Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 What would you say to this argument about atheists
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  15:02:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Originally posted by the_ignored


I did. I pointed out that you religionists don't have any right to the claim of objective morality. We have to work out our own standards based on the welfare of the people in society in general.

Now, your turn.


That's be swell if all atheists were concerned about was the welfare of their fellow man. But that is demonstrably false.

Same with people from every ideology. Your point?

On fire for Christ
There is no consensus on good or bad or if those concepts even exist. What if I said that an atheist moral code is utterly subjective therefore meaningless?

That's the problem with the xian moral code. Your god does all sorts of things that we consider to be wrong. Therefore your moral code is meaningless unless it can be seen that parts of it actually benefit people. That's actually how we work out moral codes in real life.

On fire for Christ
As for patriarchy, I think there was a time when it worked but now it's a relic.

Wasn't that system set up by your god? What about that "objective morality" thing you people claim to have? Otherwise, what you've got by abandoning it is "situational ethics" which is what is partially used on real life to work out moral codes instead of unbending religious dogma.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  15:46:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by the_ignored

...situational ethics...
That was the term I was looking for earlier, and couldn't pull outta the ol' bean. Thanks, Ig.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  17:42:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Pretty inexcusable by the reasons given in your own justification. It's like a gamble where you don't even know what the pot is. If your goal is to alleviate human suffering, it's, quite frankly, idiotic.
NASA's Moon program gave us things like CAT scanners and freeze-dried food.

But was there a good reason a priori to expect technologies to ease human suffering would come from that program?

I would argue space exploration has uniquely been able to organize a critical mass of human capital toward a single goal, fostering the sort of cross-discipline cooperation among experts in diverse areas of study that has been shown to be particularly effective in generating useful technologies.

We can't just force this sort of environment to materialize by allocating research funds strategically.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/03/2012 17:45:09
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  18:00:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

But was there a good reason a priori to expect technologies to ease human suffering would come from that program?
My point was that technologies to ease human suffering have come from unexpected places. We shouldn't defund basic science because we don't expect it to result in immediate benefits. Yes, there are people suffering now, but how many more would be suffering today if we didn't have things like CAT scanners and other benefits of the Apollo program? We can't short-sightedly fixate on only our most-pressing needs, we need to be in this for the long haul. And that includes knowing as much about everything as is possible, since there may be some pretty awesome stuff hiding in the gaps.
I would argue space exploration has uniquely been able to organize a critical mass of human capital toward a single goal, fostering the sort of cross-discipline cooperation among experts in diverse areas of study that has been shown to be particularly effective in generating useful technologies.
And that's good, too.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2012 :  18:04:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Well this is my point, Theists have a certainty that atheists cannot have. Right or wrong, religion is the source of their/our morality. I'm trying to uncover the source of yours, and how you can have any degree of certainty that it is correct to practice for yourself and proselytize to others.

I think that you will find that a lot of moral decisions are based simply on a feeling of what's right or wrong and that this feeling, while it certainly can be rationalized, simply is strongly held.

For example, if I was given the choice of receiving a massive amount of money that I don't really have to have (in my case, let's say USD 10,000,000) for killing a five-year-old, I certainly would not do it. I wouldn't have to make any arguments about the welfare of others being a good thing or such. It would simply be an innate (and to some degree a learned component) that it would be wrong.

If someone would not accept that money for the only reason that some deity might not like it, then I would say that that person is seriously fucked up. In fact, I am certain that that person would be seriously fucked up.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  03:13:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by AyameTan


You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the term "selfishness". Vindictiveness and selfishness are not mutually exclusive. Burning one's cash would be selfish because it denies anyone else the ability to benefit from it.


You're an idiot.

Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  03:24:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

I meant that you are capable of coming up with the same arguments. I didn't know you'd need everything spelled out for you.


Well now you do.

This discussion was actually just recently going on in the Rebecca Watson thread.


Ok, I'll definitely read all 75 pages of that asap.

Depends on the circumstances. That's also another reason to accept that morality is all about goals and contingencies: the ability to adapt and avoid drawing hard lines like "absolute" morality does.


It also leaves a lot of wiggle room. Shouldn't ethics be more cut and dry?

If I say that denying abortion-on-demand is immoral, it does not imply that I think abortions are the best way to control reproduction. Denying people access to comprehensive sex-ed is also immoral, as is denying people access to prophylactics and other methods of conception/implantation control. (Anti-abortion advocates who also seek to prevent these other options are actually guaranteeing that more abortions will occur, and thus are objectively acting immorally - contrary to their own goals.)


In an ideal world maybe we can agree, abortions would never happen. I don't think anyone can make a case that they are not at least unpleasant.

But why be certain of it? It's based on nothing more than your personal preference to worship a particular deity (among thousands) in a particular way (among thousands).


Yeah you pretty much nailed it.

NASA's Moon program gave us things like CAT scanners and freeze-dried food.


Hard to argue that the same cash put directly into medical research would not have yielded more.

Since there are no guarantees, anything I might choose to invest in becomes an indulgence. According to you, I can't do good unless I pick something that isn't a crap-shoot.


Medical research isn't a crapshoot. Please don't do it the injustice of comparing it to the likelihood of a mars rover somehow alleviating suffering.

Actually, Jesus taught that the only way to get into Heaven was to give away all of your money and possessions, so unless you, OFfC, are using a free public computer to access SFN, you're acting against your own certain morality.


Yes consider the lily of the field. But that was a message to his followers at that particular time to change their lifestyle. I don't see how it would benefit anyone today. However a rope going through the eye of a needle is easier than a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven is kind of a timeless statement.

Goody for them. Note that they aren't Christians.


That sentence was a response to one where you mentioned buddhists, who aren't Christians either. I don't see why it's an issue if I mention other religions anyway/ This topic is an open question to atheists, that's what I'm trying to talk about, if I draw in examples from certain religions it's my prerogative, it's only you who is obsessed with turning everything into a debate on Christianity.

Given that you think I'm acting immorally by agreeing to finance basic science, I must be a bad person. Or how about because I've committed the one unforgivable sin?


I didn't say that made you a bad person, I said it contradicted your own morality.

How magnanimous.


Thanks, glad you realize your original statement was stupid and didn't press it further.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 09/04/2012 03:31:38
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  03:33:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hawks

[quote]

For example, if I was given the choice of receiving a massive amount of money that I don't really have to have (in my case, let's say USD 10,000,000) for killing a five-year-old, I certainly would not do it. I wouldn't have to make any arguments about the welfare of others being a good thing or such. It would simply be an innate (and to some degree a learned component) that it would be wrong.

If someone would not accept that money for the only reason that some deity might not like it, then I would say that that person is seriously fucked up. In fact, I am certain that that person would be seriously fucked up.


Interesting (read: totally lame) scenario. If someone would only do that because it would anger God, then they are an exact example of what I talked about earlier. A bad person (probably psychopathic) who can only do good (or not do bad in this case) because of religion.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 09/04/2012 03:57:44
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  03:51:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

OFFC:
Well this is my point, Theists have a certainty that atheists cannot have. Right or wrong, religion is the source of their/our morality. I'm trying to uncover the source of yours, and how you can have any degree of certainty that it is correct to practice for yourself and proselytize to others.

I can't speak for all atheists. And I have seen atheists who are certain that their conclusion is the only correct one, but they tend to be faith based, just like religious people. Certainty is a stumbling block to learning because once you are certain, that's that. No room for new knowledge to seep in. What most of us have is some degree of confidence, including people who put their faith in the bible. Most of our morality is based on degrees of confidence, and several things are factored in. There is no place for certainty, nor should there be. I see religious leaders arguing among themselves and I conclude that even they get the weakness of certainty as a guiding principal. Mortality based on certainty is foolish.

What I'm saying OFFC is that some atheists as well as people of faith do base their morality on certainty. The statement that atheists can't have the same certainty that people of faith have is not correct.

That means that unless you are not basing your morality (good or bad) on a certainty, than you are basing your morality on the same things most atheists are. The only difference is that you are checking with your book (open to interpretation among your own) to see if it flys, and we are checking with the culture we live in and cultures past to see if it flys. It's my guess that like us, you are also using studies and direct observation, same as we are. So just ask yourself how you came to a moral decision and you will understand how we came to ours. We may be using different sources, but the process is the same. (That doesn't mean the conclusions are equally reasonable, but that's another discussion.)


Regarding this and situation ethics. Do any Atheists think that certain things we regard as immoral today such as patriarchy, genocide, rape, murder, torture, infanticide when placed in the setting of the bronze age for example, were ever morally justifiable?

People are shocked at the brutality of the old testament. But think of the situation, if you were a tribe under threat, maybe you would have to make a decisive blow against your enemy. Giving the defeated enemy's virgins over to your men was not only common practice, it was necessary to ensure the continued loyalty of your men. When we look at it in context today it's shocking to anyone who reads it. But that is exactly what you'd expect to find in a document written in that era. With that in mind, were those the actions of evil people? Or ordinary people?

Discuss.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 09/04/2012 03:56:36
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  05:03:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Originally posted by Dave W.

I meant that you are capable of coming up with the same arguments. I didn't know you'd need everything spelled out for you.
Well now you do.
I'll keep that in mind.
This discussion was actually just recently going on in the Rebecca Watson thread.
Ok, I'll definitely read all 75 pages of that asap.
Sure, because "just recently" means "you need to start at the beginning."
It also leaves a lot of wiggle room. Shouldn't ethics be more cut and dry?
Simple answers to complex questions might be nice, but are generally wrong.
In an ideal world maybe we can agree, abortions would never happen.
In an ideal world, contraception would work 100% of the time, be free, and wouldn't be opposed by major world religions.
I don't think anyone can make a case that they are not at least unpleasant.
I don't think anyone is trying to.
But why be certain of it? It's based on nothing more than your personal preference to worship a particular deity (among thousands) in a particular way (among thousands).
Yeah you pretty much nailed it.
Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell.
NASA's Moon program gave us things like CAT scanners and freeze-dried food.
Hard to argue that the same cash put directly into medical research would not have yielded more.
And then we would lack the other benefits of the space program.
Medical research isn't a crapshoot.
Billions of dollars are spent on medical research that leads only to dead ends. Given 3,500 chemicals with potential therapeutic activity that enter the research pipeline, only five will make it to the market as effective and safe medicines. Not a crapshoot? Ha!
Yes consider the lily of the field. But that was a message to his followers at that particular time to change their lifestyle. I don't see how it would benefit anyone today.
So Christian ethics are situational, and not absolute.
...it's only you who is obsessed with turning everything into a debate on Christianity.
Actually, I'm debating a Christian who claims that his religion provides him with certainty about its morality, so it seems particularly relevant. What isn't relevant is pointing out what Muslims do in response to a point about what Christians don't do.
I didn't say that made you a bad person, I said it contradicted your own morality.
And you're still wrong about that.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9675 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  10:04:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ


Dave wrote:
NASA's Moon program gave us things like CAT scanners and freeze-dried food.

Hard to argue that the same cash put directly into medical research would not have yielded more.
CAT scanners operates through processes specifically dictated by quantum mechanics, a dicipline very far removed from medicine, as well as advanced programming on computers. As such, it's the product of cross-dicipline work and cooperation. It's not something biologists would come up with on their own.




Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  10:56:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Interesting (read: totally lame) scenario.

I gave an answer. It was simple. Your morals thought it was OK to be nasty about that. Does your bible give you any guidance about how to behave in these circumstances? If not, then how would you know what to do?

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  17:16:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Originally posted by AyameTan


You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the term "selfishness". Vindictiveness and selfishness are not mutually exclusive. Burning one's cash would be selfish because it denies anyone else the ability to benefit from it.


You're an idiot.

Ayame has a point actually. Though I'd have said that destroying one's own resources to prevent others from using them is more along the "vindictiveness" route.

Still: Care to justify the name-calling asshole? You've been starting to get an attitude here lately it seems.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 09/04/2012 17:17:59
Go to Top of Page

Doctor X
Voluntary Exile

151 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2012 :  23:38:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Doctor X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You might think that, perhaps in lieu of an actual thoughtful and informed argument, he can only descend to trite argumentum ad hominem.

You might very well think that, I could not possibly comment. . . .

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the textus receptus.--Ed.]

His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.
Edited by - Doctor X on 09/04/2012 23:40:22
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2012 :  04:24:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hiya Doc!

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.05 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000