Jump to content

On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself


hakutaku

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

By basically saying that "its not an opinion because God" which is a bit of a non-answer.

Of course if you say "I believe all moral system not based on God are invalid" and then refuse to define what you mean by valid, no one can debate you.  They can't show that non-God based moral systems are actually valid because you haven't given the criteria you used to decide atheistic moral systems are invalid.

I could try to argue, for example, that the fact we are rational implies that we have categorical reasons to regulate our behavior towards others.  But then you could just say "nope, invalid, and I don't have to say why."

Incorrect, I have given criteria, humans have no greater value than any other animal, and it is not wrong for one animal to kill another animal. If we reject God as a human construct, then we must reject morals because morals are also human constructs. We must reject morals as objective and unchanging because morals are subjective and change between person to person, culture to culture, to time to time. What is 'evil' in one society is 'good' in another and vise versa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I have given criteria, humans have no greater value than any other animal, and it is not wrong for one animal to kill another animal.

Oh!  So my example rationale answers this objection, then, right?

24 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

for example, that the fact we are rational implies that we have categorical reasons to regulate our behavior towards others.

Done!  Animals are not rational, we are, and since the basis of our moral rules is rationality, animals aren't subject to them in the same way we are.

 

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

We must reject morals as objective and unchanging because morals are subjective and change between person to person, culture to culture, to time to time. What is 'evil' in one society is 'good' in another and vise versa. 

Its almost like you don't expect anyone to learn anything about morality.    Objectivity doesn't imply you can figure everything out all at once without any mistakes. Even theists change their tunes about what God wants from time to time.  E.g. the evolving Catholic position on slavery.  

I agree, our moral system should be asserted to be invariant at its core.  That's why literally no one says "right and wrong is defined as whatever my society happens to believe today."  That is a caricature of a straw man.  Instead people believe in some core principles while the specific rules that are derived from those principles evolve with our understanding of the world.  E.g. naive view "slavery is just a kind of contract" evolved into "slavery denies human dignity" after a thousand-odd years experience with slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Oh!  So my example rationale answers this objection, then, right?

Incorrect. Rationale isn't evidence of greater value in an existence without meaning or purpose. It is merely evidence that some animals are rational. Nonhuman animals can reason to different degrees. 

10 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Done!  Animals are not rational, we are, and since the basis of our moral rules is rationality, animals aren't subject to them in the same way we are.

Cannibals are rational. If a lion could reason it would not make it a murder when it kills it's prey.

10 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Its almost like you don't expect anyone to learn anything about morality.    Objectivity doesn't imply you can figure everything out all at once without any mistakes.

 

10 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Even theists change their tunes about what God wants from time to time.  E.g. the evolving Catholic position on slavery.  

Again you prove you cannot defend atheism without arguing against theism.

10 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

I agree, our moral system should be asserted to be invariant at its core.  That's why literally no one says "right and wrong is defined as whatever my society happens to believe today."  That is a caricature of a straw man. 

Not so, there are many atheistic arguments that it is society that defines right and wrong. I have seen this argued many times. 

10 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Instead people believe in some core principles while the specific rules that are derived from those principles evolve with our understanding of the world.  E.g. naive view "slavery is just a kind of contract" evolved into "slavery denies human dignity" after a thousand-odd years experience with slavery.

When a thing evolves it becomes something new, it ceases to be what it was, something different. If morals evolve, morals change, and that is an admission that morals in a temporal sense are subjective. As I pointed out previously. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Rationale isn't evidence of greater value in an existence without meaning or purpose.

But I didn't say anything about value?  This is a simple question of capability, not worth.

41 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Cannibals are rational. If a lion could reason it would not make it a murder when it kills it's prey.

Of course not?  No more than we are murderers for eating fish.

41 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

When a thing evolves it becomes something new, it ceases to be what it was, something different. If morals evolve, morals change, and that is an admission that morals in a temporal sense are subjective.

Only if you plugged up your ears to what I just said. I agree with you: if we changed the core rules all the time, that would be evidence they didn't have an objective basis.  But I explicitly said those don't change all the time.

Suppose for example that our fundamental moral rule is to not harm other people.  One day we realize "Hey, wait a minute!  We thought slavery was harmless, but actually it harms slaves!"

What should we do?  Of course we'd update the derived rules to say "it is immoral to do slavery".

That doesn't mean there was a change to our fundamental "don't harm people" rule.

Edited by hakutaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 7:33 PM, hakutaku said:

    2. Without God there can be no morality.

This claim is simply false.  People have been doing moral philosophy without invoking God for thousands of years.  For a good overview, see this debate.  (You can just watch the intro.)  The long and short of it is that there are moral systems that meet all of the requirements theists lay out for there to "be morality."  Therefore, atheism is not idiotic because there can be atheistic moral systems.

 

something somewhat related (for believers and non-believers to ponder)

awhile back there was a podcast I found interesting about "creating [a loving or a vengeful] god"

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/628792048/creating-god

the reason I found the podcast interesting is because it kinda points out, if a person believe in a "loving" god they were more apt to take the view that god will fix any mess I or any of my fellow believers get into,... 


OTOH if a person believes in a "vengeful" god that punished bad behavior, then they were more apt to behave since god would strike them down for doing something considered moral bad

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hakutaku said:

But I didn't say anything about value?  This is a simple question of capability, not worth.

I had stated "Incorrect, I have given criteria, humans have no greater value than any other animal, and it is not wrong for one animal to kill another animal." 

To which you replied "Oh! So my example rationale answers this objection, then, right?"

In context, yes it appeared you objected that humans have no greater value than any other animal.

What ever term you would rather use, you have effectively argued man's capability to reason gives him more value, worth than other animals. 

5 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Of course not?  No more than we are murderers for eating fish.

Agreed, as written that is true. I didn't intend on submitting my last post as written. However my intention was to state, if a rational lion hunted rational prey the act would still not be murder. Animals killing animals is not murder, and murder is yet another human construct, made up to give meaning to an existence without meaning.

5 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Only if you plugged up your ears to what I just said. I agree with you: if we changed the core rules all the time, that would be evidence they didn't have an objective basis.  But I explicitly said those don't change all the time.

Suppose for example that our fundamental moral rule is to not harm other people.  One day we realize "Hey, wait a minute!  We thought slavery was harmless, but actually it harms slaves!"

What should we do?  Of course we'd update the derived rules to say "it is immoral to do slavery".

That doesn't mean there was a change to our fundamental "don't harm people" rule.

I am sorry you are unable to hear yourself. You are still admitting morals are subjective throughout the passage of time. 

"We thought slavery was harmless" read slavery was thought to be moral. "but actually it harms slaves!" Read now slavery is thought to be immoral. 

End of devil's advocate for tonight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is yes, it does speak for itself, but only to those willing to listen.  Not all are given the grace of faith.  And any gift can be taken away at any time, according to His infinite mercy and justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Incorrect, I have given criteria, humans have no greater value than any other animal, and it is not wrong for one animal to kill another animal.

And I responded in a way that explained there was no need to invoke the concept of value to explain the different moral obligations.

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

What ever term you would rather use, you have effectively argued man's capability to reason gives him more value, worth than other animals. 

...The terms I did use?  Capability?

23 hours ago, hakutaku said:

This is a simple question of capability, not worth.

 

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

if a rational lion hunted rational prey the act would still not be murder

It would be murder, under the rules I described.

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

and murder is yet another human construct, made up to give meaning to an existence without meaning.

I mean, all of our concepts are human constructs, insofar as we constructed them.  Or do you think something inhuman injected your concepts into your brain?

And its good that you recognize that we can in fact introduce meaning to things that were originally meaningless.

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I am sorry you are unable to hear yourself. You are still admitting morals are subjective throughout the passage of time. 

"We thought slavery was harmless" read slavery was thought to be moral. "but actually it harms slaves!" Read now slavery is thought to be immoral. 

End of devil's advocate for tonight. 

You're not even disagreeing though?  You're just doing exactly what I said you would: arbitrarily deciding some things are opinions because you haven't defined the criteria you are using for things to be opinions.

What you're saying is the same as this:

Quote

Some doctors used to think that smoking was good for you.  Now they think it is bad for you! That means science is subjective, because it is changing over time!

That's not a serious argument, it's not playing the devils advocate, it is just a caricature.  We don't have perfect knowledge about the world, so it should not surprise us when we occasionally learn new things, and learning in no way challenges objectivity.

Edited by hakutaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

And I responded in a way that explained there was no need to invoke the concept of value to explain the different moral obligations.

...The terms I did use?  Capability?

 

It would be murder, under the rules I described.

I mean, all of our concepts are human constructs, insofar as we constructed them.  Or do you think something inhuman injected your concepts into your brain?

And its good that you recognize that we can in fact introduce meaning to things that were originally meaningless.

You're not even disagreeing though?  You're just doing exactly what I said you would: arbitrarily deciding some things are opinions because you haven't defined the criteria you are using for things to be opinions.

What you're saying is the same as this:

That's not a serious argument, it's not playing the devils advocate, it is just a caricature.  We don't have perfect knowledge about the world, so it should not surprise us when we occasionally learn new things, and learning in no way challenges objectivity.

I have to prepare for a long difficult business trip. But I will reply to one point, the most important of your points. In an atheistic world I answer that human constructs, do come from man,  but by definition, do not exist objectively, including but not limited to morals.

Constructs only 'exist' in as much as society or societies are willing to agree they exist. Morals are subjective, changing from person to person, society to society, and from age to age. 

If you can show proof that human constructs are objective then show us the evidence. That will require changing the definition of the term, but I'm willing to listen. Though it may be some weeks before I'm able to respond.

End of devil's advocate debate, for the foreseeable future.

I do want you to know I hold no ill will against you, should I have stated anything that would lead you to believe otherwise. I have enjoyed our discussion and wish I could devote more time to you. As corny as it may sound to you, you are in my prayers. I hope the best for you, your family and friends. 

Edited by KnightofChrist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

In an atheistic world I answer that human constructs, do come from man,  but by definition, do not exist objectively, including but not limited to morals.

This simply isn't true given the ordinary definitions of terms.  Perhaps you can supply the definition of objective that you are using.

20 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Constructs only 'exist' in as much as society or societies are willing to agree they exist. Morals are subjective, changing from person to person, society to society, and from age to age. 

No?  Constructs exist when someone constructs them.  What you're saying is equivalent to saying the pizza you just baked only exists if you tell society about it and they agree to recognize it.  If I bake up a new construct, it exists, and this is an objective fact; just like if I were to bake a pizza.

Certainly different societies create different constructs.  Certainly people have opinions about constructs.   None of that changes the objective fact that some of those constructs correspond to an external reality, and some don't.

You're conflating the term "objective" (which means that there are facts-of-the-matter that don't depend on opinions) with "corresponding to external reality" which means that your ideas actually map to some real external thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

This simply isn't true given the ordinary definitions of terms.  Perhaps you can supply the definition of objective that you are using.

No?  Constructs exist when someone constructs them.  What you're saying is equivalent to saying the pizza you just baked only exists if you tell society about it and they agree to recognize it.  If I bake up a new construct, it exists, and this is an objective fact; just like if I were to bake a pizza.

Certainly different societies create different constructs.  Certainly people have opinions about constructs.   None of that changes the objective fact that some of those constructs correspond to an external reality, and some don't.

You're conflating the term "objective" (which means that there are facts-of-the-matter that don't depend on opinions) with "corresponding to external reality" which means that your ideas actually map to some real external thing.

In other words . . .

 

Edited by Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hakutaku said:

This simply isn't true given the ordinary definitions of terms.  Perhaps you can supply the definition of objective that you are using.

No?  Constructs exist when someone constructs them.  What you're saying is equivalent to saying the pizza you just baked only exists if you tell society about it and they agree to recognize it.  If I bake up a new construct, it exists, and this is an objective fact; just like if I were to bake a pizza.

Certainly different societies create different constructs.  Certainly people have opinions about constructs.   None of that changes the objective fact that some of those constructs correspond to an external reality, and some don't.

You're conflating the term "objective" (which means that there are facts-of-the-matter that don't depend on opinions) with "corresponding to external reality" which means that your ideas actually map to some real external thing.

Brother, constructs are not the same as constructions. Not in the sense you are using. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 8/20/2021 at 4:21 AM, KnightofChrist said:

Brother, constructs are not the same as constructions. Not in the sense you are using. 

Aha, finally an explanation of what you meant:

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Do you still believe "human constructs", which are imaginary, are like constructions, which are physical? 

But unfortunately its a distinction without a difference!

The physicality is irrelevant, remember that the key feature was: there is an objective fact-of-the-matter about whether they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Aha, finally an explanation of what you meant:

But unfortunately its a distinction without a difference!

The physicality is irrelevant, remember that the key feature was: there is an objective fact-of-the-matter about whether they exist.

There is a massive void between the physical world and one of imagination. I can prove a computer chip objectively exists. You cannot prove morals objectively exist. That's why I stopped our previous discussion. 

I never thought I'd see an atheist argue in favor of the objective fact-of-matter existance of the metaphysical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...