Author Topic: Objective Morality?  (Read 10148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #116 on: June 05, 2015, 03:22:55 PM »
Cake eaters. I hate cake eaters! Mainly because I can't eat cake but I blame them for rubbing it in my face![1].

Funny enough, I can eat cupcakes but not all the time.

-Nam
 1. literally and metaphorically

Why, nam? Do you need it gluten free? We do some gluten free cake at home sometimes....
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18290
  • Darwins +640/-134
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #117 on: June 05, 2015, 03:31:17 PM »
I have no idea. I've eaten other gluten products with no problems. I just get these massive headaches when eating cake.

I don't remember when I stopped eating cake but I remember being at Mickey Mouse's 60th birthday party (worldwide event) at Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in 1988 and telling one of the Cast members I couldn't eat cake. He went down stairs into the tunnel system and got me pie. So, I at least knew at 10/11 years old I couldn't eat cake.

My dad used to get it every year for my birthday. He said it wasn't for me it was for everyone else -- why should they suffer for my allergy. All I got was ice cream.

Bastard.

-Nam
"presumptions are the bitch of all assumptions" -- me

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1791
  • Darwins +172/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #118 on: June 05, 2015, 03:56:30 PM »
Sorry, Nam.  I love cake and you have my sympathies.

I don't remember when I stopped eating cake but I remember being at Mickey Mouse's 60th birthday party (worldwide event) at Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in 1988 and telling one of the Cast members I couldn't eat cake. He went down stairs into the tunnel system and got me pie. So, I at least knew at 10/11 years old I couldn't eat cake.

This reminded me of our funny Disney story. 

My kids share a birthday 2 years apart.  We went to Disney in part to celebrate their 4 & 6 birthdays.  Our first night at a Disney establishment was the day after their birthday, but the hosts let it slide, and were espeically impressed with the shared birtday, so they said they'd take care of the kids for dessert.

meanwhile, my daughter (turning 4) saw the buffet and saw the bigass brownies and said "Daddy!!  I want a brownie!!"  Not knowing what they were going to bring, I told her "I promise you'll get dessert."

So they come out all a-hootin' and a-hollerin' about the shared birthday, how special it was, and they have 2 humongous strawberry shortcakes, one for each rugrat.  My daughter scowls a bit, as the whole place sings Happy Birthday.  When they finish singing and put the desserts down, there's a 2-second lull and she yells out with a big 'ol frown...

"I WANTED A BROWNIE!!!"

So Daddy got to eat her strawberry shortcake (possibly my favorite dessert) and she did, in fact, get her brownie.  If only we'd have been recording it, we'd have won big on AFV!!
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #119 on: June 05, 2015, 03:59:57 PM »
Let's see....slavery or death? Hmmmm. What to do, what to do? I think I'd rather have cake. After all, it's a choice, right? I choose cake.

Cake for me, too, please. Chocolate for preference!

Stole the "cake or death" choice from Eddie Izzard. He takes down religion so nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2748
  • Darwins +167/-4
  • Polyatheist
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #120 on: June 05, 2015, 04:34:46 PM »
Let's see....slavery or death? Hmmmm. What to do, what to do? I think I'd rather have cake. After all, it's a choice, right? I choose cake.

Cake for me, too, please. Chocolate for preference!

Stole the "cake or death" choice from Eddie Izzard. He takes down religion so nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg

You beat me to it...

"Cake or death?"
"Uhh, cake please"
"Alright, give him cake..."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #121 on: June 07, 2015, 10:51:52 AM »
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline The Gawd

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1655
  • Darwins +147/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #122 on: June 07, 2015, 11:03:10 AM »
Pie >>>>> cake

You lucked out Nam. Cherry or Blueberry pie with a heap of vanilla ice cream... sweet potato pie with a heap of butter pecan... yep much better than cake. Cake is aight though

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18290
  • Darwins +640/-134
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #123 on: June 07, 2015, 11:23:07 AM »
If I had to guess I'd say it's the icing. I also couldn't eat twinkies or ho ho's.

I actually dislike people who don't get it. Like, I worked at a bakery/restaurant and I ate all the free muffins they gave us but when someone had a birthday and they made these miniature cakes I refused mine and they thought I was being rude. I siad, "I don't eat cake they give me headaches." And their reply was, "Why do you hate cake?"

My sister-in-law tried to give me cake, too. I jokingly said, "um, just give me some aspirin with it, I'll be fine." Everyone there laughed, and she came from the kitchen with a piece of cake and aspirin, and was serious about it. Apparently, she didn't hear the laughter. My brother was like, "Dude, no...".

I don't "hate" cake. I just can't eat it, and some people just don't understand why. It gives me massive headaches. That's why.

Like Christianity gives me headaches but for a whole different reason.

-Nam
"presumptions are the bitch of all assumptions" -- me

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #124 on: June 07, 2015, 05:58:06 PM »
Religion gives me a headache but in a lower part of my body. :angel:

As for the cake, I feel sick if I eat it, now that I am off the carbs. It disrupts my system as if I drank a lot of alcohol, without the getting drunk part. Same with pie, muffins, bagels, brownies, cookies, doughnuts. All that sugary starchy stuff. Potatoes, bread, rice, corn tortillas, beans, pasta. All off the table. So I am worse off than you, Nam. At least you can enjoy ice cream and pie.

At social events I will take a few bites if the person made dessert special, and ohh and ahh over it, just to be polite. If it is a major holiday, I will eat the dessert and suffer, the same way I endure prayers and such. At retirement parties, receptions and so on at work, I take a piece and bring it to my secretary or another staff member who did not attend. Mexican, Asian and Italian cuisine is the bane of my existence. I always have to try to find the meat and salad option.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4712
  • Darwins +473/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #125 on: June 07, 2015, 10:08:34 PM »
Hamsaka,

Every analogy skep has ever written was nonsense. He doesn't know how to write them properly. He thinks he does but he's been told countless times that he writes bad analogies.

-Nam

Is it true that my analogies are bad?

Or could it be true that you are just too biased toward God's non-existence so you refuse to see the truth of the analogies?

I'm going to give you a bad analogy to explain why that isn't true.

Just imagine a person who can't answer any questions with facts, so uses total shit to answer all conundrums.

Just imagine a person who comes to the forum with a bag of poo that he bought from the produce store, and answers questions by inserting the poo into the submit box.

I hope my bad analogy answers your question.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18290
  • Darwins +640/-134
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #126 on: June 07, 2015, 10:28:45 PM »
nogodsforme,

I don't suffer for nobody, except maybe my mom. She's the only one that can hold me back from going off on people. She actually did that recently when a nurse was being condescending toward her, she looked at me right away and shook her head 'no'.

That nurse lucked out.

-Nam
"presumptions are the bitch of all assumptions" -- me

Offline dennis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
  • Darwins +37/-38
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Challenger
    • My Intro
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #127 on: June 21, 2015, 12:31:16 AM »
Add Homonym
(Going back to the beginning of the post)

Quote
I think Christians have screwed themselves by the assumption that objective morality is actually correct, or that it's meaningful to be correct. Do they ever say that their morality is correct, during these arguments? That would be like falling on a sword. They spend large amounts of time talking about "objective", without saying what they really mean by it, to build a circumlocution.

We can’t say that objective morality is ‘correct’. Just that since morality is (we all sense) a good thing, that an objective morality means there is a fixed standard (i.e. since there is an ontic reference point) and that if we want to be moral, then THAT standard is the one by which we are measured. (Rightly or wrongly.)

Quote
It's not fine for the civilization, if everyone rapes and kills everyone, but there is obviously no "correct" way to do things, esp if you don't have a clue what your destiny (ultimate objective) is. If you decide that civilization is not important; trees and dolphins should come first, then your moral framework changes.

You are right, there is ‘obviously no “correct” way to do things’ – but only if you don’t accept the objective morality. If you accept it, there IS a correct way to do it. E.g. you may not like chocolate cake, but there is definitively a something that is the ‘right’ chocolate cake, even if you don’t like the standards by which chocolate cake is measured to be good or not.

Quote
Some aspects of theoretical morality have to be pseudoscience, if we don't know what our goal is. If we do know what our goal is, then it's probably still pseudoscience, because we have no time machine, or decent predictive models to find out the effects of moral edicts.

Correct again. But only if you don’t know what your goal is. Christians know what their goal is, so morality therefore becomes meaningful

We still have no idea whether it's societally optimal, let alone correct, to:
- kill weak children, to strengthen the gene pool, in lieu of decent environmental selection
- stop inferior males from breeding
- marry a few wives
- kill the criminal population, or enslave them
- have sex with sheep

etc etc.

We will never know if it is ‘societally optimal’. Or at least what is optimal today may be not be so tomorrow. That is exactly why an objective (and eternally unchanging) morality is the most desirable yardstick and NOT whether it is beneficial or not to society.

wheels5894
(In the next post)

Quote
There's also an additional problem with the 'objective morality'. Even if we conceded that there was 'objective morality' I don't think we can deduce from that the existence of a moral lawgiver, presumably a god. Cannot evolution leave us with some of these values?

That would be a logical contradiction. Evolution is said to apply to material/natural things (e.g. humans) and us such the process by which such natural things are ‘created’ cannot produce an ‘objective’ or independent outcome. I.e. if everything is matter, then there is no possibility of an ontic reference point outside of that matter.

You are right in the sense that you can’t deduce (directly) a ‘God’, but merely that there is a non-material source of said objectivity. Since we believe in the supernatural, it is not a big leap to make that law-giver also God. In that way our Christian worldviews are coherent and logically consistent. (Even though you may differ about the point of departure.)
If you believe in nothing for sure, you are liable to believe anything.

Offline joseph.mahal

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #128 on: June 21, 2015, 12:36:25 AM »
To me, it seems that the more knowledge I accumulate, the possibility of an all-loving, all-powerful God decreases about as fast as my inconsideration decreases.

Let's talk about "inconsideration". At my workplace, I obviously have to use the restroom from time to time. Often, I enter the restroom and find toilet paper all over the floor. You can fucking guarantee that when I use the restroom, I leave it either the same or more tidy than before I arrived.

You see, in my logical world, I would rather choose #1 of these two possible scenarios:

1. I enter the restroom and find no toilet paper on the floor. Meanwhile, there is a man fucking another willing man's ass a mile away . . . out of sight.

2. I enter the restroom and find a bunch of toilet paper on the floor. Chances are, the toilet paper was inconsiderably left by a Christian, if I were betting in Vegas. Meanwhile, no one is fucking anyone in the ass within a thousand mile radius of where I stand.


I doubt that your typical Christian enters a restroom that has toilet paper all over the floor and thinks of "sin" or "Satan". They most likely treat the scenario the same way an atheist treats it. It might bother them, or they couldn't care less. But, they most likely don't worry too much about the "salvation" of the culprit. If you leave toilet paper on the floor, it doesn't hurt your chances of getting into Heaven. However, if you don't believe some bullshit book, you're going to Hell.

For atheists, inconsideration is a part of morality. It is connected in some way. For atheists, it's a simple "some situations are more desirable than others" outlook. The Christian outlook is all over the place. It's fuckin' illogical.


In a world of semantics, if there is "objective morality" in this world, I can agree that it could be associated with every conscious being wanting to make oneself happy. Or, maybe I can say that the average human consensus of morality that is ever-changing is objective.



Check this scenario:

You're born gay. You can't help but be attracted to the same sex. Furthermore, you don't believe the bullshit that you read in the Bible. You simply don't believe it. You are just being yourself. Meanwhile, Frand Turek is trying to argue "objective morality" in the 21st century. What a fuckin' idiot.



If you begin with a predefined deity, it's no wonder you end up with a wrong conclusion.

What do you do if a god does exist but doesn't happen to fit your narrow definition?

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2336
  • Darwins +299/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #129 on: June 21, 2015, 12:41:19 AM »

If you begin with a predefined deity, it's no wonder you end up with a wrong conclusion.

What do you do if a god does exist but doesn't happen to fit your narrow definition?

Well, first and foremost we'll need you to actually positively, meaningfully, and coherently define what the term "god" is even referring to. What is "it"? Until then your use of that term is really just gibberish. "What do you do if Blark Schmarbelfarben exists..."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline joseph.mahal

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #130 on: June 21, 2015, 01:10:46 AM »

If you begin with a predefined deity, it's no wonder you end up with a wrong conclusion.

What do you do if a god does exist but doesn't happen to fit your narrow definition?

Well, first and foremost we'll need you to actually positively, meaningfully, and coherently define what the term "god" is even referring to. What is "it"? Until then your use of that term is really just gibberish. "What do you do if Blark Schmarbelfarben exists..."

You can't meaningfully define an entity you've never experienced.

If you're trying to discover something, then your definition should begin with the absolute most general terms and narrow as your learn.

The OP didn't do that.  It offered a [cliché] strawman argument and accomplished nothing intelligent.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2336
  • Darwins +299/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #131 on: June 21, 2015, 01:18:37 AM »

If you begin with a predefined deity, it's no wonder you end up with a wrong conclusion.

What do you do if a god does exist but doesn't happen to fit your narrow definition?

Well, first and foremost we'll need you to actually positively, meaningfully, and coherently define what the term "god" is even referring to. What is "it"? Until then your use of that term is really just gibberish. "What do you do if Blark Schmarbelfarben exists..."

You can't meaningfully define an entity you've never experienced.

If you're trying to discover something, then your definition should begin with the absolute most general terms and narrow as your learn.

The OP didn't do that.  It offered a [cliché] strawman argument and accomplished nothing intelligent.

And...you dodged yet again. You used the word "god" in the sentence:

Quote
What do you do if a god does exist but doesn't happen to fit your narrow definition?

And I asked you define that term you used in a positive, meaningful, and coherent fashion. What are you referring to, exactly, when you use that term?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #132 on: June 21, 2015, 07:58:14 AM »
Median, he said that he and god had three or four conversations, he didn't say that god said much. Though he probably did. God must have spend all of the conversations saying "Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?"

We've asked this guy for clarification over and over, and other than his finally rephrasing the question in his god money quest, he has never put any effort into making his posts comprehensible. When everyone asks "WTF you talking about?" and he responds with "Ha, I'm winning!", a certain level of frustration is inevitable. For us because he isn't communicating, for him because he told us god is real and that's all the proof anyone should need and we don't believe him.

He thinks that as long as his intentions are clear (convincing us that he is right), there is no need to follow any of the normal conventions of conversation. To him, everything is a given, including our highly accurate and detailed interpretation of his every post, which we then pretend to not have understood.

But hey, he's used to talking to nobody while in closets. I can see where the real world would throw him off a bit.

What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #133 on: June 21, 2015, 08:27:36 AM »
So, 5 pages and so far no one has offered any evidence that there exists ant 'absolute morality'. I would have thought that the conventional view of gods would mean that such objective morality would have to be a given and would be found in the appropriate holy book. The thing is, though, that whilst Islam still reveres and follows its holy book - chopping of limbs etc - Christians have more or less given up on any sort of absolute morality and use the prevailing morality and try to make the bible fit it, more of less.

So I doubt that any of our Christians are going to manage to come up with anything more than bluster!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #134 on: June 21, 2015, 06:37:27 PM »
You can't meaningfully define an entity you've never experienced.

If you're trying to discover something, then your definition should begin with the absolute most general terms and narrow as your learn.

Weird as this may sound, I've said the same thing.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,28629.msg662736.html#msg662736
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27600.msg638951.html#msg638951
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27600.msg639094.html#msg639094


And the thing is, until someone observes a god and describes it, there is no good reason to think one exists.  Kinda like a mermaid, or a yeti.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1280
  • Darwins +425/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #135 on: June 22, 2015, 10:26:19 AM »
If you begin with a predefined deity, it's no wonder you end up with a wrong conclusion.

What do you do if a god does exist but doesn't happen to fit your narrow definition?

This is another great point.  Christians define their God so narrowly so that the things in the Bible that are contradictory are explained away.

All of the following arguments have been made by Christians, sometimes the same Christian in the same debate:

1 - Morality was given to us by God.  That's how we know what's right and wrong.  God put morality on our hearts.
2 - God must have had good reasons for suspending "thou shall not kill" to Moses right after he announced it when Moses killed 3,000 non-violent idolaters.
3 - Since we're just limited humans, we can't understand God's morality, it never changes, but, we're limited, so, that's why we think it changes when God orders genocide, floods the earth, or orders his prophets to order the army to take virgin war brides or slaves.

1 - The Bible is a perfect book!  It's wonderful and it defines the origin of creation perfectly!   "Let there be light" was the Big Bang of course!
2 - The creation stories are just morality tales, that's why the two of them happen in different orders.  It's still perfectly scientific.
3 - You say plants didn't come before the sun?  The sun and move don't move through the vault of our sky to mark day and night?   The earth could never stand still?   Well, all those magical things are possible with an all-powerful God, so, it doesn't matter if it's not perfectly science.

1 - Christianity is true because it stands up far better and longer and more historically than every other religion.  All those other religions are cults.
2 - You say there's no proof of any of the miracles in the Bible?  Half the prophecies didn't come true?  Half were made after the time they occurred?   Well... anything is possible for an all-powerful God, and we know God exists because he's in the Bible, and the Bible is perfect.
3 - You ask why, at no other point in history, have the dead rose, have people walked on water or multiplied food without some staged trick?   Well... it was fake for all those OTHER religions but not our religion.


Christians have this narrow definition of God where they jump through hoops over and over again to "prove" claims that are just... pathetic.

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #136 on: June 22, 2015, 11:12:41 AM »

You can't meaningfully define an entity you've never experienced.

Exactly! You have it right there! The thing is, though, that many of us were theists for a long time - attending churches etc - yet we are now atheists. How did it happen? Well, not god decided we were the right sort of people to be able  to experience it, so we were forced into the position, eventually, that it didn't really exist. There can be no other reason why a god-like[1]being whom the being claims wants a relationship with his creation not to allow people to experience it.

Quote
If you're trying to discover something, then your definition should begin with the absolute most general terms and narrow as your learn.

More usually, one comes across something that needs an explanation and then looks for that explanation. To define what one is looking for before a search is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Unless one has found and experienced a god, how would one know what one was looking for?

 1. whatever that means
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2748
  • Darwins +167/-4
  • Polyatheist
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #137 on: June 22, 2015, 07:40:04 PM »
The thing is, though, that many of us were theists for a long time - attending churches etc - yet we are now atheists. How did it happen?

Any theist turned atheist was never truly a theist to begin with. Makes me glad I was never a theist myself so I don't have to put up with this.. bullshit.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18290
  • Darwins +640/-134
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #138 on: June 22, 2015, 11:01:46 PM »
I was a Christian because my parents are Christian.

-Nam
"presumptions are the bitch of all assumptions" -- me

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #139 on: June 22, 2015, 11:43:58 PM »
Exactly the same with me. If my family had not holy rollered their way to the JW's before l was  born, there is no way l would have been a Witness on my own. My brain could not accept what they said, especially about science, after logic kicked in. At about age 12.

All religions are made up. But the way the JW's throw together numerology, biblical inerrancy, end times millenarianism and pacifism-- with constant reboots and updates when their perfect predictions go wrong, well it's breathtaking. As long as Vodun, snake handlers and Scientology exist, l can't say the Witnesses are the wackiest. But they are close.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #140 on: June 23, 2015, 02:56:41 AM »
So it looks like there is no opposition to the idea that there is no Absolute Morality. I think only Joe is in the race to debate it and he is under moderation so it may take a while to get a reply.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #141 on: June 23, 2015, 08:11:24 AM »
So it looks like there is no opposition to the idea that there is no Absolute Morality. I think only Joe is in the race to debate it and he is under moderation so it may take a while to get a reply.

He hasn't been back since his one day assault on sanity. He appears to have been a nine hour wonder, whipping out 111 posts of nothingness in what would probably have been, had he actually said anything, some sort of posting record. (He can't be compared to skep or BS or jst. Their staying power gives them a bit of street cred, while joseph earned none)

So he drove by, sort of slow, missed with every shot, and then he probably ran back to his gang and said he slew the whole lot of us. Sounds like your typical street punk to me.
What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #142 on: June 23, 2015, 10:07:18 AM »
(He can't be compared to skep or BS or jst. Their staying power gives them a bit of street cred, while joseph earned none)

I think that is kind of important.  We should be grateful for our regular theists and congratulate them for not being the gigantic douche that joseph.mahal is.  They may try our patience from time to time, but at least they are willing to talk without promise of reward.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1791
  • Darwins +172/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #143 on: June 24, 2015, 10:06:56 AM »
The thing is, though, that many of us were theists for a long time - attending churches etc - yet we are now atheists. How did it happen?

Any theist turned atheist was never truly a theist to begin with. Makes me glad I was never a theist myself so I don't have to put up with this.. bullshit.

nat, you being facetious here?  I was *totally* a theist.  I withstood premarital sex (for a while, anway) because of it; I never did drugs or alcohol as a kid partly because of it; I had plenty of Catholic Guilt (TM) because of it[1]; I seriously considered priesthood because of it.  I was Truly A Theist.
 1. being a goody-two-shoes notwithstanding
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Objective Morality?
« Reply #144 on: June 24, 2015, 10:46:14 AM »
I was a JW because I knew nothing else. I was raised that way. That is what was in my head. I was a theist. It was automatic. The praying before meals, the witnessing, the bible study, the meetings at the kingdom hall. The no holidays, the modest attire, the no worldly entertainment. It was just the way life was.

Until I started realizing that the answers to my legitimately curious questions were just plain bogus. And that the JW world view did not reflect reality. Beginning of the end.  :angel:
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?