Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Does my level of knowledge on the subject of moral realism increase or decrease based on your opinion, or is there a fact of the matter?

Exactly what I would say about your moral realist morals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does the moral nature of curbstomping a kid change based on the opinions of a god, or is there a fact of the matter?

[ayost]

Does the moral nature of curbstomping a kid change based on the opinions of a god, or is there a fact of the matter?

For this conversation I will concede that there is no God. We can take God out of the picture. We will use your worldview.

Now, how do you make an argument for an objective moral fact when you have no reference for anything outside of your own experience, opinion, or mind?

Your statements about the moral nature of curbstomping a kid are just the result of your brain fizz. Even worse, it's neither good or bad, it's just how you evolved. The results of random mutations, time and chnace, brought you to the arbitrary conclusion that curbstomping a kid is wrong. What's objective about that?

What's your brain fizz got to do with me?

---

Does the moral nature of curbstomping a kid change based on the opinions of a god, or is there a fact of the matter?

For this conversation I will concede that there is no God. We can take God out of the picture. We will use your worldview.

Now, how do you make an argument for an objective moral fact when you have no reference for anything outside of your own experience, opinion, or mind?

Your statements about the moral nature of curbstomping a kid are just the result of your brain fizz. Even worse, it's neither good or bad, it's just how you evolved. The results of random mutations, time and chnace, brought you to the arbitrary conclusion that curbstomping a kid is wrong. What's objective about that?

What's your brain fizz got to do with me?

Because I'm so open minded, if you can convince me that your brain fizz has anything to do with me, I will concede the point that curbstomping a kid is wrong and I'll never do it again.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just told you how. I reference facts of the matter. That's what moral objectivity is. I could say that it hurts people, and you won't have to take my word for it. We could measure it in pints of blood or lost teeth or broken bones or years of mental health issues. We could measure it in the cost of treatment.

I mean, feel free to correct me, but if you found yourself seeking damages from someone who curbstomped your kid on account of all the harm it did...and that dipshit went "well..that's just like..your opinion..man"..you might curbstomp him.

You don't really have to leave a god out here...because in a world with or without a god..this is what it takes to mount an objective moral claim. Has literally nothing to do with whether gods exist or what they want, and even if they did exist and did want things, these are the criteria.

[pocaracas]

And there it is, boys and girls.
The "I've seen it all" argument, again.

I appreciate all of the work you put into that post, but we are going in circles citing authors that support our side. I know what these secular scholars say.

I was under the impression that I cited a Christian scholar. Let me double check...

Not explicit, but it seems like James D. Tabor is a man of god.

"Tabor was born in Texas but lived all over the world as the son of an Air Force officer. He was raised in the Churches of Christ and attended Abilene Christian University, where he earned his B.A. degree in Koine Greek and Bible. While earning his M.A. from Pepperdine University he taught Greek and Hebrew part-time at Ambassador College, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and president of the Worldwide Church of God. "


Bart Ehrman, however, is well known for not believing in these things.

I also know I could teach someone about the death of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice from any one of the Gospels. But besides that I'm also OK with theology developing. Not in the sense that new beliefs developed that didn't originate with Jesus, but in the sense that the pinpoint language used to describe them grew, for example the trinity. And that's what Paul does, he develops the words used to express the theology that was taught by Jesus and the OT.  

No, that's not what Paul does.
That's what the whole collection of intellectuals who came to believe in the version of Paul has come up with to quell your questioning of what happened in this time period. I tip my hat to them, for I too see no shred of original thought coming from you.

I have read these arguments and I don't find them compelling. You're not giving me anything new that I haven't already sifted through. And that's not a criticism of you by any means, just that we aren't going anywhere or adding anything new. Same evidence, different understanding of that evidence. I'm not trying to be rude, I've just already gone through this.

If you already went through this, then humour me. What was always the outcome for the other party?

I know you will accept the immaterial mind that emerges from the material brain, you just won't be able to justify that belief.

LOL.
I experience it, every waking hour of my existence.
I think, therefore I am.

Then I need to be slightly pragmatic in the assumption that I am also a physical body with a brain and notice that this brain is what brings forth my mind.
If you want to read up on this, I strongly advise a pop-sci title "The Tell-Tale Brain", by Ramachandran. Very easy to follow.

Then I have to be further pragmatic and believe what my body's sensors convey in as much as there is a world out there and people... other people that have similar bodies to my own... and, hearing them talk or reading their writings, they seem to have thoughts similarish to mine.

Now tell me, how do you justify your belief?

---

We've got another one that's confused a fairy's subjective whims for an objective system.

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

Actually, that is a mighty big IF.

One has to establish that a god exists. Not done given the clear requirement of belief.
One has to establish that this god is the standard of truth. Not done - a cursory reading of any holy text can attest to this.
One has to establish that this god somehow gives his standard for morality. Not done - at best, we got 10 rules where 3 of them are all about worshipping god.


How much simpler it is to consider that anything that increases the amount of suffering is morally bad and whatever decreases the amount of suffering is morally good?
Sure, suffering is somewhat subjective, but one can consider the average of humanity suffering instead and that is as objective as you can get, as it's not attached to any particular individual.

[ayost]

I just told you how.  I reference facts of the matter.  That's what moral objectivity is.  I could say that it hurts people, and you won't have to take my word for it.  We could measure it in pints of blood or lost teeth or broken bones or years of mental health issues.  We could measure it in the cost of treatment.

I mean, feel free to correct me, but if you found yourself seeking damages from someone who curbstomped your kid on account of all the harm it did...and that dipshit went "well..that's just like..your opinion..man"..you might curbstomp him.

How many teeth? How many pints of blood? How many broken bones? How many years? How much cost?

None of that is objectivity.

I don't doubt that you think it's wrong. But what's that got to do with the rest of us? You can't justify that it's wrong. There's a big difference between thinking it's wrong and objectively knowing it's wrong.

I know this sounds ridiculous but there are real world examples, slavery and abortion being the low hanging fruits.

[The Grand Nudger]

The kid either was or wasn't harmed, either did or didn't lose blood, either did or didn't lose teeth, either does or doesn't have broken bones, ayost. That's exactly what objectivity is.

No, just because a thing is objectively true doesn't mean that a person couldn't get it wrong. I might ask you what the answer to 1+1+1 is..and you might say 1..for example. It's objectively true that much of what you've posted about your own religion is false - and I see you're still here asserting otherwise. If gods morality were objectively true..it really wouldn't matter whether you got it wrong, either..would it?

Charitably speaking, moral realism suggests that a great deal of the time that people are in moral error, it's because they're misinformed of relevant facts, or lack relevant facts. Uncharitably, that people are well appraised of the moral facts of a matter, accept those facts, and still feel compelled to do whatever bad thing they've cooked up. So, you see, I don't need you to agree with me anymore than an elementary math teacher needs you to agree with her, or god needs you to agree with him. People disagree about facts all the time.

[ayost]

How much simpler it is to consider that anything that increases the amount of suffering is morally bad and whatever decreases the amount of suffering is morally good?
Sure, suffering is somewhat subjective, but one can consider the average of humanity suffering instead and that is as objective as you can get, as it's not attached to any particular individual.

I wasn't trying to be cocky, I was just saying that we can copy/paste our favorite authors back and forth into perpetuity. I've read these positions and if I were to be convinced by them I would have been by now. I choose to believe the opposing opinion.

As far as your moral stance, let's take an easily real world example of anything that increases the amount of suffering is morally bad and whatever decreases the amount of suffering is morally good

There's a huge problem with the foster care system. Foster kids are subjected to terrible abuse. There is a lot of suffering of children at the hands of awful people. An unimaginable amount of suffering. We could reduce that suffering by humanely killing all of the foster children. Now, I'm assuming an atheist worldview here, so once they are dead it's over. They're orphans so there's no family to grieve. There's no God so there's no eternal suffering. They cease to exist so their pain is gone. By your definition, killing abused foster kids reduces suffering and is therefore morally good. Keeping them alive increases suffering and is morally bad.

Now, we can try to tip the suffering scale to the side of immoral and calculate the collateral suffering that may happen or any other arbitrary factor you want, but the truth is we don't have a Minority Report Suffering Meter that tells us the precise amount of upcoming suffering so it's all just hypothetical guesswork anyways.

Whether you like it or not, I just made the claim that killing foster kids is moral using your definition of moral. Would you agree, under those circumstances, that killing foster kids is moral?

Now before you say that would never happen it already does happen with abortion. We can hash out are fetuses babies, I guess, but I would be willing to limit my definition of "baby' to super late term abortions just to make my point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stopping the abuse doesn't come to mind? Straight to killin the kids? You sound positively abrahamic. Something tells me, however, that someone might suffer if you killed all the kids. Just a lil bit. kinda.

-but maybe that's just, like, my opinion man? Can we really know if killing all the kids causes immense suffering?

[ayost]

The kid either was or wasn't harmed, either did or didn't lose blood, either did or didn't lose teeth, either does or doesn't have broken bones, ayost.  That's exactly what objectivity is.  

No, just because a thing is objectively true doesn't mean that a person couldn't get it wrong.  I might ask you what the answer to 1+1+1 is..and you might say 1..for example.  It's objectively true that much of what you've posted about your own religion is false - and I see you're still here asserting otherwise.  If gods morality were objectively true..it really wouldn't matter whether you got it wrong, either..would it?

Charitably speaking, moral realism suggests that a great deal of the time that people are in moral error, it's because they're misinformed of relevant facts, or lack relevant facts.  Uncharitably, that people are well appraised of the moral facts of a matter, accept those facts, and still feel compelled to do whatever bad thing they've cooked up.  So, you see, I don't need you to agree with me anymore than an elementary math teacher needs you to agree with her, or god needs you to agree with him.  People disagree about facts all the time.

Ok, so his physical body was objectively injured. Broken nose, lost some teeth, lost some blood. That makes that immoral.

By that standard, a plastic surgeon performing a rhinoplasty and full mouth dental implants is immoral. Broken nose, lost some teeth, lost some blood. It's what it objectively is.

Also who's to say that objective bodily injury is immoral? Is sex where they inflict pain on each other immoral? Is MMA immoral? Is rugby immoral? It's what it objectively is.

And once again, you assume facts is a concept that even exists in the world, but really its just how your brain fizzes when it gets outside stimuli.