- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stunning Admission By Renowned Atheist; Decline of Christianity is Hurting Society
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:16 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:16 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I have a basis for an objective moral standard: God's moral law that comes from His own holy and unchanging character.
Which god and how do you know his character or his laws? What unquestionable source do you have other than your own subjective personal beliefs?
1
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:17 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:So what you're saying is that someone who is suicidal that wants to shoot up a school (for example) cannot be objectively condemned as acting immorally? We might not like it, but we can't condemn it. That is the logical conclusion to such a view of morality.
Nothing, but such a person won’t last very long in our society which is the point.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:19 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:That's a utilitarian form of moralism that works so long as there is perceived benefit associated with with personal actions.
But see, that’s not really true. We may claim this to be the case but nearly all of us base our day to day actions around what provides us subjective benefit and what adheres to the social norms of our society. If I’m honest with myself, I stop to help an injured motorist not because there is an objective moral urge within me but because I know society expects it from me and I benefit subjectively from a society whether we all help each other survive
Why should I sacrifice my wants and needs for others if I don't perceive there to be a benefit to myself? And, what if I perceive there to be a benefit to myself by hurting others around me?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:20 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
There's no such thing as a conscience though. That conscience is nothing more than a few neurons firing one way and the other. There is no conscience as there is nothing beyond the biological that exists. Or there shouldn't be with a purely atheist view.
If you were agnostic or a general deist in some sense, without being christian, sure. But a real athetist should believe in no "thing" beyond the biological. Conscience is then just an illusion that we decide to accept, or it's a biological reaction that merely exists to continue the existence of the species and drive biologically based decision making that evolves the species. Nothing more.
this is a weak argument against atheism (or "what atheists should believe") and physicalism in general. non-reductive physicalism and epiphenomenalism both recognize the reality of mind states and their physical or what you are calling "biological" basis.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:21 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:The Biblical God and I know from what He has revealed to humanity through what we call the Bible.
Which god and how do you know his character or his laws? What unquestionable source do you have other than your own subjective personal beliefs?
A Biblcal worldview makes sense of reality, from truth to morality to induction to human value and dignity. There is a coherence that exists from a Biblical worldview that doesn't exist outside of it.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:23 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
So what you're saying is that someone who is suicidal that wants to shoot up a school (for example) cannot be objectively condemned as acting immorally? We might not like it, but we can't condemn it. That is the logical conclusion to such a view of morality.
Correct
Such a person will be swiftly punished and his actions discouraged because they do damage the functionality of our society and disrupt accepted social norms, but without an objective moral standard such a thing can not be deemed objectively wrong. Now if we establish our current society as the best model for subjective human happiness constructed thus far you could argue there’s an objective reason to dissuade such actions but it’s an argument independent of moral truth.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
their judgements are nothing but mere preferences; arbitrary opinions.
And if they agree then this point is pointless. Which is why you should ask.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:25 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Roger Klarvin
Well said.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Why should I sacrifice my wants and needs for others if I don't perceive there to be a benefit to myself?
You shouldn’t
quote:
And, what if I perceive there to be a benefit to myself by hurting others around me?
This is an urge most of us feel at some point and it’s almost always overridden by the perceived harm such an action would bring to us.
For instance, there are very few benefits I can think of which outweigh the high likelihood of spending most of my life in prison.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:27 pm to crash1211
quote:
Was this the case in the early 20th century or is it a recent thing? During that time and before they didn't have a problem with rampant violence or disrespect against others they felt were inferior to them.
The entire approach Japanese schools take toward education has changed radically since WW2. Thanks for asking.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
So what you're saying is that someone who is suicidal that wants to shoot up a school (for example) cannot be objectively condemned as acting immorally? We might not like it, but we can't condemn it. That is the logical conclusion to such a view of morality.
You're in the same boat.
If there is a Bible story where someone slaughters a school because God commanded it you... "can't condemn it. That is the logical conclusion to such a view of morality."
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:29 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Yes, in the old testament. The new testament clearly has a significantly different take.
Wow. It’s almost like morality changed.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This reduces morality to nothing more than a convention determined by each individual, or as I and others like to say, a preference rather than a actual moral ought.
I hate to break it to you, but this is the case with or without belief in God. That is the human condition, and is evident in any instance of corruption or counter-action within a church.
What of the "morality" of pre-Christian societies like the Greeks and Romans?
What of the evolution of Christian "morality" over 2000 years.
What about Judean morality? And the difference in morality of the Judean God and the Christian God, when they are the same?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:33 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Nietzsche called it over 100 years ago.
Nietzche's best thinking led him to the conclusion that life is only worth living if there are goals worth living for. Brilliant.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:38 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
One doesn't need physical evidence for something they feel themselves.
Bingo! This is called Faith.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:40 pm to Perfect Circle
Well duh
I am agnostic at most and I know that
I am agnostic at most and I know that
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:41 pm to bmy
quote:
2Kings 2:23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 2Kings 2:24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
Is this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:44 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
only God provides a rational basis for moral objectivity that allows us to meaningfully praise or condemn the actions of others.
this is a premise that you've accepted, not a statement of fact.
i could say the same thing about act utilitarianism, which can objectively define every act as right or wrong on the basis of the principle of utility.
the thing is, one has to accept the premise. whether it is christianity or act utilitarianism. so don't confuse the premise you've accepted for proof of that premise.
a good (but heady) book on the topic is alasdair macantyre's whose justice? which rationality?, which reminds us that every idea of morality or ethics has a underlying premise or tradition that we typically espouse due to preference.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:45 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
If humans are incapable of looking within to know what is right and what is wrong,
SO your parents didn't have to teach you not to take other kids toys? To play nice? Now just imagine if there wasn't any consequence to doing "wrong". Stealing, murder, rape, nothing. Would you still be the same person you are right now?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:46 pm to FooManChoo
I took a course in Catholic school that argued the point for an objective morality.. It did not sit well with me then.In college I took some cultural anthropology courses that helped me understand why it made no sense. I would suggest reading a wonderful book called Cows,Pigs,Wars and Witches by Marvin Harris..
Page 7 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News