Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
35 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,340 Year: 22,376/19,786 Month: 939/1,834 Week: 9/430 Day: 9/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Deteriorating State :: Morality in the 21st Century
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3507 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 16 of 65 (401423)
05-19-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jon
05-19-2007 2:44 PM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
There is no dishonesty in my statements.

The fact of the matter is God exists or he does not. these are the only two states allowed. existence/non-existence.

While we accept that you can not 'prove' the non-existence of something, this does not stop one reaching an honest conclusion in regard to the existence of any given object.

People say that there is a monster in Loch Ness. Some claim to have seen it, some to have photographed it. Yet to date, despite many in-depth studies and searches (including a radar scan of the entire Loch) no credible evidence has been unearthed. Taking the extraordinary nature of the claim, and the lack of evidence for this claim, is it not the more credible stance to conclude that the beastie does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence?

...

People say that there is a GOD. Some claim to have seen it, some to have spoken to it. Yet to date, despite many in-depth studies and searches over a 5000 year recorded history, NO credible evidence has EVER been unearthed. Taking the implausibly of the claim, and the utter lack of evidence for it, is it not the more credible stance to conclude that said God does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence?

Just because we can't prove God's non existence, and those who believe have yet to prove it doesn't mean the choice is 50/50. on this subject it is the agnostic fence sitter who is the dishonest one. The agnostic refuses to drum up an opinion either way, citing 'lack of evidence'.

Sadly for him, this lack of evidence when talking about the existence/non-existence question IS actually evidence (of sort) for the non-existence camp. The existence of the tooth-fairy is just as un-provable as any other non-existent thing, and yet you will find very few Tooth-fairy agnostics.

Why?

Christopher Hitchens writes:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Based on the evidence, 'non-x' is the only rational and honest conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 05-19-2007 2:44 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 12:41 AM ohnhai has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 65 (401445)
05-20-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by berberry
05-19-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
Guess you didn't read my posts the first time around, and decided not to the second time around.

I'm merely asking why you seem to assume that one who fails to believe in a god is therefore actively believing in some sort of non-god.

Did I say that a person who 'doesn't conclude X' is the same as a person who 'concludes non-X'? Again, go back and read my post. You're missing it. I made the distinction here:

quote:
An Agnostic 'doesn't conclude God does exist,' whereas an Atheist/you 'concludes God doesn't exist.'

And went into greater detail with it here:

quote:
It's one thing not to come to conclusion X, scientifically there is really no reason we should come to conclusion X; nothing leads us toward it. But, to come to a conclusion of non-X?

quote:
There can never be evidence for a non-X—a non-existent God—, yet you conclude non-X to be true. From where do you draw your evidence? From where do you draw your faith for this belief other than from the same dirty well from which is drawn the water of religious fundamentalism and blind/stupid faith?

Again, while it's perfectly logical to 'NEGATIVELY conclude GOD-POSITIVE,' it is a dishonest leap of faith to 'POSITIVELY conclude GOD-NEGATIVE.' Is that unclear?

Jon


In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by berberry, posted 05-19-2007 3:09 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 65 (401446)
05-20-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ohnhai
05-19-2007 9:46 PM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
People say that there is a monster in Loch Ness. ... Is it not the more credible stance to conclude that the beastie does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence?

No. The most credible and honest stance is to 'not conclude he does exist.'

Based on the evidence, 'non-x' is the only rational and honest conclusion.

Again, based on the evidence, it is only rational and honest to 'not come to X,' instead of 'come to non-X.' I think you folks still don't see/recognise the difference between X and non-X.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ohnhai, posted 05-19-2007 9:46 PM ohnhai has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ohnhai, posted 05-20-2007 1:43 AM Jon has responded
 Message 40 by fallacycop, posted 05-20-2007 6:06 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 19 of 65 (401447)
05-20-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
05-19-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
I think you've lost me along the way, Jon.

What's the difference between a liberal and religious fundamentalist?

Are you asking, What's the difference between (a liberal and a religous) fundamentalist? or are you asking, what's the difference between a (liberal) and a (religeous fundamentalist)?

in other words:
Liberal Vs Religeous fundamentalist
or
Liberal fundamentalist vs religeous fundamentalist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 05-19-2007 2:47 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 1:54 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 20 of 65 (401448)
05-20-2007 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by anglagard
05-19-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
It seems that so far, morality is more advanced in this century than the last one.

This raises an interesting philosophical question.

Were past actions immoral if the morality of the time didn't proclaim them so?

For example: Let's say it's the 50's and homosexuality is solidly "immoral" by the standards of the day. From their perspective ancient Greece was a hotbed of immorality. But from the standards of the ancient Greeks, it was no big deal.

Can we really judge past cultures for "immoral" acts if they themselves do not recognize the acts as immoral?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 05-19-2007 3:52 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 2:03 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 05-20-2007 1:24 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 54 by anastasia, posted 05-21-2007 7:10 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3507 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 21 of 65 (401450)
05-20-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
05-20-2007 12:41 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
No. The most credible and honest stance is to 'not conclude he does exist.'

What the hell are you dribbling on about?

Ohh. I get it.

This is just another attempt to re-define atheists out of existence.

OK. What about that huge diamond of yours? you know the one the size of a refrigerator?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 12:41 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 1:57 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 65 (401451)
05-20-2007 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
05-20-2007 1:29 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
Liberal Vs Religeous fundamentalist
or
Liberal fundamentalist vs religeous fundamentalist

The first one, in bold. Sorry for the confusion. Let me explain a little why I think this, though. I think that a liberal = non-religious fundamentalist. In my mind, it's 'non-religious fundamentalist' = 'religious fundamentalists.' Since I view any type of fundamentalism as a deterioration of moral values, I think they are both equally as evil.

:)

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 05-20-2007 1:29 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Nuggin, posted 05-20-2007 2:07 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 42 by nator, posted 05-20-2007 7:23 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 65 (401452)
05-20-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ohnhai
05-20-2007 1:43 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
OK. What about that huge diamond of yours? you know the one the size of a refrigerator?

I don't think such a diamond exists—at least not in my possession. ;)

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ohnhai, posted 05-20-2007 1:43 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by kongstad, posted 05-20-2007 2:03 AM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 65 (401454)
05-20-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Nuggin
05-20-2007 1:37 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
We might say that the people in the '50s had deteriorated morals, because of their non-acceptance of the choices of others. From this, one could almost say that merely judging the morality of others is an act immoral. In that case, is this entire post a sign of our world's deteriorated morality?

Am I evil? :(

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 05-20-2007 1:37 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 05-20-2007 2:10 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 1214 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 25 of 65 (401455)
05-20-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jon
05-20-2007 1:57 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
So you expose yourself as as a non-diamond fundamentalist? Must you now condemn yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 1:57 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 2:07 AM kongstad has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 65 (401456)
05-20-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by kongstad
05-20-2007 2:03 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
Point missed, once again. 'Non-diamond' and 'diamond' are not the same thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kongstad, posted 05-20-2007 2:03 AM kongstad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by kongstad, posted 05-20-2007 4:10 AM Jon has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 27 of 65 (401457)
05-20-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jon
05-20-2007 1:54 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
I view any type of fundamentalism as a deterioration of moral values

While I am no fan of religeous fundamentalism, I don't think it necessarily causes a deterioration of moral values in an of itself.

I think fundamentalism causes moral stagnation, often with no rhymn or reason to their stead fast rulings.

So, for example, as we as a society move forward on issues of sexuality - the fundamentalists won't budge an inch.

But their view point isn't adding to the amount of immorality, it's just unwilling to be swayed.

However, one thing that fundamentalism does breed is this culture of non-thinking sheep willing to believe anything they are told and follow any instruction no matter how absurd.

That sort of blind obedience necessarily creates leaders who's absolute power and "moral authority" quickly become corrupt.

In that way fundamentalism enables individuals who are themselves ruthlessly immoral.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 1:54 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 65 (401459)
05-20-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jon
05-20-2007 2:03 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
We might say that the people in the '50s had deteriorated morals

***I acknowledge that what follows is a ridiculously over simplified historical timeline***

We might, but are we saying that the Greeks had a high moral standard, then during the Dark Ages we plunged into a low moral standard, and the 50's sit someone along the incline back out of the pit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 2:03 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 1214 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 29 of 65 (401463)
05-20-2007 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jon
05-20-2007 2:07 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
So what is the difference between looking for diamond, and believing that there is no diamond, and looking for a god and believing there is no god?

Why are you not agnostic with regards to the diamond? Why must one be agnostic with regards to the one, but not the other?

You can never prove the non existence of the diamond, nor the non existence of a god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 2:07 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 05-20-2007 4:39 AM kongstad has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 65 (401465)
05-20-2007 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kongstad
05-20-2007 4:10 AM


Re: Morality in the 21st Centurty
READ MY POSTS!

quote:
I don't think such a diamond exists—at least not in my possession.

I am in every way agnostic with the diamond. Read it again.

Done?

Now, read it one more time.

Did I say 'I think the diamond doesn't exist' or 'I don't think the diamond exists'? Was my statement Atheistic or Agnostic?

The best we can do in absence of evidence for the existence of X is to simply not conclude it exists. How can you say non-X is true? You have no, never had any, can never have any, evidence confirming non-X. It's the nature of the game—you can't prove a negative.

Edited by Jon, : cleanup


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kongstad, posted 05-20-2007 4:10 AM kongstad has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019