This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
When you claim there is no objective morality you can’t justifiably act as if there is an objective morality. It’s pretty simply really.
If there is no objective morality you have no right to complain about how others behave.
I’m just asking you to justify your moral outrage, That is the point of this thread
If you could do that this debate would be over and we could move on to more interesting stuff,
peace
I agree. Same applies to you. It doesn’t matter that you claim there’s an objective morality if you can’t objectively demonstrate what it is. So all we have here is say-so of fallible human beings. You are not in a better position than anyone else on this point.
Says who? Who are you to tell me what rights I have?
I justify it by basing it on human nature and human desires. Almost all of us want to live in relative peace, security and happiness. I think we should work together to try to achieve that.
That, right there, was justification. It might not be justification that you find persuasive, or sufficient. That doesn’t mean it isn’t justification.
Then it’s time to move on, because justification has in fact been provided.
Keith’s
I will try and answer any question you have but you are going to have to try and be coherent.
If you think I did not answer you need explain why that is the case. Merely asserting that I did not answer is not enough for me to go on.
I will try and decipher what you are looking for but you are going to have be more specific and coherent if you want more than I gave you. It seems like you just threw a bunch of gibberish against the wall and hoped that something would stick.
As I look at your post I see no question there that has not been answered. You may not like my answer but you did not provide any specifics as to why they fell short so that I could elaborate
I would you suggest you ask one question at a time and not move to the next one till you are satisfied with my answer.
Ask clarifying questions if you don’t understand my answer
peace
Objective morality is what conforms to God’s moral nature.
God is Good.
That is objectively what objective morality is.
says the definitions of subjective and objective. Are you denying that words have meanings?
Why should we? If almost all of us want to enslave a neighboring tribe does that make the desire right?
If I think we should all work together to make me king of the world should we do that?
It seems to be a self defeating justification.
You desire something so we should all work together to achieve it ok.
You did not explain why we should all do what you desire.
peace
Bullshit.
Let’s say there is no objective morality, and I complain about the actions of others.
What happens next?
Then there is no way for you to know that is true either, we are back at the beginning .
I have no problem with that.
Yes I believe that is true that you believe that is true. Is that justified belief? Yes per the rules of the site( presupposition of posting in good faith) it is justified ,since you have repeated it many times.
Your presupposition is akin to the rules of this site, you set up what counts as justification, the rules of the truth .The Calvinist God.
We then test the presuppositions , in my opinion there is more evidence that the rules of this site exist than the Calvinist God. Therefore even if the Calvinist God does not exist( your presupposition is false), I have a justified true belief, knowledge.
Then they say “well, in order for you to complain about others you must therefore accept there is a right and wrong way to be. And therefore you have just accepted Jesus into your heart as only with reference to Jesus can right be right and wrong be wrong”.
They don’t have an actual argument, so they use what they do have.
The better question is, can one lack a belief in something he or she cannot imagine existing. I can’t imagine a giant turtle orbiting the Earth and controlling our weather as actually existing; just an utterly ridiculous concept that has no actual evidence for its existence. I feel the same way about your “god”.
It is endlessly discussed on the Internet
Good grief Fifth…this is not that hard. Atheism means without a belief in god (theism means ‘belief in god or gods’; it is not simple a reference to a god).
But even beyond that, your insistence that the atheistic people here are either in denial or actively rejecting your particular mythology is just silly. It’s no different than my insisting that you must, actually, acknowledge the Lucky Charms Leprechaun as the One True Leprechaun, but you actively reject Him in favor of your pathetic myth. Now, how exactly are you going to prove this isn’t an accurate assessment. Gonna quote me passages from some book that supposedly supports your myths? Beg that question much? And when I rebut your myth passages with passages from other books of dogma and myth – say those denoting Graznak as the Divine leader, or Arodrim, or Gond, are you just going to hand-wave those passages away because you don’t believe those entities exist?
Yeah…gotcha…there in lies the rub. I’m afraid you don’t have any greater claim to the truth of your myth than anyone else. But more to the point, your insistence that other people secretly acknowledge your particular mythological entity and actively reject it is just absurd. Like your denial of the happiness that comes from Truth Marshmallow Flavor.
fifthmonarchyman,
So you keep asserting. Over and over and over. And not listening. Over and over and over. I don’t act as if there is objective (outside-human-heads) morality. So the whole of your syllogism falls.
What nonsense. If there is no objective morality I have no right to complain if someone fails to filter in turn? If there is no objective morality I have no right to complain if someone kills my dog? If there is no objective morality I have no right to complain if someone kills your dog? If there is no objective morality I have no right to complain if my country decides to bomb Syria? If there is no objective morality I have no right to be annoyed by dumb arguments?
A “debate” that consists of one side sticking their fat presuppositionalist fingers in their ears? You are free to move onto ‘interesting’ stuff whenever you like; no-one is forcing you to keep not-listening.
Or, you could justify any moral outrage you might feel, because you haven’t yet done so to the same standard you hold others to. Why does some Biblical passage, or a belief that morality is objective, justify your feeling of outrage? Why is your feeling of outrage more rational than mine, simply because some of your views (even if not that currently felt) may be objectively ‘right’ according to some perfect judge? Justify your own moral outrage.
What a silly statement. No one who rejects an objective morality acts as if there is one; we simply act as if OUR morality is valid and we act on that moral basis. If other people agree with our observations and objections to other peoples’ behavior based on our personal morality, guess what? Other people will chime in too and eventually those folks who are going against my personal morality will get reprimanded, or shunned, or judged by society in some capacity. That’s really all there is to it.
And that’s how things work here at TMZ. There’s no objective morality about responding to posts or how to respond to posters or anything like that. There are, however rules put forth by the site owner of how people ought to behave. That’s her person view, but you know what? Oddly, there are a bunch of other folks here who agree with her personal assessment. And lo and behold…said rules get enforced! What are the odds…?
Of course we do. See above. Your behavior on this site (and other sites I’ve seen your posts on for that matter) is incredibly arrogant, narcissistic, and rude.
There…I just complained about your behavior based on my personal views. Ooo…where did I get the right to do that? Gosh…you think maybe the site owner extended that right to me? Odd how that works, huh?
See above.
There is no interesting stuff.
If you have interesting stuff, you lead with it.
You don’t spend months convincing everyone you are a loon and then say, just kidding. Here’s what I really think.
What he’s saying to my mind is “once you admit that I am right we can move on”.
fifthmonarchyman,
Please read my post on that very topic. There’s even a nice diagram explaining it simply.
No. I do not hold a positive belief that a god or gods exist. I do not hold a positive belief that a god or gods do not exist. I simply lack the belief that a god or gods exist. I’ve never seen any evidence for such a thing, or even a definition of such an entity that would allow me to determine if it exists or not.
fifthmonarchyman,
I have supported it. It’s my lack of belief. I have unique access to my internal state. I know that my beliefs do not include any like that.
I am the only person qualified to make statements about my beliefs. I assure you, again, that I lack any belief in a god or gods.
I am posting in good faith. I am not being deliberately misleading. I am not ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, or demented. By the rules of this site and common courtesy you should accept my statement about my beliefs as valid.
That makes your original claim incorrect. Park your priors by the door and think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Mung,
I’ve never seen such an operational definition. Theists always act like they know what they mean when they say “god”, but details aren’t often forthcoming. Usually it’s platitudes like “god is love” or “god is the universe” followed eventually with “god is going to burn you forever in a lake of fire for not believing in him”. No one in my experience has been able to define what they mean by “god” with sufficient rigor for an objective observer to determine if a particular entity is one or not. I’d really like to see such a definition.
I asked walto for an operational definition of “asshole”.
Not really. I certainly have no precise idea what other people mean by those words without asking.
fifth,
Says the guy who believes that Jesus physically mooned Moses, long before Mary gave birth to him.
I see no question that wasn’t avoided.
Yes, I did.
Will you answer my questions this time instead of avoiding them?
Let’s start here:
Where was the physical Jesus hanging out when he wasn’t mooning Moses or otherwise interacting with the physical world?
I have a tool/game that I think is interesting.
peace
Sure there is it’s called revelation. God can reveal in such a way that I can know if it’s true. He can do this because he is God
How exactly do you know this? Please be specific.
How do you know this? On what basis did you make that determination and how do you know it was valid?
peace
Peace
no would examine the claim and see if it is self-refuting. if you have a rebuttal please present it
peace
how do you know this?
how do you know? Please be specific
Is it possible that you may mistaken about your lack of knowledge of God’s existence?
here is one for you
quote:
The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.
In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.
end quote:
1644 LBCF
if that is not sufficient I can fill in details as needed
just ask
peace
Ok that is something we can work with
Are you asking about his position from a temporal spacial perspective within the universe or an atemporal one out side of time and space?
peace
You have just surrendered knowledge and constrained yourself to eternal absurdity.
To each his own
peace
fifth,
What part of the following didn’t you understand?
And:
And:
fifth,
You keep overlooking an obvious fact. You are fallible. When you conclude that God has revealed something to you — even if you think he has done so in the way you describe above — you might be mistaken about that.
It boggles my mind that you still don’t get this.
I am fallible God is not.
If I am mistaken I can know nothing.
I know this therefore I am not mistaken.
smells like Godel
😉
peace
The part where you answered my question who is the observer and what is his perspective .
by the way have you seen this?
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/
quote:
“The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” said Truscott. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.”
end quote:
peace
fifth:
It is your fallibility that makes my statement correct:
It’s simple logic, fifth.
slow down keiths think deeply it might bite you if you are not careful
If I am mistaken I can know nothing.
I know this therefore I am not mistaken.
smells like Godel
peace
fifth,
If you’re mistaken it means you made a mistake. Knowledge — justified true belief — is still possible.
You’ve missmelled Gödel.
Case one: God grants true knowledge to John Doe by divine revelation. This revelation is done is such a way that Doe cannot possibly be deceived about the truth of the knowledge which was divinely revealed to him.
Case two: Satan deceives John Doe with an intricate, skilfully-constructed lie which Doe believes, sincerely and yet falsely, to be divinely revealed truth from God. This lie is imparted to Doe in such a way that Doe believes, sincerely and yet falsely, that he cannot possibly be deceived about the truth of the knowledge which Satan imparted to him in the guise of divine revelation from God.
In either case, John Doe is sincerely convinced that he has received a divine revelation from God—and yet, that is true in only one of the cases. How can Doe determine whether a seeming revelation from God is a genuine/i> revelation from God, and not a Satanic lie constructed by to deceive him?
fifth,
Are you going to keep dodging Question #1 or will you stop stalling and answer it?
Well, yeah, but the point is clear, it smells like some dead thing rotting in the ground.
Glen Davidson
how do you know this?
peace
In case 2 John Doe can know absolutely nothing at all.
He knows this therefore he knows he is not being deceived about everything.
get it?
peace
The same way I know anything. I take the evidence and reason about it.
Stop stalling and answer the question.
Remember, you were the one who said he wanted to focus on one question at a time.
As soon as you tell me who is the observer and what his perspective is. My answer depends on your response.
It’s not a stall it’s an appeal for necessary clarification
peace
Sure he can. To know is simply to have a justified true belief.
I think you’re confusing knowledge with absolute certainty — for the fiftieth time.
how do you know this is the correct way to know things? What criteria did you use to make that determination?
Are you using your reason to justify your reason? Or do you have evidence that evidence is the proper way to judge propositions?
peace
How do you know this?
Any knowledge will do certainty is not required.
In case 2 John Doe has no truth and therefore no knowledge at all by your own definition
peace
I think you’re stalling, but I’ll play along.
If you had flown to Tahiti and I asked you, “Where did you keep your car while you were on vacation?”, you could answer the question. You’d say something like “I parked it at the airport”, or “it was sitting in my driveway at home.”
So to put this in fifth-comprehensible terms, where did Jesus park his body when he wasn’t creating the world, mooning Moses or otherwise fiddling with creation?
You’re leaping to an unjustified conclusion. In case 2 John Doe is mistaken about at least one thing, but that hardly means that he doesn’t know anything.
Please slow down and think about it, fifth. I know you think this stuff is ‘deep’, but it’s really just elementary reasoning.
with God
peace
God is supposedly omnipresent, so you’ll need to be more specific.
Or find a better tap dance with which to avoid the question.
Right. Exactly, He does have some knowledge. He is not totally deceived. God has revealed something to him.
once again
If I am mistaken I can know nothing.
I know this therefore I am not mistaken.
The extent of John Does knowledge depends completely on the Grace and trustworthiness of God,
peace
Not physically and temporally present where the observers who recorded the intervening events were.
Just as you are not in my living room right now. I can’t say exactly where you are because that has not been revealed to me.
I’m confident you are somewhere
peace
The question is: Where, in physical space, was the physical body of Jesus, during the periods when he wasn’t mooning Moses or otherwise physically mucking around with the physical world.
It’s just like the question “Where was your car during your vacation”, except that we are talking about the physical body of Jesus, not your car, and we are talking about the periods when Jesus wasn’t mucking around with creation, not the period during which you were on vacation.
Have I simplified this enough yet?