[quote]therajraj wrote:
Sure, unfortunately when you live in a society of many, and we are all participants in building the moral system, you can’t do that.[/quote]
So morals are about who has the most guns. So morals don’t exist in an atheistic system. Just preferences and power.
So you answer by assuming immorality exists, and an act is immoral until ‘proven’ otherwise?
There’s people today who’ve been convinced by ‘sound’ arguments to sell children on the black market. Money being one.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ask it properly, Mak. If you do, I’ll answer it. But I want you to ask it correctly. You’ve been dodging it. Here, I’ll give it to you. “If you thought the existence of a deity was unlikely…” Fill in the rest. Now ask it. [/quote]
You would do well in war, not a single bullet or weapon of the enemy be able to touch you.[/quote]
Would this be a hypothetical war where it’s assumed I know with absolute certainty as to where to stand?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know. [/quote]
Could you share a ‘moral’ precept with me? I want to dissect it… Or, at least do mathematics with it. Thanks.
[/quote]
The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ. [/quote]
Nope.
Your historical perspective is skewed. In other words you don’t understand the histories of the cultures you mentioned along with accurate timelines and the comparables of biblical history.
I’m not making fun of you, just stating that you need more study in this area.[/quote]
Time for Ptah-Hotep?
The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep is the most ancient complete literary work existing. It was written in the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty, 3580 B.C. to 3536 B.C. In this papyrus book, Ptah-Hotep sets down the rules of behavior that all wise men should convey to their sons.
The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary), the oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus) and the oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic text upon which modern editions are based date to the 9th century CE.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?
Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.[/quote]
I can’t ‘find out’ that there was no God. Impossible. There is no way to frame the question, or consider the question, without considering the impossible. So my actions may or not still be constrained by the possibility of a God in my thoughts (doubt, 'better safe than sorry), by the nurture of a society/culture that is STILL influenced by religious thought, and by risk vs. reward.
Think I’m dodging? Ok then, how did you ‘find out’ that were was no God, Mak? No, we’re not talking belief. How did you find out there was no God? Did you publish your methods in a journal so they might be reproduced?
[/quote]
Still dodging I see. It’s a hypothetical that you refuse to answer - and I know why.[/quote]
Of course you know why. It’s an impossible question.
[/quote]
That’s how many hypotheticals work though.
If I asked you would you fight crime if you developed super powers similar to superman would you give this same cop out answer?
It doesn’t matter How you got these powers, it’s a hypothetical.[/quote]
I can imagine super powers (to a degree). I can’t imagine knowing with absolute uncertainty that a God doesn’t exist. But please, ask the question properly. I’ve been dying to answer it.
I know why you guys won’t ask it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?
Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.[/quote]
I can’t ‘find out’ that there was no God. Impossible. There is no way to frame the question, or consider the question, without considering the impossible. So my actions may or not still be constrained by the possibility of a God in my thoughts (doubt, 'better safe than sorry), by the nurture of a society/culture that is STILL influenced by religious thought, and by risk vs. reward.
Think I’m dodging? Ok then, how did you ‘find out’ that were was no God, Mak? No, we’re not talking belief. How did you find out there was no God? Did you publish your methods in a journal so they might be reproduced?
[/quote]
Still dodging I see. It’s a hypothetical that you refuse to answer - and I know why.[/quote]
Of course you know why. It’s an impossible question.
[/quote]
That’s how many hypotheticals work though.
If I asked you would you fight crime if you developed super powers similar to superman would you give this same cop out answer?
It doesn’t matter How you got these powers, it’s a hypothetical.[/quote]
I can imagine super powers (to a degree). I can’t imagine knowing with absolute uncertainty that a God doesn’t exist. But please, ask the question properly. I’ve been dying to answer it. [/quote]
Now you’re just playing dumb. I know you think you’re being smart by trying to reframe the question, but for once just answer the question without dodging and twisting.
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
It’s as simple as answering yes or no.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So morals are about who has the most guns. So morals don’t exist in an atheistic system. Just preferences and power. [/quote]
No, in a secular moral system we are ALL participants.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you answer by assuming immorality exists, and an act is immoral until ‘proven’ otherwise?[/quote]
Huh? No I deem what’s moral and immoral by knowing that my actions have consequences. I also know the right to swing my arm ends at your nose.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There’s people today who’ve been convinced by ‘sound’ arguments to sell children on the black market. Money being one.
[/quote]
No. They weren’t convinced by sound reasonable arguments. As far as I know, no sound reasonable argument for kidnapping and selling children exist.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
It’s as simple as answering yes or no.[/quote]
Nope. Ask it, correctly.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
It’s as simple as answering yes or no.[/quote]
Nope. Ask it, correctly.[/quote]
Answer the question. Acting like a child might help you in whatever it is you do outside of this forum, but I’m not biting. Trying to reframe the question isn’t going to fly.
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
We’re all waiting here.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
No, in a secular moral system we are ALL participants. [/quote]
Huh?
You don’t know what’s moral and immoral by your preferences. They’re just preferences.
[quote]No. They weren’t convinced by sound reasonable arguments. As far as I know, no sound reasonable argument for kidnapping and selling children.
[/quote]
So you believe in the existence of moral absolutes, now?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
It’s as simple as answering yes or no.[/quote]
Nope. Ask it, correctly.[/quote]
Answer the question. Acting like a child might help you in whatever it is you do outside of this forum, but I’m not biting. Trying to reframe the question isn’t going to fly.
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
We’re all waiting here.[/quote]
Ask it properly, instead of trying to dodge the obvious.
In fact, if you ask a proper question, that is more relevant to reality, I’ll play ball with that last question.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you believe in the existence of moral absolutes, now?
[/quote]
Time for bed for me, but I’ll answer this last one.
I would be open to changing my opinion on child kidnapping/selling if presented with a sound reasonable argument for why it’s not immoral. To my knowledge, I don’t know of one that exists. But no I don’t believe in moral absolutes since I am willing to change my mind…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
It’s as simple as answering yes or no.[/quote]
Nope. Ask it, correctly.[/quote]
Answer the question. Acting like a child might help you in whatever it is you do outside of this forum, but I’m not biting. Trying to reframe the question isn’t going to fly.
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
We’re all waiting here.[/quote]
Ask it properly, instead of trying to dodge the obvious.
[/quote]
It’s cute that you think you can flip the dodge accusation back on me. Nice try, but no one here is quite that stupid.
If there were no God, would you murder and/or rape on a whim?
Off you go, we’re not getting any younger here.
Forget it, I’m going to call you out.
When the question was asked, it was asked to remove all doubt. Well, that’s not even what most atheists claim. And those that do, are claiming it in on faith. No atheist knows with ‘absolute certainty’ that God doesn’t exist.
The relevant question to reality would’ve been “If you thought it unlikely that a God (god-like) existed, yadda, yadda.”
But that would’ve been problematic, because now my behavior, whatever it would be, would be colored by doubt in my atheistic worldview, conscious or subconscious.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I would be open to changing my opinion on child kidnapping/selling if presented with a sound reasonable argument for why it’s not immoral. [/quote]
That’s not a moral objection. That’s asking for a high enough payout.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.
[/quote]
It can’t even do so for OUR society. In the sense that there is no moral obligation, as uncovered by science, to maintain this society. The value in continuing this society is, well, a value judgment. Science can’t say “Yes, your society is how we’re SUPPOSED (opens a can of worms) to live.”
[/quote]
You didn’t pay attention to the whole post, apparently.[/quote]
No, I did. Edited: All of them. And they’re all been riddled with assumed value judgments, as has been pointed out to you. And even those assumption don’t lead you to say that infant rape is evil. Or that science establishes morality. You only highlight the transient state of nature and environment. And then let ‘morality’ flow with the current (besides your prime assumptions). Where a society of infant rape is as right as a society in which the practice is frowned upon. Or, looking at it from the other direction, a society that frowns upon the practice is as ‘bad’ as a society that practices infant rape. Oh wait, it makes no sense from a moral standpoint, as you said. So why imply science has anything to do with establishing ‘moral’ lifestyles? [/quote]
First of all, as I’ve said many times, it helps establish HEALTHY lifestyles. For an atheist, it provides a decision making process for answering questions that you, as a monotheist, consider moral. I was pointing out that acting in the way which is considered almost universally moral by western societies can be concluded as the right way to live through current knowledge about health, but these conclusions are dependent on the environment of the society.
As for robbing banks, you can easily conclude through economics how that wouldn’t be beneficial for yourself and others in the long run.
The problem is that your suggestions as to there being no reason why not to commit certain activities as an atheist are all short sighted. They will all come back to bite you or your kids. Your risk consideration process isn’t very good. Your understanding of how emotions and feeling connected as a social animal work also isn’t farsighted.
[/quote]
Your use of ‘shortsighted’ and ‘farsighted’ goes back to an assumed set of value judgments.[/quote]
My use goes back to the basic observation that individuals are trying to thrive and pass on their genes. It’s short-sighted to not take care of your offspring or yourself or to put anyone who might help you out later,in danger. That brings up an interesting topic; humans are a social animal with complex power-play. We aren’t the only animal who has that. You’d probably gain a better understanding of our own system for establishing how we should act if you looked at like species.
Now where did I get the idea that I need to stay alive? Isn’t that a value judgement? It’s been bred into me. Thank you all who came before and somehow survived long enough to make me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know. [/quote]
Could you share a ‘moral’ precept with me? I want to dissect it… Or, at least do mathematics with it. Thanks.
[/quote]
The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ. [/quote]
Nope.
Your historical perspective is skewed. In other words you don’t understand the histories of the cultures you mentioned along with accurate timelines and the comparables of biblical history.
I’m not making fun of you, just stating that you need more study in this area.[/quote]
Time for Ptah-Hotep?
The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep is the most ancient complete literary work existing. It was written in the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty, 3580 B.C. to 3536 B.C. In this papyrus book, Ptah-Hotep sets down the rules of behavior that all wise men should convey to their sons.
The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary), the oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus) and the oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic text upon which modern editions are based date to the 9th century CE.
[/quote]
The first 11 chapters of Genesis predate all of Egyptian civilization. Read them and you’ll know why.
If you don’t read them don’t bother debating me here because I have read and studied them in detail therefore I have an insurmountable advantage over you and might just make you look bad. You don’t wanna look bad, do you?[/quote]
We’re talking about DOCUMENT DATES, not what the document says its date is. Your response is so circular I’m smiling.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Forget it, I’m going to call you out.
When the question was asked, it was asked to remove all doubt. Well, that’s not even what most atheists claim. And those that do, are claiming it in on faith. No atheist knows with ‘absolute certainty’ that God doesn’t exist.
The relevant question to reality would’ve been “If you thought it unlikely that a God (god-like) existed, yadda, yadda.”
But that would’ve been problematic, because now my behavior, whatever it would be, would be colored by doubt in my atheistic worldview, conscious or subconscious.
[/quote]
In an imaginary world where you were able to know for sure that God did not exist, but exactly like our own other than this one thing, would you go around raping, murdering, pillage, and stealing?