Page 23 of 34 [ 540 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 34  Next

Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

26 Feb 2012, 7:57 pm

1062651stAvenue wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is much simpler than you are making it out here. Firstly, you asked me a question, "what is it that atheists do that causes you so much consternation?" There's my answer, boss, no problem with that is there? Look at them, they're atheists and they're killing innocent people, damn them all. And the point I'm making is a kind of tongue in cheek one: if they'd actually gone to work in the garden on their days off, or became Christians, perhaps they wouldn't have given orders that resulted in the slaughter of so many people. But the serious point is, you atheists have no OBJECTIVE reason not to prefer Nazi morality to Christian morality. I'm with William Lane Craig on this one - you have nothing but evolutionary and functional reasons for whatever morality you say you have. The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. Care to respond?


This section of your quote, it makes me laugh, and it makes me cry. There's plenty of objective reasons not to prefer Nazi morality to Christian morality that don't have to involve God at all. Just because Hitler had a functioning system doesn't mean he had a good one, and in particular genocide has this tendency to eat up resources, time, and personnel that could be spent doing anything else. Even from a purely selfish perspective, crimes like mass murder, genocide, and wanton arson/destruction of property involve so much work (even at the bare minimum) that there's almost always some other viable solution, most of which are non-violent. Maniacs like Hitler and Stalin are cancers that harm the societies they build around themselves, normally through madness, and their insanity would've been the same regardless of the presence of any particular faith - their reasons would've been the only thing that changed.

As far as only having evolutionary and functional reasons for morality, I submit this counter-question - why is this a bad thing?



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

26 Feb 2012, 8:04 pm

Oodain wrote:
also you keep saying you know you can make choices, how?
short of viewing multiple timelines that is kinda impossible, you only know you think you have choices.


I know that I can make choices just like I know that I exist. It's the sort of thing that cannot be false, or it would lead to absurdity.

I am completely willing to concede that someone who is monitoring my brain might be able to predict my choices with perfect accuracy. But that doesn't mean that I don't make choices.

We need to distinguish between hard determinism and soft determinism. Soft determinism says that my choices can in principle be perfectly predicted using knowledge of physics and knowledge of the present state of the universe. This might be true, although at the moment it seems doubtful since quantum conspiracies might be truly random and might occasionally affect my choices, and because certain information might not be able to be attained, even in principle. Hard determinism says that my choices can in principle be perfectly predicted using using knowledge of physics and knowledge of the present state of the universe, and that this means that I don't really make choices. This is nonsense. When you explain how something happened, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Feb 2012, 8:10 pm

Declension wrote:
Oodain wrote:
also you keep saying you know you can make choices, how?
short of viewing multiple timelines that is kinda impossible, you only know you think you have choices.


I know that I can make choices just like I know that I exist. It's the sort of thing that cannot be false, or it would lead to absurdity.

I am completely willing to concede that someone who is monitoring my brain might be able to predict my choices with perfect accuracy. But that doesn't mean that I don't make choices.

We need to distinguish between hard determinism and soft determinism. Soft determinism says that my choices can in principle be perfectly predicted using physics. This might be true, although at the moment it seems doubtful since quantum conspiracies might be truly random and might occasionally affect my choices. Hard determinism says that my choices can in principle be perfectly predicted using physics, and that this means that I don't really make choices. This is nonsense. When you explain how something happened, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


When you're doing the process of choosing, it's only counted as "choosing" because your brain is "searching" for the best idea for you based on the "code" in your brain ... which is based on a combination of genetics and past experiences and current knowledge and other factors.

If no other factor suddenly hinders you from then following what your brain suggests and making that particular "choice", then that is what you end up "choosing". Otherwise, you'll end up "choosing" what that other factor demands you to "choose".



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

26 Feb 2012, 8:18 pm

MCalavera wrote:
When you're doing the process of choosing, it's only counted as "choosing" because your brain is "searching" for the best idea for you based on the "code" in your brain ... which is based on a combination of genetics and past experiences and current knowledge and other factors.

If no other factor suddenly hinders you from then following what your brain suggests and making that particular "choice", then that is what you end up "choosing". Otherwise, you'll end up "choosing" what that other factor demands you to "choose".


I agree that everything you just said might be true. And I think that, if it is true, it supports my claim that I can make choices. You're talking about the physical process that corresponds to my subjective experience of making choices. You're talking about how I make choices. If you're talking about how I make choices, then you have already conceded that I do make choices!

I think that hard determinists, just like creationists, use the word "just" too much, and it ends up confusing them. Let me explain what I mean.

A creationist will say something like:
Quote:
But if evolution is true, then we are just a bunch of atoms!

The correct answer is: yes, you are a bunch of atoms. But you are not "just" a bunch of atoms. You still have all the properties that you think you have.

A hard determinist will say something like:
Quote:
But if determinism is true, then our choices are just the result of physics!

The correct answer is: yes, your choices are the result of physics. But your choices are not "just" the result of physics. Your choices still have all the properties that you think they do.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Feb 2012, 9:25 pm

Aside from physics, what are they also the result of?



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

26 Feb 2012, 11:16 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Aside from physics, what are they also the result of?


Nothing. When I say that my choices are not "just" the result of physics, what I am saying is that them being the result of physics does not remove essential properties from them.

The implication of the word "just" is that choices are not like what believers in free will claim they are like, since they are actually caused by physics. But I claim that choices are exactly what believers in free will think they are, even though they are caused by physics.

Put it this way. Say you met someone who believes in free will, me for example. What exactly am I wrong about? Can you specify how the universe actually is, and how I think the universe is, and explain how they are different?

Do I claim that my experiences do not influence my choices? Of course not! The whole point of choices are that they are influenced by our experiences. Well, determinism simply explains how this works.

Do I claim that my choices cannot be predicted? Of course not! If you know me well enough, you can predict my choices. If you are scanning my brain, then it's even easier!

Do I claim that after I make a choice, I can legitimately say that I could have acted otherwise? Yes, I do. But this has a nice interpretation within the framework of determinism. What I am saying is: either A or B could have happened, and the only deciding factor was what was going on inside my brain.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Feb 2012, 2:01 am

that is what i mean when i say we dont even know what choices are yet.

also what goes on in your braiins is as much physics as anything else, we cannot predict if that removes anything from them as such untill we know excactly what thought is.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

27 Feb 2012, 3:57 am

Vigilans wrote:
More insults... You're a 38 year old man? Are you sure about that?
I think its about time the mods had a word with you


Well you did finally stop arguing about it. Sometimes one needs to slam down the gauntlet no matter the consequence. You know why Chinese master slap you in face? To push in the lesson.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

27 Feb 2012, 10:18 am

1062651stAvenue wrote:
The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. Care to respond?


What do you mean by moral truth? What is the common property of all 'moral' or 'immoral' things?

Fact: even Christians cannot agree how to interpret the bible (say to what degree the OT applies).

If morality were truths there would be an objective interpretation. Therefore there is not an iota of 'moral truth' in the bible. Really, 'moral truth' is just nonsense, Christian 'morality' is as subjective as any other.



luvsterriers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,159
Location: Fairfax, VA

27 Feb 2012, 11:46 am

Did anyone who is atheist go to a religious based school? If so, how did you like it?

Just wondering...


_________________
Anna

If you're not happy with yourself, you'll never be happy with somebody else. (Don Omar)


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

27 Feb 2012, 12:32 pm

01001011 wrote:
If morality were truths there would be an objective interpretation.

Not necessarily. For one, you have to establish a non-arbitrary standard for defining what truth is at all. And that is going to come down to what people are going to accept. It is possible, for instance, to only accept religious truth based on scripture-of-your-choice OR scientific method. Science is unable to externally establish itself, i.e. with non-scientific methodology. It depends on itself to establish itself. As long as science remains one choice of many, the decision to define something as true as long as it is scientifically true is itself an arbitrary decision. Therefore science in and of itself doesn't necessarily provide any objective interpretations since it is always possible (very likely) that the decision to base all objective measures of truth as scientific truth is based on some subjective sentiment.

Second, one can accept or reject even objective interpretations for all sorts of rational or irrational reasons. There very well could be an objective interpretation for a biblical measure of morality. The mere existence or even possibility of it may not be enough to convince someone who simply dislikes it. And personal preferences and biases against any given proscribed moral objective are themselves subjective opinions.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

27 Feb 2012, 3:06 pm

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
More insults... You're a 38 year old man? Are you sure about that?
I think its about time the mods had a word with you


Well you did finally stop arguing about it. Sometimes one needs to slam down the gauntlet no matter the consequence. You know why Chinese master slap you in face? To push in the lesson.


Apparently even mod warnings don't get through your thick skull. You basically just acknowledged you're wrong and the only way you know how to argue is to throw insults around. Not that this was not already obvious to anyone following your series of unfortunate posts in this thread. You have a sub-par intellect of extremely questionable value. I'm really, really glad I'm not you, cw10 Image


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Last edited by Vigilans on 27 Feb 2012, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

27 Feb 2012, 3:20 pm

Declension wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
I will out of necessity of communication sometimes speak as if I am certain of something, but even then I'm not completely certain of it. It's just practical to do so. Belief is silly, in my opinion, possibly even delusional.


First, I think that usually when people say that they believe something, all of these quibbles are already included in their use of the word "believe". So maybe you're not really being more careful than anyone else, you're just labouring the point more.

Second, there are some things that you are completely certain about, such as that you exist and can make choices.


I am certain of neither of those. Stop presuming to know my view on things (or the view of anyone else, in general). You will most likely be wrong when you do this, and make yourself look foolish in the process.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

27 Feb 2012, 3:21 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:
Declension wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
I will out of necessity of communication sometimes speak as if I am certain of something, but even then I'm not completely certain of it. It's just practical to do so. Belief is silly, in my opinion, possibly even delusional.


First, I think that usually when people say that they believe something, all of these quibbles are already included in their use of the word "believe". So maybe you're not really being more careful than anyone else, you're just labouring the point more.

Second, there are some things that you are completely certain about, such as that you exist and can make choices.


I am certain of neither of those. Stop presuming to know my view on things (or the view of anyone else, in general). You will most likely be wrong when you do this, and make yourself look foolish in the process.


This seems to be the standard m.o. for theists... the unfortunate consequence of absolute, arrogant certainty about everything ;)


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

27 Feb 2012, 3:58 pm

1062651stAvenue wrote:
The question is how to ground the objectivity of moral truths without reference to God, not whether moral truths can be known without believing in God or whether it’s possible to behave morally without believing in God. The point is neither epistemic nor behavioral, but ontological. Care to respond?


If morality comes from God, where does God get it from? If God merely decides it, then it's a subjective morality that we "borrow", and it may not be a good one (indeed, God's tendency towards genocide, torture and abuse while having no qualms about slavery or executions suggest it isn't). If God gets it from somewhere else, then God is beholden to a higher power - and, moreover, it isn't God we get our morality from. He's just the agent.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

27 Feb 2012, 4:19 pm

Even if God exists and his morality is absolute, we don't have full access to God's morality anyway.