(July 17, 2015 at 3:04 am)Godschild Wrote: What I *want* do is be treated like a pile of crap an not speak up

You know I've pointed out that you should correct your use of this word before GC but you ought to consider it. This reads the opposite to what you intended, i.e. you are asking to be treated like a pile of crap. You should write "what I won't do..."

The other spelling mistakes don't matter so much but this one reverses the meaning of your sentence, so you should try to correct it. Seriously GC, I know I have digs some evenings after a few JDs but I'm trying to help you get your points across a bit clearer here.

(July 17, 2015 at 12:49 am)Godschild Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: My lack of belief costs me exactly 0 effort. It's deeply fascinating how NOT doing something, unlike the mental gymnastics, compartmentalization and double think maintaining belief requires can be so easy.

The cost could be high if you're wrong. If Christianity was as you described it would be troublesome, it's not, it's all good.

GC

I have absolutely no idea what you just said. If that's a Pascal, I'm going to cry.




....of laughter

(July 16, 2015 at 1:25 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Faith No More Wrote: In what universe was that a valid response to what was said to you?

Whenever GC has nothing, he'll throw out a non sequitur wrapped in a flaccid insult.

With how little he brings to the table, it's practically a drinking game at this point.

Can we make this a thing? This should be a thing. 

(July 16, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 5:08 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: I fully agree with your statements.  Belief and faith must be based on evidence of reality.  My belief is evidence based.

Please open another thread and provide your evidence. 

As an open minded person, I am always looking for evidence, and if it is compelling, (demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable), I am willing to alter my views.

But if your evidence is: the Bible, personal experience, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, etc or any of the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god (Kalam, ontological, teleological, TAG, Anselm, etc), please spare us.

If you have a presupposition to diametrically oppose a lot of the key arguments then I hardly call that open-minded.  I understand you are familiar with a lot of those arguments, and I have used some of those in my defenses before, but for me the very first argument I would use and really the only one I feel I need is an argument from morality, showing that with no ontic referrent the atheistic worldview has no definition of morality, meaning, and no hope but of course this could be viewed as arguing from the negative.  If you would like to have a discussion on that, I could open a thread.  Just give me some time to put on my flame retardant suit.

Morality is very easy to explain, actually. Evolution. We evolved as a cooperate species. Those that cared about others and looked after those around them as well as themselves did better, so those qualities are prevalent. These are what we are likely to pass on to our children, and to learn from society as well. This explains why there is an overlap in a lot of topics of morality, and also why there is no consensus. We're all individuals.

Morality is about increasing the wellbeing of those you think are important, and minimising harm to the same. There is no cosmic "right and wrong" about it, that makes no sense.

Once you've decided what is important, let's say human life, you can rate actions as more moral than others, at least very broadly. Helping someone cross the street is more moral than smashing their head in with a rock. Evolution plays a big part in what we find important.

Be careful not to conflate real world morality (wellbeing versus harm) and religious morality (what an undemonstrated being wants to happen). They are totally seperate things.

I understand that theists often feel uncomfortable with there being no supreme judge of "right and wrong". But as I explained, no such judge is necessary. We are the judges, and we decide together.

(July 17, 2015 at 9:22 am)robvalue Wrote: Morality is very easy to explain, actually. Evolution. We evolved as a cooperate species. Those that cared about others and looked after those around them as well as themselves did better, so those qualities are prevalent. These are what we are likely to pass on to our children, and to learn from society as well. This explains why there is an overlap in a lot of topics of morality, and also why there is no consensus. We're all individuals.

Morality is about increasing the wellbeing to those you think are important, and minimising harm to the same. There is no cosmic "right and wrong" about it, that makes no sense.

Once you've decided what is important, let's say human life, you can rate actions as more moral than others, at least very broadly. Helping someone cross the street is more moral than smashing their head in with a rock.

Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler held this same viewpoint, but came to very different conclusions than you on what was the moral thing to do.  If you hold to the relativistic basis of morality how can you claim that smashing someones head in with a rock is less moral?  Maybe for you.

Without on ontic referent you cannot define what is "right" and "wrong".  You can build a structure, but without a foundation it will collapse.

You want there to be a "right answer", I get it. But there is no right answer. There is only us, judging the actions of ourselves and others. If God said Hitler was "right", would you accept that? The OT god is far worse than Hitler, by the way.

Hitler thought he was moral presumably, yes. Generally we think he was not. An action is not inherently moral or immoral, it requires an agent to judge and a standard to compare to.

And theists cannot agree either! So where does that leave you? That means you're all wrong too, by this argument.

(July 17, 2015 at 9:32 am)robvalue Wrote: Hitler thought he was moral presumably, yes. Generally we think he was not. An action is not inherently moral or immoral, it requires an agent to judge and a standard to compare to.

The latter part of this sentence is my point exactly.  What judge and what standard?  If morality is relative then those that hold an atheistic worldview cannot logically condemn any act as immoral without claiming to be an individual egoist or classical amoralist.

At the end of the day, our dna, our animal instincts tells us what is right or wrong... The laws just tweak...

No, we don't condemn it as inherently immoral. We judge it as immoral. Being atheist or theist is irrelevant. You do the same, you look at something and judge it as immoral or moral, right? If it's not your opinion, at best it's god's opinion. Still an opinion. Why should I care about his opinion? If he says its moral to kill someone for working on a Sunday, why should I care? I think it's immoral so I won't do it.

Morality is an opinion, at the end of the day.

If you think otherwise, please define what morality means to you.