Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Obligations

PolyCarp
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.
"Perhaps the atheist cannot find God for the same reason the thief cannot find a policeman"

--G.K Chesterton
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:10:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

I'm not concerned with pointless philosophical speculation, are you able to demonstrate that moral obligations are in fact existent?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 12:27:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, ...

Like, for measles to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause disease. Like that?

Non sequitur.

... for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind.

The potential for moral order, eh? What is that exactly? in fact, what is moral order?

Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful.

Um, genocide has happened countless times in human history. How do you explain it if it is impermissible?

If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

What does a random natural event (an act of God, if you like) have to do with morality?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 12:46:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

There's something in the argument, PC, but I think it's an odd way to put it. I think the way you've framed it leads the conclusion. Let's look at alternative grounds...

Is there some reason that more than one viable vision of morality could not exist in competition? Might they not have many good qualities in common but some significant points of departure? Isn't that the belief structure we live in anyway? And if it's not acceptable to you then uh... so what?

Might we not over time, develop better and better criteria to help unify divergent morality, based on common cause, shared interests and emergent insights into humanity? Really, doesn't the UN's Declaration of Human Rights reflect something of this sort?

So if morality can be disparate and in contention, yet harmonising over time, how is that not 'real' morality?

And how does a disparate, developing and converging morality require a single god -- or any gods? Can't human inquiry, goodwill and common cause produce the same?

I hope that may be of interest.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 3:58:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?

Science study the characteristics of spirituality. You crack me up. Lol.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 4:23:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I"ve been toying with an idea recently, which is probably best described as "pseudo-objective morality". This argument is that any system that can be meaningfully understood as moral must contain certain objective elements, by definition. So, just as something can only qualify as a moral system if it is concerned with normative claims regarding human behaviour, something can only qualify as being concerned with normative claims regarding human behaviour if it in turn has certain properties. In the same way as a chair must by definition incorporate some sort of seat and support, so must a moral system meet certain criteria to be considered as such.

Without becoming too involved in what is far more complex a project than an interesting aside, what are some of these implied objective features? I think here we have two areas of consideration; what makes it a system and what makes it moral. The former is fairly simple, in that it requires a set of rules that are internally consistent and universally applicable. The latter is a little more complicated, since we must derive what "moral necessities" are inherent to the definition of a moral system given above.

To have a very superficial bash at it, I"d say that the most fundamental is that human beings have rights. For humans to meaningfully have rights, they must be alive to practice and enjoy them, which I"d therefore consider the most fundamental of the rights; the right to life. Any system that can be considered moral must therefore admit these two facts. There must also be a meaningful conception of moral culpability, so things like consent and coercion will have to be taken into account. From this we can extend into ideas such as personal freedom of agency, but in such a way as is coherent within the framework of the other fundamental moral principles.

It is in just such a semantic fashion that I think these universally objective moral values can be derived. Does this mean that all moral rules must be objective? I don"t think so, as there may be room for differences in prioritisation of some, which will alter the "shape" of the moral framework itself. I would also allow for the possibility of ethical nihilism, whereby someone denies all meaning of moral discourse; the definition does not have external force, compelling people to accept that there are objective morals, merely that if they accept there"s any scope for meaningful moral discourse then there must be. It could be that there"s no scope for it, but anyone who admits any degree of moral meaning would necessarily have to accept certain propositions as a given.

In such a way, it is possible to argue that killing a person "for no reason" is always morally wrong. Ditto rape, slavery and so forth, as they entirely breach these fundamental principles and therefore cannot be a part of something that qualifies as a moral system.

All of which has no requirement for a god of any kind. Except semantics, of course, but that goes without saying. If you'll excuse the incredibly geeky joke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:28:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I do not think it does. This paper is about non-theistic moral realism:
http://philpapers.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 8:22:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yes, it is. It's not any god who commits genocides, but people who hide behind the lie of a made-up god. Just because they claim God's sanction doesn't make it so.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 10:17:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?

Science, as it has been institutionalized now, assumes a material world. And assumes naturalistic explanation for things.

Spirit is not matter nor energy and therefore automatically axiomatically rejected by science.

But Idealist. Truth is not confined by institutions of science, nor is it only discoverable but one single method of investigation, or confined to being discernible by one type of reasoning.

The fallacy comes from those that say because science doesn't apply itself to X, X doesn't exist.

But then again science is looking more theist each day, and papers of philosophical hypothesis written each day.

It's just a shame Scientist as people who want to investigate these things have to do it in vague terms lest they be ostracized.
missmedic
Posts: 385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 10:21:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

A bases for morality all ready exists that is a contingent feature in reality, it is called reason. Reason is the method of thinking in an organized, clear way to achieve knowledge and understanding. Since it is a means, its importance and significance is in its method. The ends toward which it is used defines the validity of the method. Understanding and knowledge is the criteria for evaluating the use of reason.
Knowledge requires clarity and the identification of limits and boundaries. Only reason can collect sensory data into something meaningful, which is clear and definable. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. Emotions, perceptual memories, or vague notions are not knowledge. Knowledge is lucid and can only be formed by the use of reason. There is no other path. Reason is absolute.
God belief requires faith, however faith can not be used consistently without contradictions.
Historically, the concept of morality has often been used negatively as a list of "thou shall not's" in check against ones actions. The stance taken is often that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't violate any moral edicts; but the source of these moral edicts is often mystical or arbitrary.
A list of prohibitions, even if founded in reason rather than mysticism, is not a sufficient outline for success. Morality should be positive rather than negative. Not What shouldn't I do? but What should I do?. The problem with defining morality negatively is that pretty much anything goes provided one avoids a few problem areas. This is not useful because within the sphere of pretty much anything goes, there is no methodical way to choose which action is best, whereas positive morality sets forth habits which lead to the achievement of values and methods for choosing what to value which is the way to live and thrive.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 11:41:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 10:17:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Science, as it has been institutionalized now, assumes a material world. And assumes naturalistic explanation for things.

Of course, it would assume that, considering every shred of evidence science has ever scrutinized has always been from nature. That doesn't mean science is not open to any other kind of explanation, if indeed the explanation is consistent and verifiable.

Spirit is not matter nor energy and therefore automatically axiomatically rejected by science.

Unicorns and leprechauns are also not matter or energy. Isn't it interesting to note all of these examples have that in common?

But Idealist. Truth is not confined by institutions of science, nor is it only discoverable but one single method of investigation, or confined to being discernible by one type of reasoning.

You are free to demonstrate and explain any other form of investigation that would produce the same or better results, or even any results at all.

The fallacy comes from those that say because science doesn't apply itself to X, X doesn't exist.

Show us that X exists by any means you are able. We await the existence of X to be shown.

But then again science is looking more theist each day, and papers of philosophical hypothesis written each day.

So what? Can you show us those statistics?

It's just a shame Scientist as people who want to investigate these things have to do it in vague terms lest they be ostracized.

Or, more precisely, you invoke the argument from incredulity in that you don't understand what science is saying, hence it appears vague to you, yet is very detailed and complex due to the amount of rigor required to employ the Scientific Method.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:30:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:28:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not think it does. This paper is about non-theistic moral realism:
http://philpapers.org...

He's also not a non naturalist. You willing to go that far?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:33:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

The deity featured in the Bible has no morality. Humans developed their own in spite of it, should it exist!
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 6:09:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 10:17:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?

Science, as it has been institutionalized now, assumes a material world. And assumes naturalistic explanation for things.

Spirit is not matter nor energy and therefore automatically axiomatically rejected by science.

But Idealist. Truth is not confined by institutions of science, nor is it only discoverable but one single method of investigation, or confined to being discernible by one type of reasoning.

The fallacy comes from those that say because science doesn't apply itself to X, X doesn't exist.

But then again science is looking more theist each day, and papers of philosophical hypothesis written each day.

It's just a shame Scientist as people who want to investigate these things have to do it in vague terms lest they be ostracized.

I agree very much with what you've just said. What I was wondering is why science doesn't treat the reality of spiritual experience as they would any other reality. It's a fact that people have transcendent experiences. Why don't they ever ask something like "why would the Bible have described something like this?" instead of merely dismissing the subject out-of-hand. I've seen some pretty good documentaries which proposed theories for such described things as the Exodus, and how it could have been a real event within the context of perception and the vernacular of its own time. Many Bible scholars are agnostic or even atheist, but they aren't taken seriously enough, know what I mean?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 11:36:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 6:09:20 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:17:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?

Science, as it has been institutionalized now, assumes a material world. And assumes naturalistic explanation for things.

Spirit is not matter nor energy and therefore automatically axiomatically rejected by science.

But Idealist. Truth is not confined by institutions of science, nor is it only discoverable but one single method of investigation, or confined to being discernible by one type of reasoning.

The fallacy comes from those that say because science doesn't apply itself to X, X doesn't exist.

But then again science is looking more theist each day, and papers of philosophical hypothesis written each day.

It's just a shame Scientist as people who want to investigate these things have to do it in vague terms lest they be ostracized.

I agree very much with what you've just said. What I was wondering is why science doesn't treat the reality of spiritual experience as they would any other reality. It's a fact that people have transcendent experiences. Why don't they ever ask something like "why would the Bible have described something like this?" instead of merely dismissing the subject out-of-hand. I've seen some pretty good documentaries which proposed theories for such described things as the Exodus, and how it could have been a real event within the context of perception and the vernacular of its own time. Many Bible scholars are agnostic or even atheist, but they aren't taken seriously enough, know what I mean?

I totally know what you mean. And we have said before more and more the leading theories of reality seem to becoming like what theist have said for a long time.

I think it is just prejudice and bias. A false dichotomy thinking Religion and Science are at war with each other. So any Science that adds validity to religious claims is stamped out by peer review.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 12:02:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

God could have programmed all His illusions called human beings to kill, steal, rape, sexually molest, fight, hate each other, look ugly, swear and cuss, etc. until they're all dead in this first age but He didn't do it that way. He planned the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, instead.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 8:12:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?
I am glad you asked.
Science has taken the time to study the characteristics of spirituality. It has even published its findings.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Unsupported assertion. Lots of civilizations existed without your God and had their own moral codes and imperatives. Find a better argument.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 10:00:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:27:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Unsupported assertion. Lots of civilizations existed without your God and had their own moral codes and imperatives. Find a better argument.

What more can you expect from someone who had a personal intimate relationship with a homeless eunuch desperately trying to recover from alcoholism named Brad Holkesvig aka BOG. Idealist even saved the letters sent to him by BOD over a year ago. He is probably recycling the same ideas from those letters he received from Brad Holkesvig in his posts. He was found pleading to BOG to answer troubling questions that were left unanswered in those letters and sounded emotionally distraught.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 8:12:14 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?
I am glad you asked.
Science has taken the time to study the characteristics of spirituality. It has even published its findings.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not talking about a few extremists or the random inquisitor, but an overall interest expressed by science as a whole. I have also read articles by researchers who claim that atheists aren't really atheists, but are merely fooling themselves. I realize, however, that just because you can find examples of almost anything, it doesn't give it any real foundation.

Even your article only states that neuroscientist Kathleen Taylor has "suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness." That's religious fundamentalism, not religion itself. I have, and always have been, against any form of extremism - a category in which I would include religious fundamentalism. They are the people with extreme views, or who try to force their thinking upon others. There are plenty of highly-noted scientists who accept the existence of a creator intelligence, such as Professor Antony Flew, legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." Flew has now renounced naturalism, stating that "it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

So what I'm asking is why there isn't more open study by scientists in general, including (but not limited to) Kathleen Taylor and Antony Flew. Why must just about any scientist who makes an argument or takes a stand be regarded as personally motivated?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:27:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Unsupported assertion. Lots of civilizations existed without your God and had their own moral codes and imperatives. Find a better argument.

I don't have a God in my pocket, despite your straw-man-like assertion. The point is that without some objective reason backing-up their claims to morality then they are only that - simple claims. Either I or a group of thousands can claim that beating a child is moral, but it doesn't make it so because they lack any universal authority. All they would be really saying is that they will permit it inside their own group.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 8:39:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:15:27 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/2/2015 8:12:14 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?
I am glad you asked.
Science has taken the time to study the characteristics of spirituality. It has even published its findings.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not talking about a few extremists or the random inquisitor, but an overall interest expressed by science as a whole. I have also read articles by researchers who claim that atheists aren't really atheists, but are merely fooling themselves. I realize, however, that just because you can find examples of almost anything, it doesn't give it any real foundation.

Even your article only states that neuroscientist Kathleen Taylor has "suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness." That's religious fundamentalism, not religion itself. I have, and always have been, against any form of extremism - a category in which I would include religious fundamentalism. They are the people with extreme views, or who try to force their thinking upon others. There are plenty of highly-noted scientists who accept the existence of a creator intelligence, such as Professor Antony Flew, legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." Flew has now renounced naturalism, stating that "it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

So what I'm asking is why there isn't more open study by scientists in general, including (but not limited to) Kathleen Taylor and Antony Flew. Why must just about any scientist who makes an argument or takes a stand be regarded as personally motivated?
The study is about people who are predisposed to religion or drawing to certain religious beliefs are suffering from a curable mental illness. That is the bright side in the study.
The dark side is the evidence that religious people suffer from a mental illness. It is a stigma they will carry.
We have our own two case studies. MCB who already admits suffers from clinical depression and is suicidal. And there is BOG who was questioned about his mental stability on every forum he visited.
What about the members who are less vocal about their faith and those Islamists finding an expression here for their radicalism? What motivates them to attack atheists who are neutral over those two extreme religions?
If you are a borderline believer, staying informed might help you dodge those curve balls.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 11:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/3/2015 7:15:27 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/2/2015 8:12:14 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/26/2015 2:31:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/26/2015 1:25:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Genocide is a moral obligation if moral obligations come from a god who not only orders genocide but participates in it.

Yeah, it is. Of course, "if" is a mighty big word. I've always wondered why science doesn't take the time to study the characteristics of spirituality the way it does with everything else. Why not question why people might be wrong about certain aspects of their beliefs than merely say, "they were wrong about this one thing, so they must have made it all up"?
I am glad you asked.
Science has taken the time to study the characteristics of spirituality. It has even published its findings.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not talking about a few extremists or the random inquisitor, but an overall interest expressed by science as a whole. I have also read articles by researchers who claim that atheists aren't really atheists, but are merely fooling themselves. I realize, however, that just because you can find examples of almost anything, it doesn't give it any real foundation.

Even your article only states that neuroscientist Kathleen Taylor has "suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness." That's religious fundamentalism, not religion itself. I have, and always have been, against any form of extremism - a category in which I would include religious fundamentalism. They are the people with extreme views, or who try to force their thinking upon others. There are plenty of highly-noted scientists who accept the existence of a creator intelligence, such as Professor Antony Flew, legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." Flew has now renounced naturalism, stating that "it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

So what I'm asking is why there isn't more open study by scientists in general, including (but not limited to) Kathleen Taylor and Antony Flew. Why must just about any scientist who makes an argument or takes a stand be regarded as personally motivated?
The study is about people who are predisposed to religion or drawing to certain religious beliefs are suffering from a curable mental illness. That is the bright side in the study.
The dark side is the evidence that religious people suffer from a mental illness. It is a stigma they will carry.
We have our own two case studies. MCB who already admits suffers from clinical depression and is suicidal. And there is BOG who was questioned about his mental stability on every forum he visited.
What about the members who are less vocal about their faith and those Islamists finding an expression here for their radicalism? What motivates them to attack atheists who are neutral over those two extreme religions?
If you are a borderline believer, staying informed might help you dodge those curve balls.

You are still generalizing. There are so many scientists and researchers today that you can always find one who is willing to say something, and I don't think you are qualified to make judgments yourself. I've spoke to many people of questionable mental stability who were not religious at all. Why would it be surprising that some of them would be religious, especially considering the vast number of religious people on this planet? It also seems that religious people give more to charities than non-religious people do. Should we take from this that religious people are genetically endowed to be giving? I'm not interested in simply trying to find ways to support our own confirmation biases. There are so many religious people who go to great lengths trying to find ways to attack those who aren't religious, and vice-versa. That's just a bunch of emotional conflict. What I'm talking about is studying what actual data we have on a case-by-case basis instead of lumping it all together to support our own bias. You can't say the Bible is worthless because some things in it don't add-up, and you can't say that atheists are evil simply because of their philosophy. The Bible holds both truths and lies and atheists can be kind or mean.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 11:51:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 12:30:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:28:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not think it does. This paper is about non-theistic moral realism:
http://philpapers.org...

He's also not a non naturalist. You willing to go that far?

I never said I agree with the paper, I am just pointing out that it is possible for moral realism to be true while theism is false.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:39:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

Moral obligations exist because interpersonal relationships exist.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:42:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 7:21:02 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:27:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:12:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:16:13 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
If they really exist does it increase the probability that God exists? I would say it does because a ground for morality needs to exist in order for it to really exist if it is a contingent feature in reality.

In order for morality to exist then there must be some universal intelligent force to cause order, for without the potential for moral order there can be no morality of any kind. Even genocide would be permissible, though possibly learnedly distasteful. If an asteroid killed us all tonight it would mean no more than if it had struck another planet instead of ours.

Unsupported assertion. Lots of civilizations existed without your God and had their own moral codes and imperatives. Find a better argument.

I don't have a God in my pocket, despite your straw-man-like assertion. The point is that without some objective reason backing-up their claims to morality then they are only that - simple claims. Either I or a group of thousands can claim that beating a child is moral, but it doesn't make it so because they lack any universal authority. All they would be really saying is that they will permit it inside their own group.

And that is exactly what we do. For a long time it was considered legal and moral to beat your wife as long as the stick was no bigger around than your thumb, hence, rule of thumb. We have, as a nation, realized that that was a bad idea and declared it wrong. We have codified that into our domestic abuse laws. ALL morals are subjective, dependent upon the attitudes of the person, family, village, town, city, state, and nation of their origin. Oh, and no straw man, just a direct response to an unsupported assertion. If you're going to accuse me of a fallacy, at least make it a valid accusation.