What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[robvalue]

Right... so society's influence over us is greater than god's. Why did he set it up that way I wonder?

But if everyone has this morality from birth, how exactly can society go wrong? How did it get distorted enough in the first place?

Ah well. I'll leave you with those thoughts, I don't want to knock you around with my atheist drivel

Oh, that's awesome! I hope you all have a lovely time!

[PiousPaladin]

This has gone on long enough.

When you make something, say a fine painting do you allow other people to tell you what it is supposed to represent? Or do you name it and tell them what motivated you to create it?

This world is the creation of another, higher being. It does not matter what you think about it, these are the rules that have been laid out and can rest happily in the knowledge that the creator who is all good sees the full picture and formation we do not.

You do not get to question him, what he has decided goes. If you don't like it then well, tough.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thank you everyone again for participating in my thread. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

My parents and little brother are flying down to visit for the next few days and they will be here this evening! I've been cleaning up and preparing the place for them, so I will be unavailable for the rest of today until next week. :-)  

Thanks again, hope everyone has a great weekend!

Enjoy your time with your family, ma'am.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This has gone on long enough.

lol, it's gone on for 1700 years, because Christians cannot construct a convincing case.

When you make something, say a fine painting do you allow other people to tell you what it is supposed to represent? Or do you name it and tell them what motivated you to create it?

That doesn't negate the fact that the viewer is still a critical part of the process of creation.

This world is the creation of another, higher being. It does not matter what you think about it, these are the rules that have been laid out and can rest happily in the knowledge that the creator who is all good sees the full picture and formation we do not.

You do not get to question him, what he has decided goes. If you don't like it then well, tough.

... said six zillion jackoffs online. Take a number and stand in line, asshole. You'll get your turn when we're damned good and ready.

[Randy Carson]

DO ATHEISTS CONDONE RAPE?

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason

[abaris]

DO ATHEISTS CONDONE RAPE?

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason

What's that supposed to be? Tu quoque argument?

For the record, one despicable person farting out of his mouth doesn't make another despicable person doing the same look any better.

But in the case of the bible we're not talking about an individual. We're talking about a so called holy book including a manual for the aspiring rapist.

[Pyrrho]

DO ATHEISTS CONDONE RAPE?

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason

What's that supposed to be? Tu quoque argument?

For the record, one despicable person farting out of his mouth doesn't make another despicable person doing the same look any better.

But in the case of the bible we're not talking about an individual. We're talking about a so called holy book including a manual for the aspiring rapist.

It is supposed to be a tu quoque argument, which is fallacious, but it even fails at that.  Sam Harris in the quote does not say rape is okay.  The quote indicates that religion is worse than rape, not that rape is okay.

So we have a double failure on Randy's part.  See how efficient he is?  He can be wrong in more than one way with very few words.

[abaris]

It is supposed to be a tu quoque argument, which is fallacious, but it even fails at that.  Sam Harris in the quote does not say rape is okay.  The quote indicates that religion is worse than rape, not that rape is okay.

Yeah, I voiced my surprise he's resorting to tu quoque.

But in my case it's a triple failure, since for me Sam Harris is pretty much on the same lines as Randy. His argument is idiotic to use a friendly term, even if he doesn't outright condone rape. And that's the general problem I have when it comes to Harris. He's blurted out many dubious things in his career. I'm certainly not in his fan club and don't attribute him with any authority.

But let's not make this about Harris, since what Randy does, is painting all atheists with the same brush and never accepting that there is no general line of thinking, only individuals. As opposed to his ilk with their dogma and their holy book.

[Ben Davis]

I made it! It took me all week but I finally caught up with this thread.




Hi C_L, welcome back, hope you enjoyed your family visit. Although this will be my first post to you outside of your intro, after this mammoth read, I feel as though I've got to know you a little. Since there's been a lot of digression, I thought I'd pull this back to the OP.

Tonechaser gave you a great biological/neurological summary of what 'good' is and coincidentally described that the reason how we feel what is good is also the answer to the question why we feel what is good. I can't recommend enough that you read up on his post. I'd like to put that in to other terms for you: cogitet quod sit bonum ergo sum sit bonum - I think what is good therefore I am what is good. The nature of the arisal of any single moral impulse is necessarily isolated, unique and subjective. We know what we intuit as 'moral' and that's it; ultimately, we can know of the 'rightness' of no morals but our own. But humans are a social species: the development of this moral faculty was key to our evolutionary survival strategy of cooperation and we can observe other humans demonstrating 'moral' behaviour that we can judge is, to a greater or lesser extent, in line with our own. From there, we can decide whether other people are suited to cooperating with us in the execution of our individual survival strategies. This is how communities are formed. Due to this socially dynamic context of our species' development, we all share this moral faculty (with the notable misfires of sociopathy & psychopathy).

So that is how we know what is good: when we instinctively intuit that it is. Everything else is socio-cultural.




Addendum: Part of my reputation here has been built on my being a stickler for accuracy of definition and precision of usage (it's what I do in the real world, too) so I think that we can benefit from going back to basics.

objective
əbˈdʒɛktɪv
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, non-partisan, disinterested, non-discriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical
"an interviewer must try to be objective"

Facts are objective, objective things are factual. Simple, yes? That's they key to recognising your misuse of the term 'objective'. Facts/objective things are not subject to context. For example, it's a fact that matter attracts matter with a force in proportion to it's mass. There's no 'context' in which this becomes non-factual consequently, we can say that it's objectively true. So when you say, for example, that 'Murder is always wrong' but then list scenarios in which 'culpability is variable', you're applying contexts in which the term 'murder is always wrong' becomes non-factual. The moment you add that '...but...' to the phrase, you recognise the subjectivity of the wrongness of murder. Does that make sense to you?

[Cyberman]

This has gone on long enough.

When you make something, say a fine painting do you allow other people to tell you what it is supposed to represent? Or do you name it and tell them what motivated you to create it?

This world is the creation of another, higher being. It does not matter what you think about it, these are the rules that have been laid out and can rest happily in the knowledge that the creator who is all good sees the full picture and formation we do not.

You do not get to question him, what he has decided goes. If you don't like it then well, tough.

Well of course we get to question "him". 'Might makes right' and 'trust the powerful' are two excellent ways to become a hunted man, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. What makes you think this god is a him anyway, let alone a "higher being" (whatever that is)? Or that it created anything?