DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Omega on October 05, 2011, 02:03:17 PM
-
https://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/theres-probably-no-dawkins.htm (https://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/theres-probably-no-dawkins.htm)
:lol Hilarious, right?
Remember those buses in England that were brandished with the ads: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"? Well, William Lane Craig's campaign has brandished their own ad on several buses in the UK that hilariously state "There's probably no Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy Oct. 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre" after not only Dawkins, but AC Grayling and the British Humanist Association's President Polly Toynbee outright refused to debate William Lane Craig in his tour in the UK (which is painfully ironic as the British Humanist Association's website states that one of its main motivations and obligations is to participate engage in any and all public debate and discourse about atheism / humanism, etc) . Dawkins was invited to defend his book, "The God Delusion" at the Sheldonian Theatre. Lane Craig plans on placing an empty chair should Dawkins suddenly change his mind and agree to defend his own book! Perhaps the most disappointing refutation to debate comes from Dawkins, who was invited to defend the "arguments" he crafted in his infamous "The God Delusion" as William Lane Craig *refutes* them. Subsequently, Dawkins' action to refuse to debate Lane Craig at all costs is being interpreted as cowardice by many, even fellow atheist and professor Daniel Came, who bluntly accused Dawkins of cowardice.
*His refutations are quite complete and effective...
Why is Dawkins (and other members of the British Humanist Association) avoiding a debate with William Lane Craig at all costs? It is really getting too suspicious...
What do you think about this?
Sandwich?
-
I don't know why I'd waste a perfectly good Tuesday night.
-
The only debate I've seen w/ Dawkins and Craig was when it was 3 atheists vs 3 theists, and Dawkins, giving him the benefit of the doubt, horribly misinterpreted pretty much all of Craig's arguments.
-
He's refusing to debate Craig because Craig will use the same exact arguments he used against Hitchens, Harris, Kagan, and a bunch of other atheists. Not to mention that Dawkins will use the same ones professed in his book. I happen to agree with Dawkins and I think that if they were to debate, he'd wipe the floor with Craig, but a majority of the people will disagree with me, so whatever.
And adding an asterisk and saying, "reduce to utter nonsense" is insulting. Just hope you know that.
-
I don't know why I'd waste a perfectly good Tuesday night.
Well, I find William Lane Craig's lectures to be extremely enjoyable and enlightening.
Plus they probably will have free food or something...
-
I'm confused: what's "condescending and silly" about purchasing ad space to promote your society/lifestyle? Lots of religious groups do it.
-
The only debate I've seen w/ Dawkins and Craig was when it was 3 atheists vs 3 theists, and Dawkins, giving himthe benefit of the doubt, horribly misinterpreted pretty much all of Craig's arguments.
It was a horrendously formatted "debate" in which no one was given an adequate amount of time to significantly develop any kind of argument or idea.
-
I'm confused: what's "condescending and silly" about purchasing ad space to promote your society/lifestyle? Lots of religious groups do it.
If you are offended by it, I'd be more than willing to remove that from the OP...
-
He's refusing to debate Craig because Craig will use the same exact arguments he used against Hitchens, Harris, Kagan, and a bunch of other atheists. Not to mention that Dawkins will use the same ones professed in his book. I happen to agree with Dawkins and I think that if they were to debate, he'd wipe the floor with Craig, but a majority of the people will disagree with me, so whatever.
And adding an asterisk and saying, "reduce to utter nonsense" is insulting. Just hope you know that.
That's the case in all these debates. If you read the books, you don't REALLY need to watch these debates. They are just like the "SparkNotes" versions of the books.
So I don't think that's why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. After all, Dawkins debates many theists, using what he's already written in his arguments.
-
He's been on record stating he refuses to debate anymore, as he's grown tired of it. I admit, I would too. On both sides. The only time you ever see him debate a theist now is when he lectures and the inevitable theist asks a question that ticks him off.
-
I'm confused: what's "condescending and silly" about purchasing ad space to promote your society/lifestyle? Lots of religious groups do it.
If you are offended by it, I'd be more than willing to remove that from the OP...
I'm not offended at all. It however, is insulting. On these forums, I can say I don't believe in a God, and that's cool. But I have never (nor should I ever) call God "utter nonsense," as that is insulting to his believers.
-
He's refusing to debate Craig because Craig will use the same exact arguments he used against Hitchens, Harris, Kagan, and a bunch of other atheists. Not to mention that Dawkins will use the same ones professed in his book. I happen to agree with Dawkins and I think that if they were to debate, he'd wipe the floor with Craig, but a majority of the people will disagree with me, so whatever.
And adding an asterisk and saying, "reduce to utter nonsense" is insulting. Just hope you know that.
Sorry about the asterisk...
But when a respected theologian and philosopher is inviting you to defend your own published work, refusing under silly or no reasons is apt to be interpreted as cowardice.
-
I'm not familiar with the gent in question, but it seems to me that if it's his program, then the people in attendance will be his followers and supporters, and therefore not particularly receptive to contrary points of view. Nobody loves a good debate more than me, but I don't think I'd be interested in taking on somebody on their home turf, where I'd automatically be dismissed and used as a source of ridicule for people not willing to openly consider anything I say. Doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me.
This is also why I don't understand why liberals agree to bother dicking with Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. Even if you're right, you're still held up to be a retard.
-
He's been on record stating he refuses to debate anymore, as he's grown tired of it.
Okay. I mean, he's allowed to take that route. But if he really wants to spread atheism, then debates are one of the best ways to do it.
I'm sure that even the theists get tired of the same arguments. But the point is not to do it for yourself. There are plenty of people who haven't heard the arguments from either side. It's important to keep doing it.
Why do you think Dream Theater still plays Pull Me Under?
-
I'm not familiar with the gent in question, but it seems to me that if it's his program, then the people in attendance will be his followers and supporters, and therefore not particularly receptive to contrary points of view. Nobody loves a good debate more than me, but I don't think I'd be interested in taking on somebody on their home turf, where I'd automatically be dismissed and used as a source of ridicule for people not willing to openly consider anything I say. Doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me.
This is also why I don't understand why liberals agree to bother dicking with Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. Even if you're right, you're still held up to be a retard.
You make an entirely valid point, yet it must be stressed that (the very much secularized) England is very much so Dawkins' home turf and the people that come to the debates are surely not entirely theists. The audience is actually generally very balanced and no Lane Craig despises the use of "dirty tactics" while debating...
-
He's been on record stating he refuses to debate anymore, as he's grown tired of it. I admit, I would too. On both sides. The only time you ever see him debate a theist now is when he lectures and the inevitable theist asks a question that ticks him off.
That's still no excuse to avoid all discourses with an intellectual of an opposing worldview. Especially just one particular man.
-
Dude, we could debate the existence of God for the next thousand years. I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would. (I use as a term for wrong here, don't get offended.) At the end of the day, whenever we are finished, you are going to go home and believe in god and I won't. It's pointless and there's no point in doing it. And as El Barto says, he'd be apart of Craig's tour which increases the annoyance factor by a ton.
If you notice the polls of before and after with debates, the same amount of people believe in God, and about 4 or 5 percent of the undecided move toward atheism. It is somewhat pointless.
-
I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would.
Not really. People change their minds. Not to rub my own Buddha, but I did, so I know it's possible.
-
Here's the way I look at it...
Both have their "evidence" and are so strong in their opinions that for Dawkins, it is like arguing with a dude who believes the world is flat. Same goes for Craig. It's just that Craig gets a special place in heaven for arguing with said flat earthers.
-
Dude, we could debate the existence of God for the next thousand years. I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would. (I use as a term for wrong here, don't get offended.) At the end of the day, whenever we are finished, you are going to go home and believe in god and I won't. It's pointless and there's no point in doing it. And as El Barto says, he'd be apart of Craig's tour which increases the annoyance factor by a ton.
If you notice the polls of before and after with debates, the same amount of people believe in God, and about 4 or 5 percent of the undecided move toward atheism. It is somewhat pointless.
Yeah, but as I often point out, the exercise is usually more valuable than the end. I'm all for a debate even if I'm certain that nobody will be swayed by it. I'm just not interested if I'm merely there to be fodder.
-
Dude you are not getting the point of debates. There is no room for both sides being "right". Either one side holds the truth, or neither of them do. And especially considering that there are some potentially serious ramifications for believing something false (in both perspectives, really), I think that these debates are incredibly helpful in forcing viewers to actually think.
-
Dude, we could debate the existence of God for the next thousand years. I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would. (I use as a term for wrong here, don't get offended.) At the end of the day, whenever we are finished, you are going to go home and believe in god and I won't. It's pointless and there's no point in doing it. And as El Barto says, he'd be apart of Craig's tour which increases the annoyance factor by a ton.
If you notice the polls of before and after with debates, the same amount of people believe in God, and about 4 or 5 percent of the undecided move toward atheism. It is somewhat pointless.
Yeah, but as I often point out, the exercise is usually more valuable than the end. I'm all for a debate even if I'm certain that nobody will be swayed by it. I'm just not interested if I'm merely there to be fodder.
I agree. I'd love to debate anyone on the existence of God, as I love to argue. Dawkins doesn't anymore, and I understand why. Hitchens like's the dialectic. He admits he wants to keep faith around just so he can argue against it. Hawkins prefers to think and write books and yay on him for it. He reaches his audience through his books and that is what he wants.
And H, all I'm trying to say is that it is annoying on both ends. You realize that Dawkins thinks Craig is an idiot and vice versa? Like I said, there's no point. Getting people to think sways the undecided. I'm happy that usually, the undecided tend to move more toward atheism, and that's not a shot. I'm just saying I understand his point. I'd love to have him debate, and I would watch it intently, but I know why he isn't and I don't blame him.
A perfect example...I was arguing the existence of God with a friend of mine and he gave me an argument so dumb (it wasn't even an argument,) I gave up trying...Same thing applies.
-
We were kind of getting off on a tangent, but basically...if you are right a book that calls theism "delusion", and a reknowned theist debater calls you out on it, you defend yourself. That's my opinion.
It's like people that debate on these forums (myself included) that respond to easy counterarguments but ignore the strong ones. That's exactly what I'm seeing with Dawkins.
-
Here's the thing. I can turn this back on Craig. (Which pretty much proves that debates in this vain are useless.)
Dawkins has been put on record as refusing to continue to debate theists...ESPECIALLY William Lane Craig. Craig knows this. I could just as easily say that Craig is running this campaign knowing Dawkins won't show up which does make him look like a coward to some people. That's a cheap shot and I don't like it. Is it true? I think so. Just like you think Dawkins is too scared to defend "strong" counterarguments. Odds are, we won't find out.
-
I think partially Craig wants to debate Dawkins for the sake of debate (leading Christian debater versus leading atheist debater), and partially wants to show people that Dawkins won't face him. I mean, we don't know, so it's not fair to say.
And if Dawkins has such clear, strong arguments/counterarguments, he really shouldn't have anything to worry about. In fact, if Dawkins' victory is assured, then the stage is pretty much perfectly set up for him to shoot down one of the most universally revered Christian figures.
-
Dude, with all due respect, I'm getting annoyed with this debate! :lol Imagine how Dawkins would feel hearing the same rehashed arguments that he thinks are crap meanwhile giving the audience a spark notes version of his book. It's useless.
Dawkins has said that no argument for God has ever swayed him. However, he admits that the one that he always found most interesting was the extremely fine tuning of the universe. He's admitting that though so it's not like he is afraid of debating and conceding arguments. He is just in favor of the anthropic principle as means of refuting the argument.
-
Just one more debate, though, and most theists (or at least Christians) would be satisfied.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'd love if he would do it. I think it is safe to say that Craig is the most prominent Christian (religious) apologist and Dawkins is the most prominent atheist. It would be one great debate, and I'd love to see it, but it won't happen.
Also, if it were to happen. I think that there shouldn't be any time limits what so ever. Just let them talk and talk and talk. And at the end, have them rapid fire counter arguments at each other until both their heads explode. :lol
-
Actually...something I thought of, what if Dawkins and Craig had an e-debate? Sort of like how we do it here. That way, Craig's charisma isn't an issue.
It might be boring, it might be difficult to moderate...but I wonder if Dawkins would be down?
-
Dude, if you do that, might as well read "Why there is almost certainly no God" and some article by Craig. :lol
-
We were kind of getting off on a tangent, but basically...if you are right a book that calls theism "delusion", and a renowned theist debater calls you out on it, you defend yourself.
Dawkins has been put on record as refusing to continue to debate theists...ESPECIALLY William Lane Craig. Craig knows this. I could just as easily say that Craig is running this campaign knowing Dawkins won't show up which does make him look like a coward to some people.
The debate was not set up by Lane Craig. He was invited to debate on topics the group that set up the debates decided.
The only party acting rudely here are Dawkins and his Humanist ilk. This video explains the entire situation aptly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFDyheyAebU&feature=channel_video_title
-
I wouldn't want to debate a wall either and that is what this is, dude.
edit: I also don't blame Dawkins for his "visceral loathing" after doing some research on Craig. I don't want to get anyone pissed, so I won't say anything, but he really is...well...I don't like what he has to say on Christian morality issues.
-
I wouldn't want to debate a wall either and that is what this is, dude.
Not at all. Describing Lane Craig as a wall is incredibly dishonest.
-
Any theist is a wall...as is any atheist. There's no point, bro!
-
edit: I also don't blame Dawkins for his "visceral loathing" after doing some research on Craig. I don't want to get anyone pissed, so I won't say anything, but he really is...well...I don't like what he has to say on Christian morality issues.
Please, my skin is as about as thick as hardened titanium mounted upon 3 layers of kevlar. I'd be delightfully interested in hearing your objections to his view on "Christian morality issues."
-
Let's just say his views on homosexuality leave much to be desired.
-
edit: I also don't blame Dawkins for his "visceral loathing" after doing some research on Craig. I don't want to get anyone pissed, so I won't say anything, but he really is...well...I don't like what he has to say on Christian morality issues.
Please, my skin is as about as thick as hardened titanium mounted upon 3 layers of kevlar. I'd be delightfully interested in hearing your objections to his view on "Christian morality issues."
He'll have to resort to subjectivity on that one, as would Dawkins.
-
Let's just say his views on homosexuality leave much to be desired.
I wish not to be indiscreet, but - out of curiosity - are you a homosexual?
-
No, I am not. :lol
May I ask why you ask though?
-
Let's try to derive morality from Darwinism, shall we?
Um...erm...homosexuality...it's good...good because...because if the homosexuals get together, then the gene for homosexuality will die off! Yeah, that's it! An increase of offspring in the longterm!
amidoinitrite?
-
I find it funny that not once have I taken a shot at your beliefs in this thread, but I have been asked if I am a homosexual (presumably because only gays have an interest in homosexual matters) and have had a prominent scientific theory that has been supported enough to make it nearly fact, made fun of. I find that somewhat odd.
-
I'm an ass. What can I say?
But I wasn't taking a crack at homosexuality here. My point is that if you adopt the perspective that we are just here for no real reason at all, then your positions on ethical issues are ultimately arbitrary.
-
I completely agree with you. That's a first. :D
edit: You could also say that evolution has given us an innate moral code, but from a philosophical, meta-ethical stand point, I agree. Any value call I make on morality is completely and utterly arbitrary.
-
So uh...what do we do now? :|
-
You could read my edit.
-
I'm not familiar with the gent in question, but it seems to me that if it's his program, then the people in attendance will be his followers and supporters, and therefore not particularly receptive to contrary points of view. Nobody loves a good debate more than me, but I don't think I'd be interested in taking on somebody on their home turf, where I'd automatically be dismissed and used as a source of ridicule for people not willing to openly consider anything I say. Doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me.
This is also why I don't understand why liberals agree to bother dicking with Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. Even if you're right, you're still held up to be a retard.
On the contrary, my local church recently hosted a debate where we had an atheist and a theist. Everyone was respectful toward each other and it went rather well. I think what is important for a successful debate with opposing parties, is to set clear rules and enforce them, and stop being so blatantly boistrous that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.
-
I suspect none of the members of said meeting were as extreme as the ones Barto mentioned though.
-
I wanted to continue this. Intelligent conversation was making my day less shitty.
-
I wanted to continue this. Intelligent conversation was making my day less shitty.
Sure. What do you wish to talk about?
-
Well, why exactly did you want to know if I was gay?
-
Well, why exactly did you want to know if I was gay?
Well, you brought it up and it led me to believe you were gay. It was genuinely out of curiosity.
-
No. Gay rights are my biggest political issue though, and when it comes to debates and the like, I can't take anyone who believes what Craig does seriously.
-
No. Gay rights are my biggest political issue though, and when it comes to debates and the like, I can't take anyone who believes what Craig does seriously.
So gay rights are your biggest issue so Craig = joke?
wut?
-
TO ME...anybody who links homosexuality to a genetic defect (as if it were wrong) and then goes on to talk about how gays should not participate in homosexual behavior because it is against what their God says and says gays are like alcoholics and drug addicts who can just stop their actions is a vile and disgusting person.
Can you take a disgusting person seriously?
-
TO ME...anybody who links homosexuality to a genetic defect (as if it were wrong) and then goes on to talk about how gays should not participate in homosexual behavior because it is against what their God says and says gays are like alcoholics and drug addicts who can just stop their actions is a vile and disgusting person.
Can you take a disgusting person seriously?
I don't think it is a genetic defect, but my religious convictions lead me to see homosexual acts as sinful. That doesn't mean that I go around calling gays sinners or anything ridiculously similar to that in any conceivable way. I would equate the sinfulness of a homosexual act to that of infidelity or adultery. Do I go around and beat these people for sinning? Nah, not really (ok there was this one time... :D). Everybody deviates from moral perfectness. For some, striving for moral perfectness is harder than others. I would include gays in that category, being that their bodies lust for a patently sinful action.
-
See, that is where I have a fundamental issue. To be honest, I've debated this here before, lost my cool, and got banned, so here we go...Debate v.2.0 v not being a dick:
I understand that your religious doctrines tell you that it is a sinful act, but don't you think that if we are all "God's children" we should be treated as equals? How is it that who you are attracted to makes you any more moral than what someone else is attracted to? The one thing that religion got right was its laws stating that we needed to treat everybody with love, kindness, and respect, and to me, religious homophobia goes against all of that.
-
See, that is where I have a fundamental issue. To be honest, I've debated this here before, lost my cool, and got banned, so here we go...Debate v.2.0 v not being a dick:
I understand that your religious doctrines tell you that it is a sinful act, but don't you think that if we are all "God's children" we should be treated as equals? How is it that who you are attracted to makes you any more moral than what someone else is attracted to? The one thing that religion got right was its laws stating that we needed to treat everybody with love, kindness, and respect, and to me, religious homophobia goes against all of that.
You are projecting a false dilemma. Equality does not trump the moral law. In other words: Catholicism will not accept homosexuality as a moral act in order to fulfill a misinterpreted or misrepresented view of equality. It would be like accepting murder as moral simply to be equal to the psychopathic murderer whose intrinsic nature it is to kill.
When Catholicism stresses equality, it is essentially asserting that every human being has equal dignity and should be treated with such no matter actions taken or background. Just because the homosexual is attracted to other men does not mean it is morally acceptable to consummate their homosexual desire just as it would be sinful for a murderer, a sadist, a pedophile or a zoophile to consummate their sinful desires.
-
I understand that. My problem is...being an atheist (and through this, I believe there is no defined moral code,) I believe we are all born 100% equal to each other, and it is our duty to retain that equality at all costs, because if we don't, we get rid of the one fundamental thing all of us are born with. In not allowing gays to get married, the government (and the religious) are infringing on what I feel to be the most basic human right...the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't fuck with others.
-
I understand that. My problem is...being an atheist (and through this, I believe there is no defined moral code,) I believe we are all born 100% equal to each other, and it is our duty to retain that equality at all costs, because if we don't, we get rid of the one fundamental thing all of us are born with. In not allowing gays to get married, the government (and the religious) are infringing on what I feel to be the most basic human right...the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't fuck with others.
You yourself state that you adhere to no moral code. Have you taken the time to reflect on the repercussions of such a worldview? By your own worldview, there is no true difference between Pol Pot and Mother Teresa. You disallow yourself to make moral claims because you have no set values of what ought to be. You cannot, for example, objectively state that genocide is wrong. With such a worldview, you are left with nothing but a mindless ocean of subjectivity and the hopelessness of nihilism. Thus the value judgments that you are making right now as we speak (figuratively speaking) are completely devoid of all meaning through a nihilistic lens, rendering your objections to the equality of anything moot.
-
I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.
-
I might want to add something here. What I believe in isn't so much nihilism, as it is existentialism (in that you create your own ideas of what morality is and what life should be.)
A nihilist would say it doesn't matter and any moral code you try to put on anything is worthless and dumb.
An existentialist would state that you create your own moral code and that is what you should abide by. Therefore, it avoids the nihilistic perspective of "Nothing Matters. Stop trying." If the moral code I set for myself is different than yours (being the royal yours) I can still find you to be immoral because the moral code that I set up for myself is what I feel to be the morality that the world should abide by.
-
Ω: Between your use of intrinsically (referring to psychopathy), and their bodies lust for a patently sinful solution, you make it sound as if you view homosexuality as a physical, rather than psychological issue. Care to elaborate?
And no, I'm not gay either.
-
I'd just like to add I'm Catholic and am totally okay with gay people and believe they deserve every right we have. Thats all, I'm not educated in this matter other than my opinion :tup
-
I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.
Is than not rendering our world into a mindless ocean of subjectivity (and who is to say that Hitler had a moral code? All his actions indicate that he actually lacked a moral code to begin with)?
Through this worldview, you can "feel right" about a matter all you want but then you are quite precariously reducing morality to either non-existence or subverting it to total individual subjectivity, which would inevitably result in unspeakable crimes that could be justified by any individual. Surely you would understand this if an individual were to "feel" that murder or necrophilia is "right" or within a "moral" code he established, it would be universally and objectively condemned as immoral.
All this ultimately leads to the conclusion that if you eliminate objective morality, then any and all acts or crimes would be deemed as acceptable in any given culture that has "subjectified" or eliminated morality. There would be no discernible difference between say rape and charity.
-
Ω: Between your use of intrinsically (referring to psychopathy), and their bodies lust for a patently sinful solution, you make it sound as if you view homosexuality as a physical, rather than psychological issue. Care to elaborate?
I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. It was certainly not my intention. I very much so view homosexuality as a psychological state of being or, well, "issue".
And no, I'm not gay either.
:lol
-
I don't blame Dawkins for not debating Craig because Craig fucking murders everyone he debates with. :lol
I totally get why Dawkins should still do it though. It's good to see points from both sides raised if only to give people more to think about. Me... I've seen both those guys talk quite a bit, and I don't think I would have anything to gain from it.
-
I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.
Is than not rendering our world into a mindless ocean of subjectivity (and who is to say that Hitler had a moral code? All his actions indicate that he actually lacked a moral code to begin with)?
Through this worldview, you can "feel right" about a matter all you want but then you are quite precariously reducing morality to either non-existence or subverting it to total individual subjectivity, which would inevitably result in unspeakable crimes that could be justified by any individual. Surely you would understand this if an individual were to "feel" that murder or necrophilia is "right" or within a "moral" code he established, it would be universally and objectively condemned as immoral.
All this ultimately leads to the conclusion that if you eliminate objective morality, then any and all acts or crimes would be deemed as acceptable in any given culture that has "subjectified" or eliminated morality. There would be no discernible difference between say rape and charity.
I agree...and with everything you say. Fundamentally, there is no difference between raping a 5 year old, and giving her a hug. So?
-
I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.
Is than not rendering our world into a mindless ocean of subjectivity (and who is to say that Hitler had a moral code? All his actions indicate that he actually lacked a moral code to begin with)?
Through this worldview, you can "feel right" about a matter all you want but then you are quite precariously reducing morality to either non-existence or subverting it to total individual subjectivity, which would inevitably result in unspeakable crimes that could be justified by any individual. Surely you would understand this if an individual were to "feel" that murder or necrophilia is "right" or within a "moral" code he established, it would be universally and objectively condemned as immoral.
All this ultimately leads to the conclusion that if you eliminate objective morality, then any and all acts or crimes would be deemed as acceptable in any given culture that has "subjectified" or eliminated morality. There would be no discernible difference between say rape and charity.
I agree...and with everything you say. Fundamentally, there is no difference between raping a 5 year old, and giving her a hug. So?
Not sure if serious... :|
-
I'm completely serious. I mean, even to me, I think raping a child is deplorable...by my standards. Then again, who am I to allocate good vs. bad morality outside my own. Welcome to moral relativism.
-
I'm completely serious. I mean, even to me, I think raping a child is deplorable...by my standards. Then again, who am I to allocate good vs. bad morality outside my own. Welcome to moral relativism.
Do you not see danger or folly in such a miserable worldview?
-
No, because majority view would keep things in check...relative to what the majority feel as "normal."
-
No, because majority view would keep things in check...relative to what the majority feel as "normal."
In other words: everyone recognizes and respects a universal moral code on the most basic of level. We are each born with the same fundamental moral code which we intuitively recognize and adhere to. We can say objectively that raping a little girl is absolutely and intrinsically wrong and deviating from the moral code. We have a term for those who claim otherwise; they are known as "psychopaths". (Many atheists shoot themselves in the foot with the problem of evil; they assert that an act - say malevolent murder - is objectively evil or immoral while making two contradicting mistakes and assumptions of their worldview all the while; 1) they deny the existence of objective morality and accept subjective morality - and, 2) by claiming that an act is evil or immoral, they are unknowingly implying that there is an absolute, objective standard of absolute good from which to deviate from to cause an evil or immoral act.)
The answer to the question of whether objective morality exists is quite obvious (I'd obviously say yes).
The real question is how and why objective morality came into existence.
-
Really? It's obvious objective morality exists?
I have no idea how someone can think this.
-
I might respond with a real response, I might not. I definitely will by tomorrow. Now, I have to study for 2 big tests.
-
If I may chime in on these topics...
Homosexuality:
There are many hypothesis' regarding the cause or evolutionary need for homosexuality. Here are some I've heard that I can remember. I am not sure of the official titles of these hypothesis' but I will give them descriptive names for the sake of making it easier to read and discuss.
Lack of hormones: A mother has multiple children of the same sex the first is given enough testosterone/estrogen to become the designated sex. As the mother continues to have children her body isn't able to produce the needed amount for each child there after and the amount is lessened more and more.
The protector: Basically the gay ones were left behind to defend the women while the straight ones went out hunted/gathered/conquered. The reason is; they could be trusted not to have sex with the women.
Simple abnomality/Genetic weakness: Title says it... Shit happens... I have blue eyes, my eyes are light sensitive. Were the weakness comes in to play for homosexuals is the want of the same sex potentially weakning there chances for passing on there genes. Not weakness as in inferior.
I've heard others I just can't think of them now.
As for morality:
73109 I think we are on the same page but I don't think you are representing it well because of your short answers. There is absolutly no such thing as objective morality, either born in us nor mandated from on high.
I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.
Morality guided by evolution by natural selection:
In a lifeless empty universe there is no morality; what gives way to morality are minds. The ability to comprehend or evolve out of suffering, death and lack of use is very much a driving force in evolution. In fact Carl Sagan once said "the secret of evolution is time and death". This has been happening althroughout human history. When we were Bonobos we had to take what was needed for the betterment of the tribe due to the real threat of exstinction. As we evolved tribes grew bigger and bigger we no longer had the threat of death due to wild life. There was a community; we bought sold and traded but technology was still poor. So we had slaves and superstition to explain the universe.
As technology and better living progressed there was no longer the need for slaves. Sure they revolted and stood up for there rights and won with supporter on both sides. But none of it would have happened if we had not evolved a better why of life through society and technology. Now we are beginning to make ground with gay rights.
Suffering is the bases of morality. The need to spread the genetic code the realization that no one needs to suffer at the hands of another anymore. Will there still be abnormalities in this evolution? Yes, there will. Whether it arises through homosexuality, psychopathy or maybe just maybe - and I'm saying this because I am seeing a trend in society for androgyny - an new human that is asexual. But we will still evolve and change our morality based on that evolution. What happens if we develop the technology to read minds of suspected criminals? There is nothing in the bible dictate what we should do with such technology. But we do have minds and a democratically evolving process
-
I still need to give an intelligent response to Omega on morality...I'll do it eventually. I'm tired now.
-
I still need to give an intelligent response to Omega on morality...I'll do it eventually. I'm tired now.
Fair enough.. I wasn't taking a shot at you btw.
-
Ok, time for some anti climactic response.
I need to start this post off by stating that I do not believe in a God, nor do I believe in an absolute moral code. There are atheists out there that do, but I don't. Now, I must say that I do believe Darwinian evolution probably has ingrained in us a way in which we will innately act. (Even that is up for debate.) The problem is, just because we act in a certain way, what makes it moral? My main issue with discussing objective morality is that morality can't be measured. It is a word that was created, shaped, and defined by man, and man can't be omniscient to know what good or bad really is. So, the question is, what is morality and how do we measure it? Any response any one gives me will be contrived and not exact. Why? Because there is nothing to be exact about. Even if it does exist, which I highly highly doubt, we can never know it. We have no absolute good in this world. What we do have is a set of acts that we will most likely follow that have been ingrained in us for millions of years, but these are neither immoral or moral. They just are.
My personal view on morality is a sociological one. Why do we consider certain things immoral? I believe that our choices lie in our ignorance. What is the one thing many humans fear above all else? Death. Why do we fear death? Because we fear the unknown. Existence is all we know, and we are scared shitless of not being here anymore, of no longer being conscious. So, what do we do? We realize that we don't want to end the existence of others, because we don't want others to end our existence. So, follow the logic and you have murder being an immoral act. Same can be said for stealing, rape, etc, but the question is...what makes these immoral and not arbitrary? The answer is simple. Absolutely nothing.
At a very basic level, all our actions are meaningless, and it is up to us to define our meaning. Others might define meaning for us, and that is where our situation can get a bit sticky. In the end, our actions are merely actions, and nothing makes them innately good or evil, people's misguided perceptions do. The only difference between Hitler's killing of 11 million people and my hugging of 11 orphans is human perception, fear of innocence, and sympathy toward the innocent.
I also must add that Omega stated that anytime an atheist tries to conform to a moral code, they are reaching toward a higher, objective morality. This is simply not true. I can follow what I want, and someone else can follow whatever code they want. In the end, it doesn't matter. I'm going to live my life along my subjective moral code, and that's that. I do not claim to have more knowledge than anyone, and there in lies my whole point. We are finite creatures and our knowledge is limited. Who are we to allocate absolute anything?
-
I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.
There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.
-
I suggest you look into Russell's Teapot.
-
I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.
There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.
By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.
-
Ok, time for some anti climactic response.
I need to start this post off by stating that I do not believe in a God, nor do I believe in an absolute moral code. There are atheists out there that do, but I don't. Now, I must say that I do believe Darwinian evolution probably has ingrained in us a way in which we will innately act. (Even that is up for debate.) The problem is, just because we act in a certain way, what makes it moral? My main issue with discussing objective morality is that morality can't be measured. It is a word that was created, shaped, and defined by man, and man can't be omniscient to know what good or bad really is. So, the question is, what is morality and how do we measure it? Any response any one gives me will be contrived and not exact. Why? Because there is nothing to be exact about. Even if it does exist, which I highly highly doubt, we can never know it. We have no absolute good in this world. What we do have is a set of acts that we will most likely follow that have been ingrained in us for millions of years, but these are neither immoral or moral. They just are.
My personal view on morality is a sociological one. Why do we consider certain things immoral? I believe that our choices lie in our ignorance. What is the one thing many humans fear above all else? Death. Why do we fear death? Because we fear the unknown. Existence is all we know, and we are scared shitless of not being here anymore, of no longer being conscious. So, what do we do? We realize that we don't want to end the existence of others, because we don't want others to end our existence. So, follow the logic and you have murder being an immoral act. Same can be said for stealing, rape, etc, but the question is...what makes these immoral and not arbitrary? The answer is simple. Absolutely nothing.
At a very basic level, all our actions are meaningless, and it is up to us to define our meaning. Others might define meaning for us, and that is where our situation can get a bit sticky. In the end, our actions are merely actions, and nothing makes them innately good or evil, people's misguided perceptions do. The only difference between Hitler's killing of 11 million people and my hugging of 11 orphans is human perception, fear of innocence, and sympathy toward the innocent.
I also must add that Omega stated that anytime an atheist tries to conform to a moral code, they are reaching toward a higher, objective morality. This is simply not true. I can follow what I want, and someone else can follow whatever code they want. In the end, it doesn't matter. I'm going to live my life along my subjective moral code, and that's that. I do not claim to have more knowledge than anyone, and there in lies my whole point. We are finite creatures and our knowledge is limited. Who are we to allocate absolute anything?
I appreciate the fullness in your input.
But what does that conclusion leave you with?
You can no longer judge anything as "right," "wrong," "evil," "unjust," etc. You are embracing nihilism. Imagine if the whole world was like this? No one would be able object to murder, rape, genocide, etc. You'd be lost in a sea of irrelevant subjectivity! It would be stating that our moral code is shaped by our feelings or perceptions, therefore rendering all value judgments of right and wrong complete insignificant and relative.
And why would this alternative be unacceptable or least desirable over the alternative of objective morality? I'd say there's at least two reasons why:
1.) First would be because it is a false worldview; that is to say that I am convinced that there really are objective moral duties and values. For example - the Holocaust is not just wrong and immoral according to Western idealism or democratics. In other words, had the Nazis won WWII and subverted all under their worldview, their actions in the Holocaust would still be wrong.
2.) It leads to an unimaginably unlivable worldview. One cannot live a meaningful, happy or consistent life if morality were decided by the whims of ones' feelings.
-
I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.
There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.
By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.
Not quite. The Bible contains truths about morality. Yet it also contains many commandments which would be deemed immoral as well. Meaning that the Bible cannot be the sole source for our morality.
Also, I said "mandated". As in "established" by God. We are no more the arbiters of morality as we are the arbiters of who goes to heaven or hell.
-
People would still live similar lives even if they were aware that their was no objective moral code. My personal moral code is in fact similar to many, but why is that? I examined my surroundings and devised a code I wanted to live by. As long as we are humans, most of us will still follow some similar moral code because of our genes, surroundings, way of life, etc. But once again, just because we follow a similar code, it doesn't make it right.
It would be stating that our moral code is shaped by our feelings or perceptions, therefore rendering all value judgments of right and wrong complete insignificant and relative.
This is what I'm getting at. With all due respect dude, I don't understand why you keep feeding me my worldview back to me and think it is going to change my mind. :lol
1.) First would be because it is a false worldview; that is to say that I am convinced that there really are objective moral duties and values. For example - the Holocaust is not just wrong and immoral according to Western idealism or democratics. In other words, had the Nazis won WWII and subverted all under their worldview, their actions in the Holocaust would still be wrong.
How can you make such a call? I'm not baiting, but my issue with an objective moral code is that when it comes to being human, we can't know everything. Hell, we can't know a small amount of things. How can you know this?
-
I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.
There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.
By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.
Not quite. The Bible contains truths about morality. Yet it also contains many commandments which would be deemed immoral as well. Meaning that the Bible cannot be the sole source for our morality.
Also, I said "mandated". As in "established" by God. We are no more the arbiters of morality as we are the arbiters of who goes to heaven or hell.
None of this makes any sense. We both agree that the bible has good and evil in it. You claim that god gives us morality, I claim that it is an evolved morality. On both accounts of morality it is ultimately us that choose what we follow both as individuals and as a society.
Since the bible has good and evil, we must discern what we follow of that book. Making what we choose to follow as a moral guide line to be morally true to us regardless of if the bible has it within it's pages or not.
So I still say that it is logically sound that the bible is not needed as a moral guide line. We decide what is moral and not the bible. Further more if it is that God instills morals into all of us, there is still no objective morality as our morals have changed and are continuing to do so. Not only do they change as a whole but they are also different from person to person and are different from country to country.
-
I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.
There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.
By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.
Not quite. The Bible contains truths about morality. Yet it also contains many commandments which would be deemed immoral as well. Meaning that the Bible cannot be the sole source for our morality.
Also, I said "mandated". As in "established" by God. We are no more the arbiters of morality as we are the arbiters of who goes to heaven or hell.
None of this makes any sense. We both agree that the bible has good and evil in it. You claim that god gives us morality, I claim that it is an evolved morality. On both accounts of morality it is ultimately us that choose what we follow both as individuals and as a society.
Since the bible has good and evil, we must discern what we follow of that book. Making what we choose to follow as a moral guide line to be morally true to us regardless of if the bible has it within it's pages or not.
So I still say that it is logically sound that the bible is not needed as a moral guide line. We decide what is moral and not the bible. Further more if it is that God instills morals into all of us, there is still no objective morality as our morals have changed and are continuing to do so. Not only do they change as a whole but they are also different from person to person and are different from country to country.
I am a confused agnostic and I endorse this message.