and you return to garbage about flying pigs. It's not my job to educate the willfully ignorant, go google it, and if you can't support your claims, stop making them.

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Social principles beneficial to a tribal animal.

…and you have already been told that this is a descriptive observation of behavior, since it is descriptive in nature it cannot be used to derive a normative system of behavior which is what morality is; so you fail. Can you explain how morality can exist in a purely material universe in a manner that is not illogical?

Argument from personal incredulity, deliberate straw manning, lying about what has been presented to you. And yet you claim to have a better grasp on morality than anyone else.

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Evolved empathy.

This in no way demonstrates that humans ought to feel empathy so you have not even begun to deal with morality yet. Humans evolved the ability to kill, rape, enslave steal, lust, and lie as well. Tell us how you know that humans ought to perform any of these evolved behaviors but not all evolved behaviors.

Well they did, so my advice to you would be to find a 2x4, cut a 4' section off it, and slam it into the back of your head until it aligns the neurons in your brain are aligned properly enough that you can understand observed facts are true whether or not you believe they "ought" to be, no matter how incredulous it makes you.

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: P1 Any behavior that is evolved is morally good.
P2 Rape is an evolved behavior
C. Therefore rape is morally good.

Does anyone believe this is a logically defensible definition of morality? Really?

You're completely ignoring empathy to straw-man and misrepresent what I just said to you. Not surprising: you don't seem to possess any without a list of instructions. You should check yourself into a psych ward before you hurt someone.

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Both are displayed in other nonhuman species.

Other non-human species rape, kill, and steal as well. Are these therefore morally good behaviors?

Christians rape, kill and steal. Are these therefore morally good behaviors?

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You claim these must come from God in humans, but have yet to tell us why you believe this, and support it with a compelling argument backed by evidence.

No, I am saying that in a purely material universe it is impossible to define any act as good or evil. Your argument above supports this beautifully since it can be used to define any evolved act as morally good. That’s even ignoring the fact that you’re committing the naturalistic fallacy by appealing to descriptive claims about nature in order to try and derive a normative system of behavior. It’s like we are a team, I make a claim and then you help support it for me.

Once again: The depth of your stupidity is absolutely astounding. How do you survive? Does it hurt? Do you often find yourself drooling while staring at a fixed point on a wall?

I appeal to observed scientific facts and research, and you call that a fallacy because it does not involve your invisible unprovable friend?

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Tonus Wrote: Theft, for example, is something that I would not want to have happen to me. Therefore I can reason that it is wrong to take something that belongs to another based on that.

You lost me, how did you get from “I do not want this done to me” to “therefore it is morally wrong”?

If you genuinely aren't capable of understanding how, I'm serious: you need to check yourself in to a psych ward before you hurt someone. You are showing very clear warning signs of psychopathy.

(June 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I do not have to support the claim that morality cannot exist without God any more than I have to support the claim that pigs cannot naturally fly.

Yeah... except that no one disputes if pigs can fly because "pigs" and "fly" actually have meaning, and describe actual observations in the real world. "Morality cannot exist without God" means nothing because a) you don't appear to understand what morality describes and b) nobody understands what God means.

Quote:Tell us how a system of morality can exist in a purely material Universe; I am still waiting for you to support your claim that it is possible. Tell me how a pig can naturally fly.

Have you ever read a book outside of the ones disseminated in your bullshit religion? Human beings live on a continuum of experiences, physical and mental, that involve states that be objectively evaluated and clearly defined. We do it with health, we can do it with general happiness, security, freedom, etc. This is pretty basic stuff in moral philosophy.

Quote:…and you have already been told that this is a descriptive observation of behavior, since it is descriptive in nature it cannot be used to derive a normative system of behavior which is what morality is; so you fail. Can you explain how morality can exist in a purely material universe in a manner that is not illogical?

What a load of crap. A sensible moral system is always descriptive of states in nature. You shouldn't lie. Why? Because of what your God says? No. Because it "needlessly complicates people’s lives, destroys reputations, and undermines trust," to borrow from Sam Harris. Why defend democracy over tyranny as a morally superior system of government? Because your God says so? Well, obviously, not. Tell me your moral positions in which human beings needlessly suffer. Oh, you don't have any? Gee, I wonder why? You, you do? Well, then stay the fuck away from me.

Quote:No, I am saying that in a purely material universe it is impossible to define any act as good or evil.

How dumb must one be to think this way? Is it impossible to define "red" and "up" too?

Quote:Your argument above supports this beautifully since it can be used to define any evolved act as morally good.

You really have no clue what people mean by morality, do you?

(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: i think the christians have a point here

from what i can tell most atheists still get their morality from fear of the law or being publicly shamed

(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: a lot of which was originally to do with religious intervention

an example would be murder

i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it

Christian torture of heretics



Man, God's inquisition was really great, wasn't it?



More Christians demonstrating their moral superiority:



The ultimate in Christian moral supremacy:



http://see_the_truth.webs.com/Inquisition.html

(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it

If you could murder everyone without negative consequences, you would be god.

I agree that most of us would behave very differently if the negative consequences for a particular action or actions didn't exist. But that is pretty obvious-- consequences are what guide the behavior of all thinking beings, whether deliberately or not. I think that few crimes are committed because the person in question did not fear the possible negative consequences. Rather, they feel that the possible rewards make the risk worthwhile, or are simply so desperate that they feel they have no choice in the matter.

I think that much of morality is programmatic; we receive it from our parents.

What a long ass name for a thread

My answer : We get morality from common sense, logic and modern society's views .

At least thats better than a getting morality from a book that allows slavery .

(June 20, 2014 at 10:40 pm)naimless Wrote: i think the christians have a point here

from what i can tell most atheists still get their morality from fear of the law or being publicly shamed, a lot of which was originally to do with religious intervention

an example would be murder

i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it

There's a word to describe people who can't think of reasons not to murder besides potential consequences: psychopaths.