Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2017 7:04 AM
360 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 358 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,149 Year: 23,755/21,208 Month: 1,720/2,468 Week: 229/822 Day: 22/82 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
626364
65
6667Next
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Taq
Member
Posts: 7139
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 961 of 1002 (808145)
05-08-2017 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 862 by Dredge
05-03-2017 12:52 AM


Dredge writes:

Sounds a bit tendentious to me. In the 20th century, non-religious morality proved much more dangerous and deadly than all the religion in history - just ask the six millions Jews that Hilter murdered,

""Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."--Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

Want to try that one again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 12:52 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 971 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:48 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7139
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 962 of 1002 (808147)
05-08-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 861 by Dredge
05-03-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
Dredge writes:

What you need to do is stop arguing emotionally, and start arguing philosophically. I know all about how to argue philosophically coz when I was ten I watched a program on TV about Socrates.

Then you should read up on Euthyphro's Dilemma that was discussed by Socrates. He asked whether something was pious because the gods commanded it, or if the gods commanded it because it was pious.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/euthyphro/summary.html

The problem with "it is moral because God says so" is that it is entirely arbitrary, especially when you consider what other gods find moral which can be contradictory to what other gods find moral. What you are calling for is obedience to the commands of a deity as written by men. That isn't morality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 12:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 4:50 AM Taq has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 963 of 1002 (808153)
05-08-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by Dredge
05-04-2017 3:33 AM


Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
Dredge writes:

I'm not required to prove the points you suggested because I put myself in the same boat as everyone else - ie, I can't prove that my code of morality is any more correct than anyone else's.

Then, by your own terms, your God derived absolute morality is unfounded and dispensable.

My point is that non-absolute subjective, non-God,derived morality is, if anything, more rational and able to be explained than that which you are proposing.

Dredge writes:

No, I don't think you can - because such facts would be nigh on impossible to get.

We can compare the religiosity of different societies and the respective crime rates and violent crime rates in those societies. I am not sure why you are saying we can't?

Dredge writes:

You are equating morality with survival.

Not really. I am saying that subjective moral tendencies have their roots in genetic propagation. There are plenty of evolutionary explanations for altruism and self-sacrifice. You just need to learn about them.

Kinship theory, non-zero sum game theory etc. I suggest the books of Robert Wright as an introduction to such ideas.

Dredge writes:

If a decrease in morality results in a decrease in the survival chances of humans, so what? Humans don't need to survive, so there is no need for morality.

Define "need" in this context....?

The idea that humans "need" to survive and that there will be a tendency towards moral imperatives that aid human survival (previous caveats implicit) is not the same thing.

As for the "need" for morality - Well, in evolutionary terms anything that enhances survival (more accurately gene propagation) will flourish. I am not sure of which part of that you are disagreeing with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by Dredge, posted 05-04-2017 3:33 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 964 of 1002 (808199)
05-09-2017 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 935 by ProtoTypical
05-07-2017 7:06 PM


Re: Quibbles the quibbler
ProtoTypical writes:

We practice and enforce morality because we realise that doing so is directly beneficial to ourselves.

... or beneficial to society, as well, I would say.  Consider Hitler, who believed murdering 6 million Jews would offer a direct benefit to society.  
Also consider the Khmer Rouge, who believed murdering 5 million Cambodians would offer a direct benefit to society.  Then there's ISIS, who thinking slaughtering infidels offers a direct benefit to society. 

Morality can be whatever you want it to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-07-2017 7:06 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 966 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2017 4:31 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 967 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 11:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 968 by ringo, posted 05-09-2017 12:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 969 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2017 12:35 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 965 of 1002 (808201)
05-09-2017 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 928 by RAZD
05-06-2017 10:11 AM


Re: Creationist summary? vs rationalist summary
RAZD writes:

for the preservation of the group

Why do think preservation of the group is important?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 928 by RAZD, posted 05-06-2017 10:11 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 970 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 1:12 PM Dredge has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5046
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 966 of 1002 (808205)
05-09-2017 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Dredge
05-09-2017 3:38 AM


Re: Quibbles the quibbler
Dredge writes:

Also consider the Khmer Rouge, who believed murdering 5 million Cambodians would offer a direct benefit to society. Then there's ISIS, who thinking slaughtering infidels offers a direct benefit to society.

Individuals and groups frequently attempt to devise their own ideas about how lives should be lived. Your religion is one of these groupings. Morally good ideas are often hi-jacked by morally corrupt people, Christianity has seen this several times, communism is another example. Hitler may or may not have been a 'true' beliving Christian, but he used some of the of Christianity and corrupted them to justify his actions. Pol Pot was just a psychopath.

The point is though, that these malignancies have eventually been overturned by more beneficial ways of living together. Immoral societies harm people and eventually collapse.

By picking out a few moral aberrations perpetrated by genocidal mass murderers, you ignore the general trends of increasing moral behavious across the history of our civilisation.

So, show us your objective morality.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 3:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7139
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 967 of 1002 (808250)
05-09-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Dredge
05-09-2017 3:38 AM


Re: Quibbles the quibbler
Dredge writes:

Then there's ISIS, who thinking slaughtering infidels offers a direct benefit to society.


ISIS believes they are following the commands of God, which by your book makes their actions moral.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 3:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 968 of 1002 (808258)
05-09-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Dredge
05-09-2017 3:38 AM


Re: Quibbles the quibbler
Dredge writes:

Consider Hitler, who believed murdering 6 million Jews would offer a direct benefit to society.


So answer the question: Was Hitler absolutely wrong? And were the Allies absolutely right to kill millions of Germans in return?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 3:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 969 of 1002 (808260)
05-09-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Dredge
05-09-2017 3:38 AM


Re: Quibbles the quibbler
... or beneficial to society, as well, I would say. Consider Hitler, who believed murdering 6 million Jews would offer a direct benefit to society. Also consider the Khmer Rouge, who believed murdering 5 million Cambodians would offer a direct benefit to society. Then there's ISIS, who thinking slaughtering infidels offers a direct benefit to society.

Actually, there's an interesting question there. Are such people immoral or merely ill-informed?

Perhaps you have read the great popular Christian apologist C.S. Lewis --- if not, you should. Here's what he had to say about witch-hunts:

Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. [...] But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather — surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.

No similarly one might argue --- I am not saying this is certain, but it is something to think about --- one might argue that Hitler was simply wrong about a matter of fact: Jews are not what Hitler thought they were.

I would argue that he was still culpable, but when you think about it in this light the question does at least become more subtle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 3:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18959
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 970 of 1002 (808265)
05-09-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by Dredge
05-09-2017 3:40 AM


Re: Creationist summary? vs rationalist summary
RAZD writes:

for the preservation of the group

Why do think preservation of the group is important?

It is for the group.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 3:40 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 971 of 1002 (808317)
05-10-2017 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 961 by Taq
05-08-2017 2:47 PM


So which religion did Hitler follow?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 2:47 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 982 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 10:48 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 972 of 1002 (808318)
05-10-2017 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 970 by RAZD
05-09-2017 1:12 PM


Re: Creationist summary? vs rationalist summary
RAZD writes:

It is for the group.

You seem to have repeated yourself. Can you elaborate, please? Why is survival of the group important?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 1:12 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2017 4:09 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 977 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 7:23 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5046
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 973 of 1002 (808320)
05-10-2017 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 972 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:51 AM


Re: Creationist summary? vs rationalist summary
Dredge writes:

You seem to have repeated yourself. Can you elaborate, please? Why is survival of the group important?

Generally, being dead is considered to be bad for things.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:51 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 4:52 AM Tangle has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 974 of 1002 (808321)
05-10-2017 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 973 by Tangle
05-10-2017 4:09 AM


Re: Creationist summary? vs rationalist summary
Do human beings need to survive, individually or collectively?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2017 4:09 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 975 by vimesey, posted 05-10-2017 5:08 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 976 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2017 5:16 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 983 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 10:53 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 975 of 1002 (808322)
05-10-2017 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 974 by Dredge
05-10-2017 4:52 AM


Re: Creationist summary? vs rationalist summary
Do human beings need to survive, individually or collectively?

Of course not. They want to survive.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 4:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
626364
65
6667Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017