Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[The Grand Nudger]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15610-po...#pid362336

Where you first make the claim that I cannot give you a compelling reason for a subjective opinion.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15610-po...#pid362377

Where you acknowledge that my reason was in fact compelling..though again, as if by magic, you decide my opinion is no longer objective.

I did invite you, here
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15610-po...#pid362860
to elaborate upon this miracle. You declined. Par for the course.

And of course, your last post would be the second time you've decided to characterize my responses to you as desperation for reasons you are incapable of or unwilling to establish. I mean don't get me wrong John, I'll concede the argument to you if you're willing to state...in no uncertain terms.... that my opinion that vanilla is better than chocolate is an objective one. I just want to see my opinions about some fucking ice-cream elevated to objectivity one more time while you call me a liar. It's extremely satisfying. Just like vanilla ice-cream (that's also an objective opinion btw).

[Kirbmarc]

usually believe that it's a net evil, despite not being able to quantify it.

Religion is a net evil not because religious people are worse than non-religious ones (they aren't), but because the groundless arguments of religion can justify evil deeds in the name of an allegedly good purpose.

"Good" (empathic and morally sound) people are going to be good regardless of their religious opinion. The same is true for "evil" (sociopathic and morally unsound) people. The only difference that religion makes is that it drives good people to commit evil deeds for unproven good ends.

Of course this true for many other ideological constructs, such as communism or fascism, so all the philosophical concepts that promote a "the end justifies the means" attitude are a net evil.

[John V]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15610-po...#pid362336

Where you first make the claim that I cannot give you a compelling reason for a subjective opinion.

Yes, and you still haven’t.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15610-po...#pid362377

Where you acknowledge that my reason was in fact compelling..though again, as if by magic, you decide my opinion is no longer objective.

It’s not magic. It’s quite objective to dislike things that make you sick.

I did invite you, here
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15610-po...#pid362860
to elaborate upon this miracle. You declined. Par for the course.

That’s where you tried to limit the focus to “compelling” as you knew you had lost the battle on “subjective.”

And of course, your last post would be the second time you've decided to characterize my responses to you as desperation for reasons you are incapable of or unwilling to establish.

Incorrect. I explained that red herrings, being diversions, often indicate desperation.

I mean don't get me wrong John, I'll concede the argument to you if you're willing to state...in no uncertain terms.... that my opinion that vanilla is better than chocolate is an objective one.

I’ll state…in no uncertain terms…that it’s objective to dislike things that make you sick.

I just want to see my opinions about some fucking ice-cream elevated to objectivity one more time

Your position on chocolate isn’t an opinion. It’s quite objective to dislike things that make you sick.

while you call me a liar.

I’ve shown clearly that you’ve lied about my past statements.

It's extremely satisfying.

Likewise. I don’t even need to give you the rope. You just grab it and hang yourself with it.

Saying it’s subjective to dislike things that make you sick is just ridiculous, and it’s amusing for me to watch you stick to it.

---

@ Ryantology:

First, note that I said confirmation bias, not just bias. Confirmation bias isn't about misinterpreting facts, it's about correctly identifying facts, but only those that support your view.

Plain old bias is also an issue.

What if I said that mainstream American medicine is a net evil because it's the third leading cause of death in America?

The third leading cause of death part is a fact (or at least was, about ten years ago, and to my knowledge nothing significant has changed since then) and was reported in the JAMA.

However, my assertion that this shows mainstream medicine to be a net evil is faulty.

To claim a net effect, I obviously need to compare the deaths caused to the lifes saved. If I'm neutral re: mainstream medicine, failure to do this was sloppy on my part. If I was already against it, then it may be confirmation bias. I looked for the bad, but didn't look for the good.

You could further argue that some of those deaths would have happened anyway, and so should be removed or discounted. Of course, you should also note that some of the lifes saved may have recovered anyway.

You might also argue that some of the deaths (e.g. incorrect drug administered) was due to misapplication of medicine, and so shouldn't count against medicine per se.

Same thing with Christianity.

The first point is that you need to also consider the benefits of religion and weigh them against the evils in order to get a net effect.

Second, for both the good and the bad, you have to determine the likelihood that they would have been accomplished anyway. To what extent did political and economic factors cause wars that you attribute solely to Christianity? To what extent would social welfare have been provided without Christian charity?

There's just no way you can quantify all this.

---

"Good" (empathic and morally sound) people are going to be good regardless of their religious opinion. The same is true for "evil" (sociopathic and morally unsound) people. The only difference that religion makes is that it drives good people to commit evil deeds for unproven good ends.

As you have it written, your first sentence above contradicts the third sentence. Religion can't drive good people to commit evil deeds if good people are good regardless of their religious opinion.

[Kirbmarc]

As you have it written, your first sentence above contradicts the third sentence.

It actually doesn't. Having a good (empathic, morally sound) nature is not the same as only doing good deeds. Your religious choice doesn't change your nature, but it may affect the nature of your deeds.

Religion can't drive good people to commit evil deeds if good people are good regardless of their religious opinion

Good people can commit evil deeds, if they think that they have a very good reason to do so. Religion can provide that reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then stop acknowledging that I have. Of course it isn't magic, magic is ridiculous bullshit. Whether or not disliking things that make me sick is objective has precisely what to do with whether or not vanilla is objectively better than chocolate? I didn't limit the focus....and just as the situation panned out with you invoking the opinions and actions of a god..this was your doing, not mine. You claimed that I couldn't give you a compelling reason for a subjective opinion. You set this focus, this is your baby. I would have rather seen you address my criticism of the statement I entered the thread with, or make that "easy argument" about suffering. Ultimately I don't have any control over how much (and over what) you shit and run.

I'm glad you graced us with an explanation of how you feel about red herrings...which would be relevant, if any of my comments were red herrings, or indicated desperation. Since they aren't, and don't (at least in no way that you're capable of establishing) you might want to turn that microscope inwards....

That's nice, you think that disliking things that make you sick is objective, but what does that have to do with whether or not vanilla is objectively better than chocolate?

Well, we can probably imagine a person for whom this is in no way an objective issue. Perhaps they've ingested some toxin and finding something that induces vomiting would practically compel them to fall on their knees and thank their creator, but it does't really matter. Because whether or not it's objective to dislike things that make you sick has nothing to do with your demonstrably ill-thought out claim that I couldn't provide you with a compelling reason for a subjective opinion. Look, this is really easy, it's never too late to change your mind. If, on the other hand, you're going to continue claiming that my opinion is objective then man the fuck up John, and address the opinion I offered.

Is that what you think you've clearly shown? Well, opinions -are- like assholes..except mine..because mine are objective (so you seem to believe).

Man up John......Address my original criticism, elaborate on your argument about suffering, concede that compelling reasons can be offered for subjective opinions (or deny that my getting sick is a compelling reason)...do something other than arguing against yourself and calling people liars or desperate without establishing either. Even a well-founded accusation of deceit or desperation does not immediately dismiss the comments of others on it's own merit.

[John V]

It actually doesn't. Having a good (empathic, morally sound) nature is not the same as only doing good deeds. Your religious choice doesn't change your nature, but it may affect the nature of your deeds.

OK, I thought this is what you meant but wanted clarification. There are two issues.

First, we haven't established that there are such things as a good or evil nature.

Second, if we do allow for such natures, religion can also affect the nature of the deeds of an evil person, causing them to do good.

Good people can commit evil deeds, if they think that they have a very good reason to do so. Religion can provide that reason.

Evil people can commit good deeds, if they think that they have a very good reason to do so. Religion can provide that reason.

---

Because whether or not it's objective to dislike things that make you sick has nothing to do with your demonstrably ill-thought out claim that I couldn't provide you with a compelling reason for a subjective opinion.

As that's the only example you've given, it has everything to do with it.

[Kirbmarc]

First, we haven't established that there are such things as a good or evil nature.

What we define as "good" are empathic traits. "Evil", on the other hand, is composed by sociopathic traits.

Second, if we do allow for such natures, religion can also affect the nature of the deeds of an evil person, causing them to do good.

I really don't see how this could happen. A person with a large number of sociopathic traits (i.e. an "evil" person) isn't going to commit good deeds just out of fear of an alleged punishment. Sociopaths are stubbornly convinced that what they do is good, no matter what it is.

A religious sociopath is likely to become a religious extremist, possibly a violent one, not to join a charity.

On the other hand, empathic persons may acknowledge that they what they have done is bad. However, since they're less stubborn in their beliefs, they're more likely to be swayed by a charismatic "prophet" (usually a sociopath) and commit evil deeds because, at the moment, they're convinced that they have a good reason to do so.

A religious empath is just as likely to join a charity or support a law that tramples the rights of minority, just because he's been convinced that "it's the right thing to do".

Sociopaths are actually a minority, but they can become dangerous if they're put in a position of power where they can influence the actions of empaths and sociopaths alike. Ideologies and religions are a powerful tool in the hands of a charismatic, intelligent sociopath.

[The Grand Nudger]

As that's the only example you've given, it has everything to do with it.

No John, you need to actually read my comments if you're going to pretend to respond to them. I have a subjective opinion that vanilla is better than chocolate. Either you mis-spoke when you claimed that I could not give you a compelling reason for holding that opinion, you mis-spoke when you acknowledged that my reason was compelling, or vanilla is -in fact- objectively better than chocolate (and you're prepared to demonstrate that this is so). It's your call.

Again, I'd rather see you respond to my initial criticisms or elaborate on the suffering bit...but I have a suspicion (which strengthens with every passing post) that you are never going to get around to either. That you just wanted to say something...not that you were prepared to actually stand behind the statements and have a discussion about them. Empty, platitudinous shit.

[Darkstar]

It’s not magic. It’s quite objective to dislike things that make you sick.

Poison makes you sick (or dead), so is it objectively wrong to poison people? What if it was Hitler? Just because the is no perfect 'works in every situation' rulebook of objectivity does not mean that we can justify things like slavery by calling morality subjective. You said that the conversation with me was more interesting, but never answered my post. You don't need to go back; you can just leave off with this one.

Also, if you are a masochist who loves being sick, then disliking things that make you sick isn't so objective anymore, no is it? How far must something be objective (also applying this to morals) before we can reasonably consider it as something more than an opinion? You have drawn that line here, so could it be done with morals too? (I think so)

[John V]

What we define as "good" are empathic traits. "Evil", on the other hand, is composed by sociopathic traits.

I really don't see how this could happen. A person with a large number of sociopathic traits (i.e. an "evil" person) isn't going to commit good deeds just out of fear of an alleged punishment. Sociopaths are stubbornly convinced that what they do is good, no matter what it is.

A religious sociopath is likely to become a religious extremist, possibly a violent one, not to join a charity.

On the other hand, empathic persons may acknowledge that they what they have done is bad. However, since they're less stubborn in their beliefs, they're more likely to be swayed by a charismatic "prophet" (usually a sociopath) and commit evil deeds because, at the moment, they're convinced that they have a good reason to do so.

I disagree with your definitions and see it as an excluded middle fallacy. I.e., you're defining your position to success by limiting evil people to those who are so evil that they can't possibly change. I know a guy who used to get drunk every day and frequently abused his wife. He had a religious experience and is now sober for years and happily married. Seems like a formerly evil person who's now doing good to me.

---

Poison makes you sick (or dead), so is it objectively wrong to poison people? What if it was Hitler?

No and no.

Just because the is no perfect 'works in every situation' rulebook of objectivity does not mean that we can justify things like slavery by calling morality subjective.

I haven't claimed that the subjective nature of morality justifies anything. Justification is really a concept to be applied within a moral system, not across moral systems.

You said that the conversation with me was more interesting, but never answered my post. You don't need to go back; you can just leave off with this one.

IIRC you were going to give objective reasons for the superiority of utilitarianism to other moral systems, presumably Biblical.