Best books debunking Christianity

[vulcanlogician]

Would you prefer to be question begging in the context of hedonism or just flat out wrong in any context? 

Science assigns values all the time.  You could only be reasserting that they can't assign -these- values.....but without justification as to why these values are different from some other value science assigns, that's nothing more or less than special pleading.  I, personally...don;t have a refutation of moral naturalism.  I accept that moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties.  What else could moral properties be?  Are there some other kind of facts and properties?

I would prefer to be flat out wrong in any context, thank you, if I am indeed wrong. Being wrong in the context of hedonism is easy. Anyone who accepts a different monistic theory does that. I'm going to call bullshit on your question-begging accusation. It's not bullshit because I'm not a hedonist. It's bullshit because the argument from the scientific test of reality makes a valid point. If morality is objective, then scientists ought to have caught wind of it. Have they? No.  Is it for lack of trying? No. If scientists could prove moral realism, that would be their first order of business.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would prefer to be flat out wrong in any context, thank you, if I am indeed wrong. Being wrong in the context of hedonism is easy. Anyone who accepts a different monistic theory does that. I'm going to call bullshit on your question-begging accusation. It's not bullshit because I'm not a hedonist.

You can call bullshit all you like..but it won;t matter.  To assert "but science can't assign the value" is assuming that initial point of contention in your favor.  They are arguing that it can, and providing a justification for why it can as well as suggesting how. If you don;t think that's The Value™ then you wont be convinced by hedonism..but not because science couldn't assign a value to what they propose.

It's bullshit because the argument from the scientific test of reality makes a valid point. If morality is objective, then scientist ought to have caught wind of it. Have they? No.  Is it for lack of trying? No. If scientists could prove moral realism, that would be their first order of business.

A rolling series of non-sequiturs, and yet -more- question begging.

"If a cure for cancer existed, then scientists ought to have caught wind of it by now. Have they? No. Is it for lack of trying? No. If scientists could cure cancer that would be their first order of business."

[vulcanlogician]

I would prefer to be flat out wrong in any context, thank you, if I am indeed wrong. Being wrong in the context of hedonism is easy. Anyone who accepts a different monistic theory does that. I'm going to call bullshit on your question-begging accusation. It's not bullshit because I'm not a hedonist.

You can call it, but it;s accurate.  If a person tells you that value is pleasure, pleasure cn indeed by assigned a value.  To assert "but science an;t assing the value" is assuming that intitial point in your favor. 

It's bullshit because the argument from the scientific test of reality makes a valid point. If morality is objective, then scientist ought to have caught wind of it. Have they? No.  Is it for lack of trying? No. If scientists could prove moral realism, that would be their first order of business.

A rolling non-sequitur...but depending on the specific concept of objective morality we have in mind...they -have-.

Really? You're going to say that my logic fails here?  Look, science has yet to confirm any moral valuations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree. Strongly, lol. Is science incapable of confirming harm? If you bring a bloody person to a lab and say "Has this person been harmed"...are you going to get a bunch of blank stares and "No way to tell"s from the guys in the white coats?

(probably ought to be it;s own thread, we'll derail this shit in short order, btw)

[vulcanlogician]

I disagree.  Strongly, lol.  Is science incapable of confirming harm?

Look. I am a rational person. I understand logic. Can't you see where I'm coming from? Can't you see why I'm suspicious of your answer? I'm not trying to be a dick. I think I genuinely have a point. If objective moral truths exist, explain it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree.  Strongly, lol.  Is science incapable of confirming harm?

Look. I am a rational person. I understand logic. Can't you see where I'm coming from? Can't you see why I'm suspicious of your answer? I'm not trying to be a dick. I think I genuinely have a point. If objective moral truths exist, explain it.

Sure, np.  

So, let me ask you this.  Is there something about rape that makes it bad?  Is that something a thing you could demonstrate? Is it just my opinion..or your opinion..that rape is bad?  If we held a different opinion or changed our opinion...would it suddenly not be bad? Would rape, itself..be changed, because our opinion of it had changed? Would that something appear or disappear based upon our opinions?

---

-ask yourself all of the same questions about blasphemy, btw, if you want a counterexample.

[vulcanlogician]

Is there something about rape that makes it bad?  Is that something a thing you could demonstrate?  Is it just my opinion..or your opinion..that rape is bad?  If we held a different opinion or changed our opinion...would it suddenly not be bad?  Would rape, itself..be changed, because our opinion of it had changed?

-ask yourself all of the same questions about blasphemy, btw, if you want a counterexample.

Rape is bad because the results of rape are bad. The satisfaction that a rapist may feel, having satisfied his interpersonally destructive urge to sexually control another, does not nullify the pain that his victim feels.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, we could go that way with it.  So why were you asking me to provide you with objective moral truths?  You seem capable. Bonus round: Does your explanation for why rape is bad refer to something -other- than natural properties and facts (of rape, of human psychology, of human biology)?

[Brian37]

Look. I am a rational person. I understand logic. Can't you see where I'm coming from? Can't you see why I'm suspicious of your answer? I'm not trying to be a dick. I think I genuinely have a point. If objective moral truths exist, explain it.

Sure, np.  

So, let me ask you this.  Is there something about rape that makes it bad?  Is that something a thing you could demonstrate?  Is it just my opinion..or your opinion..that rape is bad?  If we held a different opinion or changed our opinion...would it suddenly not be bad?  Would rape, itself..be changed, because our opinion of it had changed?  Would that something appear or disappear based upon our opinions?

---

-ask yourself all of the same questions about blasphemy, btw, if you want a counterexample.

What are we talking about here?

Rape is an UNFORTUNATE part of evolution, so on that context it is neither good or bad. But humans also evolved with fight or flight, and not just with rape, but with any act of aggression the victim will have a response to it, and in that context to that individual it most certainly BAD.

Your body is your ultimate resource, so when it is overpowered you respond to that invasion. Rape would not be considered a crime if humans liked it. Robbery would not be a crime either if humans liked it. It is ultimately bad to the individual victim because it is an invasion and destruction of their own control.

[vulcanlogician]

Sure, np.  

So, let me ask you this.  Is there something about rape that makes it bad?  Is that something a thing you could demonstrate?  Is it just my opinion..or your opinion..that rape is bad?  If we held a different opinion or changed our opinion...would it suddenly not be bad?  Would rape, itself..be changed, because our opinion of it had changed?  Would that something appear or disappear based upon our opinions?

---

-ask yourself all of the same questions about blasphemy, btw, if you want a counterexample.

What are we talking about here?

Rape is an UNFORTUNATE part of evolution, so on that context it is neither good or bad. But humans also evolved with fight or flight, and not just with rape, but with any act of aggression the victim will have a response to it, and in that context to that individual it most certainly BAD.

Your body is your ultimate resource, so when it is overpowered you respond to that invasion. Rape would not be considered a crime if humans liked it. Robbery would not be a crime either if humans liked it. It is ultimately bad to the individual victim because it is an invasion and destruction of their own control.

So Khemikal and I are returning to a debate which started last week. Oddly enough, it is over something we agree on: moral realism (aka the belief that morality is a real, objective thing, not a subjective phenomenon). You speak of morality on subjective terms, a notion we reject. (Although I should be careful not to speak for Khemikal here.) By the way, Khem, sorry I just kind of bolted last time; I was getting pretty drunk and experience has taught me to avoid the internet in those circumstances. (Hopefully you will never learn that I often forget the lessons taught to me by experience.)

Anyway, I think that error theorists have put together a reasonable argument for moral nihilism-- one for which I can find no easy reply. Our debate centers around the second premise of the following argument:

-quoted from The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau-

1. If science cannot verify the existence of X, then the best evidence tells us that X does not exist.
2. Science cannot verify the existence of objective moral values.
3. Therefore, the best evidence tells us that objective moral values do not exist.

One response to the second premise is moral naturalism which is the idea that moral values (take your pick: happiness, satisfaction of desires, egoism etc.) are measurable through scientific means. If you want more info check like page 5 of my thread on "I don't know as a good answer in ethics."

I see his point, actually. But the thing is, I'm already a moral realist. The purpose of the argument is to say that, if your knowledge was a sort of tabula rasa, and not pre-filled with cultural prejudices, that science would in no way lead you to accept moral objectivism. I think his counterarguments miss the point of premise 2. He says that science discovers values all the time. (Ex: the value of breathable air, or antibiotics, etc.) I don't feel comfortable articulating his arguments any further, so consider that a "synopsis" on my part which may be partially erroneous.

You may have wanted the short answer: we're philosophy nerds. Either way, that's what we're debating.

---

The universe really is beautiful isn't it, i have many more questions than answers, isn't that exciting and wonderful to live in such an era of discovery and casting off of old ways of thinking.

...

I can learn to love all peoples without judging from a religious point of reference about their chosen lifestyle, though like you mention I believe that gay people are simply made that way, just like I am made a heterosexual I no longer have to say things like 'you are in sin, but god loves you anyway' I can simply say 'I love you', without casting my prejudices and excuses on an imaginary god.

Like yourself there was a time when the thought of a universe with a god was inconceivable and as I listen to the theists on here I don't doubt that they believe, but I also know they have to keep accepting what now I see clearly as an untenable compromise from day to day, they make the same excuses and replies I used to make, and now instead of feeling pity for the lost (as it were) I feel empathy for the so called saved.

It really is an incredible journey, Possibletarian. And, IMHO, questions typically contain more intellectual integrity than so-called "answers." I have placed in bold two signifiers that I think show your indoctrination from your many years as a believer. It's not just thoughts that religion endorses, but a way of thinking. And that can be hard to shake. Even atheists are challenged with shaking off old, false ways of thinking; theists are not unique in this regard. Like you, I have a deep respect for believers, and I empathize with them as well. It's not like atheists have "figured out" anything that theists haven't. One of my favorite thinkers and authors is Leo Tolstoy. This guy was seriously frikkin' Christian, but I do enjoy his thoughts on a number of matters and would never think that my thoughts are more valid than his because he is a Christian. Atheism is my way-- not an opposition to the way of others.