3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[inocente]

I think that some people get the wrong idea about Harris. here’s a quote which briefly explains his views:

What I’m arguing is that morality, questions of good and evil, right and wrong, because they relate to questions of human and animal well-being, also entail truth claims about our world, human nature or the prospects of human happiness that fall within the purview of science. Otherwise, we’re just left to argue over preferences: things are wrong because we don’t like it or a majority of people don’t like it. independent.co.uk/news/science/the-moral-formula-how-facts-inform-our-ethics-2265991.html

I don’t always see eye to eye with Sam, but the comment above seems relatively straight forward and uncontroversial.

He’s one of the few moral absolutists around and tells a good story, for instance his TED talk promo’ing Moral Landscape. Only problem being that his absolutes seem based on measurements he’s chosen according to his own preferences.

 

[inocente]

You clearly don’t know what i’m talking about.

Ad hominem. Problem is, now no one can tell whether you’re out of your depth and trying to hide the fact you can’t argue your corner. I’m pretty sure I know exactly what you’re talking about, for the reasons stated. If you think I’m wrong, make a rebuttal.

 

[IWantGod]

Ad hominem. Problem is, now no one can tell whether you’re out of your depth and trying to hide the fact you can’t argue your corner. I’m pretty sure I know exactly what you’re talking about, for the reasons stated.

Well, the reasons you stated is precisely why i presume that you don’t understand my argument.

I have other suspicions but i don’t see the point in muddying the waters.

 

[inocente]

It’s really not so much about consequence though because rationalizations and excuse-making often are used to deny such things.

I was very surprised to find Catholics on CAF who use utilitarianism. It states that the moral thing to do is whatever gives the greatest well-being. But that’s it’s only measure, so any action is permitted if it gives the best overall score. In other words, the ends justify the means, which I think is absolutely verboten by the CCC.

Most people temper utilitarianism with moral absolutes, they just won’t do some things even if it produces the best well-being overall. For instance they won’t endorse torture under any circumstances.

 

[inocente]

Well, the reasons you stated is precisely why i presume that you don’t understand my argument.

I have other suspicions but i don’t see the point in muddying the waters.

Ad hominem. Saying I’m thick and ignorant and rolling your eyes isn’t a logical argument, is it? How about being an adult and treating others as equals, like the stickies say, like your Church tells you?

If you think I don’t understand you, either explain yourself or walk away.

 

[IWantGod]

Ad hominem. Saying I’m thick and ignorant and rolling your eyes isn’t a logical argument, is it? How about being an adult and treating others as equals, like the stickies say, like your Church tells you?

If you think I don’t understand you, either explain yourself or walk away.

I’m not saying you’re thick, but you certainly are failing to grasp what i am saying.

.

In other-words i’m letting you know free of charge that what you think i’m saying is not what i’m saying.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How about being an adult and treating others as equals, like the stickies say, like your Church tells you?

Still up to your tired old strategy, I see.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER!

 

[inocente]

But the fact remains that if God does not exist, and metaphysical naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as moral truth.
inocente;14802950:

Don’t see how.

I mean there are various secular systems of ethics which don’t depend on theism. Utilitarianism says the right thing to do is maximize well-being, and I’ve bumped into various Catholics on CAF who are fans of it, yet it has nothing at all to do with theism, it’s purely about material consequences.

Then there’s virtue ethics, which says virtue is the end in itself. Deontological systems not based on rules provided by God. And so on.

Like it or not, most modern ethics seem driven purely by secular concerns.

You clearly don’t know what i’m talking about.

Well, the reasons you stated is precisely why i presume that you don’t understand my argument.

I have other suspicions but i don’t see the point in muddying the waters.

I’m not saying you’re thick, but you certainly are failing to grasp what i am saying.

.

In other-words i’m letting you know free of charge that what you think i’m saying is not what i’m saying.

More ad hominem! I’ve asked you nicely and three times you’re evaded giving an answer, and instead alleged it’s all too difficult for me. And along the way, you’ve alluded desperately to some dark ‘suspicions’ and been sarcastic.

Virtue ethics says there are moral truths. For instance, Sartre, starting from an atheist position, starting from no essence before existence, finds there is a moral truth that you are not your wishful thinking, you are instead what you do. c.f. Luke 18 “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, …”.

 

[IWantGod]

More ad hominem! I’ve asked you nicely and three times you’re evaded giving an answer, and instead alleged it’s all too difficult for me. And along the way, you’ve alluded desperately to some dark ‘suspicions’ and been sarcastic.

Virtue ethics says there are moral truths. For instance, Sartre, starting from an atheist position, starting from no essence before existence, finds there is a moral truth that you are not your wishful thinking, you are instead what you do. c.f. Luke 18 “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, …”.

I don’t know what you’re getting mad about. If everybody was capable of grasping the truth we would all be on the same page. Don’t tell me that it is impossible that you do not understand? I don’t think you do.

If an absolute objective moral standard (God) does not exist, then all we really have is likes and dislikes. There is no moral truth. Stabling somebody in the eyeball, while it might not be likable, is objectively the moral equivalent of helping an old lady across the road. Value-wise there is no basis to make a distinction between these to acts beyond the fact that it is either what we want or don’t want. We may value those two acts differently, but objectively they are just physical events; they have no moral value. There isn’t a way that things ought to be. So telling somebody that you ought not put a knife in somebodies eye because its wrong is essentially a fallacy.

You can’t just make up a concept of moral truth and claim that it applies to everyone…

 

[Bradski]

Stabling somebody in the eyeball, while it might not be likable, is objectively the moral equivalent of helping an old lady across the road. Value-wise there is no basis to make a distinction between these to acts beyond the fact that it is either what we want or don’t want. We may value those two acts differently, but objectively they are just physical events; they have no moral value. There isn’t a way that things ought to be. So telling somebody that you ought not put a knife in somebodies eye because its wrong is essentially a fallacy.

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We might all agree that stabbing someone in the eye is something we shouldn’t do. And there are reasons for this. The first is that it hurts like hell (don’t try this at home) and having empathy, we sympathise with the person we are hurting (this assuming we are doing it for fun). And secondly, we don’t want someone stabbing US in the eye, and if we all went around doing it, then there would be an increased chance of it happening to us.

We therefore describe stabbing someone in the eye as being ‘wrong’. Because of the reasons given. If you don’t have any reasons, then you are left with a tautology. It’s wrong because…well, because it’s wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We might all agree that stabbing someone in the eye is something we shouldn’t do. And there are reasons for this. The first is that it hurts like hell (don’t try this at home) and having empathy, we sympathise with the person we are hurting (this assuming we are doing it for fun). And secondly, we don’t want someone stabbing US in the eye, and if we all went around doing it, then there would be an increased chance of it happening to us.

We therefore describe stabbing someone in the eye as being ‘wrong’. Because of the reasons given. If you don’t have any reasons, then you are left with a tautology. It’s wrong because…well, because it’s wrong.

But if someone says he doesn’t think stabbing someone in the eye is wrong…is he right to think this way?

 

[Bradski]

But if someone says he doesn’t think stabbing someone in the eye is wrong…is he right to think this way?

The reasons we describe it as wrong don’t change. So if someone says that he doesn’t think it’s wrong, he means that he feels no sympathy for his fellow man and wouldn’t mind if there was an increased chance of someone doing it to him. If he disagrees with that, then he doesn’t think it’s wrong (by definition), he just want to do it himself.

I’d class him as a sociopath.

 

[PRmerger]

The reasons we describe it as wrong don’t change. So if someone says that he doesn’t think it’s wrong, he means that he feels no sympathy for his fellow man and wouldn’t mind if there was an increased chance of someone doing it to him. If he disagrees with that, then he doesn’t think it’s wrong (by definition), he just want to do it himself.

So there you go. You’ve just become an apologist for moral absolutes.

 

[Bradski]

So there you go. You’ve just become an apologist for moral absolutes.

I’m really losing count of the number of times it has been pointed out by me and others that you do not appear to understand the terms ‘absolute’. It means (one more time) not relative to anything else. That is, with no CONDITIONS.

You might have read the CONDITIONS that I noted that are required for us to describe something as being wrong. That is, it is wrong IF…such and such.

So ‘stabbing someone in the eye is wrong’ is an absolute statement. ‘Stabbing someone in the eye is wrong IF…xyz’ is a relative statement. Stabbing someone in the eye BECAUSE…xyz’ is a relative statement.

It follows from my earlier post that there are always reasons why we describe something as being wrong. Otherwise the tautology. So anything that is wrong is wrong BECAUSE…xyz, or is wrong IF…xyz’. It is wrong RELATIVE to the CONDITIONS.

Please tell me that you understand this.

 

[IWantGod]

I’

It follows from my earlier post that there are always reasons why we describe something as being wrong. Otherwise the tautology. So anything that is wrong is wrong BECAUSE…xyz, or is wrong IF…xyz’. It is wrong RELATIVE to the CONDITIONS.

Please tell me that you understand this.

It seems to me that you are saying such and such is wrong because its not consistent with your ideal conditions (i want). But that doesn’t make something truly wrong. This is to say that while some behavior may not meet your standards for living it does not follow from that criteria that your standards for living ** is the way things objectively ought to be.** You are ultimately talking about a subjective preference about the way you want things to be and calling it moral truth.

Moral truth in that regard is meaningless.

 

[Bradski]

It seems to me that you are saying such and such is wrong because its not consistent with your ideal conditions (i want). But that doesn’t make something truly wrong. This is to say that while some behavior may not meet your standards for living it does not follow from that criteria that your standards for living ** is the way things objectively ought to be**. You are ultimately talking about a subjective preference about the way you want things to be and calling it moral truth.

Moral truth in that regard is meaningless.

Ah yes. ‘Truly’ wrong. Which means…well, I have no idea. Very, very wrong? Wrong because it’s not right?

If you can’t think of a reason why something could be described as wrong, then you can’t describe it as such. It may be wrong…perhaps you don’t have enough information to class it as such. Maybe all the details aren’t in. Perhaps it’s potentially wrong or maybe not.

Otherwise we are left with this:

I: That’s wrong.
B: Why?
I: Well, I dunno. It just is.

X is wrong because…

You just need to fill in the dots. And how you do that is (wait for it) up to you.

 

[inocente]

I don’t know what you’re getting mad about. If everybody was capable of grasping the truth we would all be on the same page. Don’t tell me that it is impossible that you do not understand? I don’t think you do.

If an absolute objective moral standard (God) does not exist, then all we really have is likes and dislikes. There is no moral truth. Stabling somebody in the eyeball, while it might not be likable, is objectively the moral equivalent of helping an old lady across the road. Value-wise there is no basis to make a distinction between these to acts beyond the fact that it is either what we want or don’t want. We may value those two acts differently, but objectively they are just physical events; they have no moral value. There isn’t a way that things ought to be. So telling somebody that you ought not put a knife in somebodies eye because its wrong is essentially a fallacy.

You can’t just make up a concept of moral truth and claim that it applies to everyone…

A week of insults from you, none of it called for, go back over the posts, I never said anything to warrant you getting emotional. Are you Scaramucci, did you just get fired from the White House for making ‘inappropriate’ comments?

Putting that aside, here’s what remains:

At the start, a week ago, I said “there are various secular systems of ethics which don’t depend on theism”. Then I gave examples, and gave another yesterday.

Finally you attempted a rebuttal, still ignoring those examples, with a not very exciting version of the no-morality-without-god claim made famous by William Lane Craig.

By chance I referred to that claim on another thread last week.

So it turns out I knew what you were talking about all along. Got the tee-shirt on all that some time ago. Moral:- we could have spent the time more constructively if you had been more open. Btw, all the ‘can’t be good without God’ arguments sound fine to start with, but all have lots of holes in their logic, and they all seem to end in legalism.

 

[inocente]

But if someone says he doesn’t think stabbing someone in the eye is wrong…is he right to think this way?

Do you mean a surgeon doing a cataract procedure?

I’m just curious how stabbing in the eye became the go-to example of an immoral action.

 

[Bradski]

Do you mean a surgeon doing a cataract procedure?

I’m just curious how stabbing in the eye became the go-to example of an immoral action.

IWG thought that without God, it was the equivalent of helping a little old lady across the street.

 

[IWantGod]

So it turns out I knew what you were talking about all along. Got the tee-shirt on all that some time ago. Moral:- we could have spent the time more constructively if you had been more open. Btw, all the ‘can’t be good without God’ arguments sound fine to start with, but all have lots of holes in their logic, and they all seem to end in legalism.

Well, without an objective standard of moral truth, all ethical arguments are just about what we want or what we think is best for us in relation to whatever agenda we have life.