Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You should believe in God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:17:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

A never-ending string of "Appeal to Consequences" fallacies.
You've outdone yourself this time Ben.

See you in a few months when you'll start yet another thread on the exact same subject , without having addressed any of the objections raised to your - let's be benevolent here - arguments, which have been beaten to death and debunked to death as well.

One would think you'd get better at this.
Maybe you're the exact opposite of food wine.
uncung
Posts: 3,452
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:18:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

you must be a Hindu.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:20:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:18:02 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

you must be a Hindu.

Nope.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:17:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

A never-ending string of "Appeal to Consequences" fallacies.
You've outdone yourself this time Ben.

Can you demonstrate that it's an appeal to consequences? It follows logically.

See you in a few months when you'll start yet another thread on the exact same subject , without having addressed any of the objections raised to your - let's be benevolent here - arguments, which have been beaten to death and debunked to death as well.

One would think you'd get better at this.
Maybe you're the exact opposite of food wine.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:25:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:22:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:17:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

A never-ending string of "Appeal to Consequences" fallacies.
You've outdone yourself this time Ben.

Can you demonstrate that it's an appeal to consequences? It follows logically.

Suffice to read what you yourself wrote. Or are you being held at point blank range and forced to type by a maniac theist?

Blink twice for Yes.

See you in a few months when you'll start yet another thread on the exact same subject , without having addressed any of the objections raised to your - let's be benevolent here - arguments, which have been beaten to death and debunked to death as well.

One would think you'd get better at this.
Maybe you're the exact opposite of food wine.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:25:05 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:22:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:17:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

A never-ending string of "Appeal to Consequences" fallacies.
You've outdone yourself this time Ben.

Can you demonstrate that it's an appeal to consequences? It follows logically.

Suffice to read what you yourself wrote. Or are you being held at point blank range and forced to type by a maniac theist?

Blink twice for Yes.

I'll take that as a no.

Let's break this down.

If God doesn't exist, humanity has no intrinsic purpose. Agree or disagree?

If something has purpose, and it isn't intrinsic, it must be extrinsic. Agree or disagree?

If humanity does not have intrinsic purpose it cannot have an extrinsic purpose that is any better or worse in comparison to any other extrinsic purpose. Agree or disagree?

My conclusions regarding ideals, pursuits, and moral foundation follow.


See you in a few months when you'll start yet another thread on the exact same subject , without having addressed any of the objections raised to your - let's be benevolent here - arguments, which have been beaten to death and debunked to death as well.

One would think you'd get better at this.
Maybe you're the exact opposite of food wine.
uncung
Posts: 3,452
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:20:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:18:02 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

you must be a Hindu.

Nope.

why are you not a Hindu?
Irascible_Me
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:52:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

Well stated; however it is an exercise in masochism to attempt to address it to those with hardened hearts and minds. The need and desire to be one's own supreme master will not admit reason to enter, and you will simply be dismissed. I gladly discuss these things with those who seek knowledge, but you can't force it upon them. I think no one here seeks to learn anything new, me included, but it's good to read your position.
Looncall
Posts: 452
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:57:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:37:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:25:05 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:22:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:17:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

A never-ending string of "Appeal to Consequences" fallacies.
You've outdone yourself this time Ben.

Can you demonstrate that it's an appeal to consequences? It follows logically.

Suffice to read what you yourself wrote. Or are you being held at point blank range and forced to type by a maniac theist?

Blink twice for Yes.

I'll take that as a no.

Let's break this down.

If God doesn't exist, humanity has no intrinsic purpose. Agree or disagree?

If something has purpose, and it isn't intrinsic, it must be extrinsic. Agree or disagree?

If humanity does not have intrinsic purpose it cannot have an extrinsic purpose that is any better or worse in comparison to any other extrinsic purpose. Agree or disagree?

My conclusions regarding ideals, pursuits, and moral foundation follow.



See you in a few months when you'll start yet another thread on the exact same subject , without having addressed any of the objections raised to your - let's be benevolent here - arguments, which have been beaten to death and debunked to death as well.

One would think you'd get better at this.
Maybe you're the exact opposite of food wine.

No, your conclusions do not follow. All these things can be obtained through the use of reason and (our built-in) empathy. No imagined sky-daddy is required.

When will you religionists give up on your silly word games?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:57:29 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:37:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:25:05 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:22:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:17:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

A never-ending string of "Appeal to Consequences" fallacies.
You've outdone yourself this time Ben.

Can you demonstrate that it's an appeal to consequences? It follows logically.

Suffice to read what you yourself wrote. Or are you being held at point blank range and forced to type by a maniac theist?

Blink twice for Yes.

I'll take that as a no.

Let's break this down.

If God doesn't exist, humanity has no intrinsic purpose. Agree or disagree?

If something has purpose, and it isn't intrinsic, it must be extrinsic. Agree or disagree?

If humanity does not have intrinsic purpose it cannot have an extrinsic purpose that is any better or worse in comparison to any other extrinsic purpose. Agree or disagree?

My conclusions regarding ideals, pursuits, and moral foundation follow.



See you in a few months when you'll start yet another thread on the exact same subject , without having addressed any of the objections raised to your - let's be benevolent here - arguments, which have been beaten to death and debunked to death as well.

One would think you'd get better at this.
Maybe you're the exact opposite of food wine.

No, your conclusions do not follow. All these things can be obtained through the use of reason and (our built-in) empathy. No imagined sky-daddy is required.

We would have epistemology with the possibility of ontology ruled out by default. Empathy is just the ability to understand what another person is feeling. It isn't the basis for acting benevolent vs cruel.

When will you religionists give up on your silly word games?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,663
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:02:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

I wouldn't say "zero", I'd say non-applicable. You also appear to completely reject the subjective valuation of these concepts as having any worth at all. If this is so, then your subjective opinion on the matter is as equally invalid as one who says otherwise.

Also, how does an extrinsic purpose from God mean anything objectively, anyway? Isn't that purpose still just existent in the mind of God and not actually real, meaning, it's still ultimately subjective? You just personally value the purpose God has for you over that which another human or yourself assigns, but neither have objective value.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Again, you're rejecting subjective value as worthless. Even though it may be arbitrary, that doesn't mean that one who values positive experiences can't hold such things to be tremendously valuable. Since humans are incredibly similar in many standards of well-being (e.g. pain = suffering), then there is strength in the value of those things that are beneficial.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

Nope. We can establish an objective moral/ethical foundation on the basic well-being of humankind. Though this may be ultimately arbitrary in the universe, it isn't to us.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

False. I hold subjective values to be worthwhile, especially since others share many of the same values. An objective value is unnecessary.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

I initially was going to agree with Omni that this is an Appeal to Consequences, but I gave it a second thought and realized that you're not asserting that God exists based on the above, you're saying that you should believe in God (similar to Pascal's Wager). But, even in this case, this is still fallacious because belief doesn't influence the truth of the matter, so you're arguments are irrelevant, either way.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:20:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose.
And if god does exist then humanity's purpose is to die and become the creatures god failed to create the first time ie. automatons.
Now there is a purpose that the religious can truly aspire to.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

I disagree. Ethical imperatives can be established without the need of a "God".

Most humans will agree that it's better to exist than not to exist. Such that the continuation of their existence becomes their primary ethical imperative. And because we humans cannot fully exist as human beings without other human beings, most of us will conclude that the continuation of their own existence must include the continuation of the existence of the other humans, in their lives. Thus, the well-being of other humans becomes a part of their own primary ethical imperative. And from this imperative, logically, most of the moral positives and negatives that you claim to come from your belief in God can be achieved without a belief God.

The fact is that the well-being of any one of us it complicit with the well-being of all of us. And we don't need to believe in a God to recognize this fact of our reality, and to develop our ethical and moral codes, accordingly.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:52:10 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

Well stated; however it is an exercise in masochism to attempt to address it to those with hardened hearts and minds. The need and desire to be one's own supreme master will not admit reason to enter, and you will simply be dismissed. I gladly discuss these things with those who seek knowledge, but you can't force it upon them. I think no one here seeks to learn anything new, me included, but it's good to read your position.
I always love how the permanently bewildered consider themselves to have knowledge that others need.
They also are flabbergasted by the refusal of the nurses to let them out.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
quertyfoo
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

Oh, geez. Holy crap this is going to be a long post.

So first let's be clear about the purpose of the post. You aren't even trying to show that God exists, just that you should believe in God whether or not it exists. This is effectively the same as showing that it is better for a person to believe in a God than not. But I don't want to be coddled, I can handle the truth. If there is no God, then I don't want to believe in it.

But that's mostly moot, since your argument is more full of holes than a leaky colander.

"If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose."
Not true. I can think of one - survival.

"If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero."
...what? Let's split that up.

"If humanity has no inherent purpose,"
which it does, but I'll put that aside,
"[then] all purpose must be extrinsic."
So? Maybe it is.
"Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves..."
Doesn't sound "extrinsic" if I give it to myself...
"is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose..."
True. Whatever makes you happy.
...while not putting others at a disadvantage. Like killing them. Heh.
"because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero."
And now if I'm reading you correctly, you're being intrinsicist. Or one might say that you are starting with the assumption that we must have an intrinsic purpose because if we don't have an intrinsic purpose, then we wouldn't have an intrinsic purpose!!!!!

We don't. Deal with it.

"If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false."
Umm, yes? Moral objectivism is false!

"It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave."

...and you've lost me again.

'Moral objectivism is important because without it, NOTHING IS IMPORTANT.'

If you've based your life upon a lie, I'm sorry. I know it's shocking to take the red pill and see how things actually are. I'm not being sarcastic. Everything seemed topsy-turvy for a while, but now I see in shades of gray.

We can use the existing morality within people's heads which evolved to keep the speices/civilization alive, spruce it up a bit, and then voila! A morality that we can all agree on! Don't kill people, don't blah, dot dot dot dot a thousand more words.

I do science because it's fun. It brings me pleasure. I like the feeling of standing upon a precipice of unknown mathematics and scooping out some peculiar artifact of reality.

But Bob might do the sciency job because he's good at it, and he wants a warm bed and a meal tonight. That's fine too.

Other people can also provide a reason to exist. There's a good evolutionary reason for love, you know.

There is no truth.

There is only gray. And my gray is better than yours. :P

"Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns."

Well, I like the truth for the sake of the truth. Truth exists. Truth is not arbitrary. If I'm holding up a blue rock, it's sure as hell not red, even though that doesn't matter. I like figuring things out, and that drives me to keep going. Everybody has to find their thing.

"If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance."

Um. Not to be all Vulcanish or anything, but arguments based on emotion tend to not be valid, though they might be sound. (Also, I know what those words mean.)

"Should" we all be compassionate and loving? Maybe. You sure feel that way. But maybe compassion and love are evolutionarily optimal. That would explain "love" without the need for a God.

And trust me, I'm pursuing truth as best I can.

"Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths."

You're right. Mostly.

Belief systems are arbitrary, because they're belief. Atheism is grounded in reality, and can be checked by science. Moral objectivism is not necessarily existent.

Now for the helpful criticism!

======

Ben Shapiro, I would spend more time focusing on why you think moral objectivism is supportable. Right now, your argument closely resembles a "petitio principii" argument. You're saying that A exists, because A _must_ exist, and so B must exist.
Willows
Posts: 2,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
" If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. "

I could equally argue that humanity has no inherent purpose therefore God does not exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:46:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:02:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

I wouldn't say "zero", I'd say non-applicable. You also appear to completely reject the subjective valuation of these concepts as having any worth at all. If this is so, then your subjective opinion on the matter is as equally invalid as one who says otherwise.

I reject that the subjective valuation of a given purpose is possibly better or worse in comparison to a different purpose. In an atheistic worldview, it's not comparatively better to become a serial rapist vs. a cancer doctor (let's say who isn't a serial rapist). I can say that the color blue is better than red, but comparatively, red is not better or worse than blue because the real value of either color is non-existent (or zero). My opinion would only be invalid if there's no underlying truth that validates it. Atheism, philsophically, doesn't give us the possibility of having this underlying truth. Theism does.

Also, how does an extrinsic purpose from God mean anything objectively, anyway? Isn't that purpose still just existent in the mind of God and not actually real, meaning, it's still ultimately subjective? You just personally value the purpose God has for you over that which another human or yourself assigns, but neither have objective value.

Because if reality is derivative from the mind of God, then God's mind is the also the basis of objectivity. "Truth" and "God's mind" are inseparable. Objectivity vs. subjectivity refer to truth standards. If something is objective, it's necessarily true. If something is subjective, it's not necessarily true.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Again, you're rejecting subjective value as worthless. Even though it may be arbitrary, that doesn't mean that one who values positive experiences can't hold such things to be tremendously valuable.

What are "positive experiences"? If these experiences are wholly subjective, a rapist may consider rape a "positive experience" that is tremendously valuable to him.

Since humans are incredibly similar in many standards of well-being (e.g. pain = suffering), then there is strength in the value of those things that are beneficial.

If most people believe that blue is better than red, would this give merit to the notion that blue is better than red? If something is wholly subjective, consensus on the issue doesn't give it merit. "It's better to increase well-being" is a subjective end just as "it's better to cause suffering" is a subjective end.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

Nope. We can establish an objective moral/ethical foundation on the basic well-being of humankind. Though this may be ultimately arbitrary in the universe, it isn't to us.

There's a big difference between being able to objectively measure wellbeing vs. an objective moral foundation. If atheism is true, there can't be an objective moral foundation simply because all human ends are inherently subjective and morality concerns which ends we ought or ought not pursue.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

False. I hold subjective values to be worthwhile, especially since others share many of the same values. An objective value is unnecessary.

A person who believes opposite of you, let's say a member of ISIS, is just as justified in pursuing his ideals as you are for yours. Comparatively, his are no better or worse. His preferences are unpopular, sure, but this doesn't give validation or merit to your preferences over his. He likes orange and you like blue. Isn't that awful?

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

I initially was going to agree with Omni that this is an Appeal to Consequences, but I gave it a second thought and realized that you're not asserting that God exists based on the above, you're saying that you should believe in God (similar to Pascal's Wager). But, even in this case, this is still fallacious because belief doesn't influence the truth of the matter, so you're arguments are irrelevant, either way.

There is no truth of the matter as to which ends you ought to pursue (if God doesn't exist.) This is exactly why you should believe in God. We know that benevolent ends are better than malicious ones.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:47:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:37:39 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
" If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. "

I could equally argue that humanity has no inherent purpose therefore God does not exist.

As evidenced by?
Willows
Posts: 2,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:49:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:47:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:37:39 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
" If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. "

I could equally argue that humanity has no inherent purpose therefore God does not exist.

As evidenced by?

Common logic
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:46:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because if reality is derivative from the mind of God
And therein lies one of your problems. Do you get it, or do I need crayons and butchers paper for you?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:23:25 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

I disagree. Ethical imperatives can be established without the need of a "God".

Most humans will agree that it's better to exist than not to exist. Such that the continuation of their existence becomes their primary ethical imperative. And because we humans cannot fully exist as human beings without other human beings, most of us will conclude that the continuation of their own existence must include the continuation of the existence of the other humans, in their lives. Thus, the well-being of other humans becomes a part of their own primary ethical imperative. And from this imperative, logically, most of the moral positives and negatives that you claim to come from your belief in God can be achieved without a belief God.

Can something be considered an ethical imperative if it doesn't apply to everyone? And since this imperative derives from our subjective preference to exist rather than not, why is something that derives from our subjective preference "imperative?"

The fact is that the well-being of any one of us it complicit with the well-being of all of us. And we don't need to believe in a God to recognize this fact of our reality, and to develop our ethical and moral codes, accordingly.

Why should people who want to cause suffering instead work towards increasing well-being?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 2:04:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:49:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:47:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:37:39 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
" If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. "

I could equally argue that humanity has no inherent purpose therefore God does not exist.

As evidenced by?

Common logic

It's not common logic.

The controversy over abortion hinges upon whether a fetus is considered a human being. Why is it important to make a distinction between fetus and a human being if both are inherently purposeless?

If someone sees a baby drowning in a shallow puddle, and they are able to turn it over, are they obligated to save it? If the baby is inherently purposeless, the answer is no. Universally, people would save the baby.

Our justice systems are based on the notion that all human beings have value and that you'll impose penalties for harming others.

I'll wait for some of your examples.
tarantula
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 2:06:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.


Only in your opinion
Chaosism
Posts: 2,663
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 2:17:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:46:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:02:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

I wouldn't say "zero", I'd say non-applicable. You also appear to completely reject the subjective valuation of these concepts as having any worth at all. If this is so, then your subjective opinion on the matter is as equally invalid as one who says otherwise.

I reject that the subjective valuation of a given purpose is possibly better or worse in comparison to a different purpose. In an atheistic worldview, it's not comparatively better to become a serial rapist vs. a cancer doctor (let's say who isn't a serial rapist). I can say that the color blue is better than red, but comparatively, red is not better or worse than blue because the real value of either color is non-existent (or zero). My opinion would only be invalid if there's no underlying truth that validates it. Atheism, philsophically, doesn't give us the possibility of having this underlying truth. Theism does.

Objectivity is irrelevant to this, and citing it is pointless. What you or I think of as better or worse is subjective opinion, yes. However, the vast majority of humans have similar foundational values which serve to bias our inclinations, and this is an intrinsic aspect of our being. We can't help but hold subjective values as meaningful. I don't believe theism solves this (see below).

Also, how does an extrinsic purpose from God mean anything objectively, anyway? Isn't that purpose still just existent in the mind of God and not actually real, meaning, it's still ultimately subjective? You just personally value the purpose God has for you over that which another human or yourself assigns, but neither have objective value.

Because if reality is derivative from the mind of God, then God's mind is the also the basis of objectivity. "Truth" and "God's mind" are inseparable. Objectivity vs. subjectivity refer to truth standards. If something is objective, it's necessarily true. If something is subjective, it's not necessarily true.

Humans invented the comparative concept of "truth" in order to describe if a concept or proposition is in concordance with reality. If reality is derivative of a god's mind, then truth is defined by God's mind. Okay, and how is this not subjective, i.e. wholly dependent on the mind to exist? If what you propose is true, then the only objectively existent thing is the mind of God, itself. Everything else is absolutely arbitrary and subjective. None of it is necessarily true.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Again, you're rejecting subjective value as worthless. Even though it may be arbitrary, that doesn't mean that one who values positive experiences can't hold such things to be tremendously valuable.

What are "positive experiences"? If these experiences are wholly subjective, a rapist may consider rape a "positive experience" that is tremendously valuable to him.

I'm sure it is. So what?

Since humans are incredibly similar in many standards of well-being (e.g. pain = suffering), then there is strength in the value of those things that are beneficial.

If most people believe that blue is better than red, would this give merit to the notion that blue is better than red? If something is wholly subjective, consensus on the issue doesn't give it merit. "It's better to increase well-being" is a subjective end just as "it's better to cause suffering" is a subjective end.

Merit is subjective. So what?

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

Nope. We can establish an objective moral/ethical foundation on the basic well-being of humankind. Though this may be ultimately arbitrary in the universe, it isn't to us.

There's a big difference between being able to objectively measure wellbeing vs. an objective moral foundation. If atheism is true, there can't be an objective moral foundation simply because all human ends are inherently subjective and morality concerns which ends we ought or ought not pursue.

I'm not saying that it is actually objective, just that we can treat is as though it were objective. We are bound to our subjective experiences and values, so the fact that they have no objectivity is arbitrary.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

False. I hold subjective values to be worthwhile, especially since others share many of the same values. An objective value is unnecessary.

A person who believes opposite of you, let's say a member of ISIS, is just as justified in pursuing his ideals as you are for yours. Comparatively, his are no better or worse. His preferences are unpopular, sure, but this doesn't give validation or merit to your preferences over his. He likes orange and you like blue. Isn't that awful?

No, I and most other people will thing that the extremist ISIS member's ideals are worse. This doesn't mean that they're objectively worse; that's irrelevant. The vast majority of humankind holds value in human life and well-being, in general. That which is condusive to the benefit of these things can be largely favored. Whether they're objectively better or not is entirely irrelevant.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

I initially was going to agree with Omni that this is an Appeal to Consequences, but I gave it a second thought and realized that you're not asserting that God exists based on the above, you're saying that you should believe in God (similar to Pascal's Wager). But, even in this case, this is still fallacious because belief doesn't influence the truth of the matter, so you're arguments are irrelevant, either way.

There is no truth of the matter as to which ends you ought to pursue (if God doesn't exist.) This is exactly why you should believe in God.

You just restated yourself and didn't address what I said. I remain in strong disagreement.

We know that benevolent ends are better than malicious ones.

You're making a subjective value-judgment, here. This is not knowledge - it's opinion.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 2:17:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose.

What exactly is Gods purpose for humanity that would disappear if God didn't exist?

If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

And, you came up with the number zero, how exactly? What formula did you use?

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Except, the obvious truth of the consequences of human behavior, which can be either thought about reasonably and logically or can be simply put to the test with the results being observed.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

Except, of course, through logic and reason or trial and error, which is pretty much how the world works today.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists.

Are you actually claiming that humans are incapable of figuring out for themselves through logic and reason or trial and error the consequences of behaving compassionately and lovingly? Seriously?

If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

How exactly?

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

Ben has just admitted that his brain does not function.
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
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 2:31:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

I'am getting real sick of hearing the same tiresome bullsh*t for religion. It makes me wonder if religion has funded numerous minions to spread their disinformation.

Unless there is an invisible man..........nothing matters, blah blah blah, any purpose we give ourselves is of no value, BUT if the invisible man exists to GIVE it to you, then you do........................mind of a f*Cking slave.

No invisible man = bad

invisible man = good

But, cover up this with words such as God, supreme being, blah blah blah and so many don't see through it.


If you accept that the above is true,

Your false dilemma is a joke, so no I don't accept the paradigm your operating on.

moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Unless the magic man exists.....................moving on.


Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

Oh know, without the magic man, what ever shall we do, ? It's almost as if we take the things we don't like, eg baby rape and then just bash people over the head, without God baby rape isn't wrong, it's gotta be God, can't be without God...........cause we say so.


If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Feel free to make sh*t up, magic man, gotta have magic man........


Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

Thus you should be suckerd into this religious bullsh*t..............
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:01:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:58:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:23:25 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc. It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.

I disagree. Ethical imperatives can be established without the need of a "God".

Most humans will agree that it's better to exist than not to exist. Such that the continuation of their existence becomes their primary ethical imperative. And because we humans cannot fully exist as human beings without other human beings, most of us will conclude that the continuation of their own existence must include the continuation of the existence of the other humans, in their lives. Thus, the well-being of other humans becomes a part of their own primary ethical imperative. And from this imperative, logically, most of the moral positives and negatives that you claim to come from your belief in God can be achieved without a belief God.

Can something be considered an ethical imperative if it doesn't apply to everyone?

Of course. We are each deciding what our ethical imperatives are. In this case, the primary imperative is to continue existing. And our ethical reasoning will be based in achieving and maintaining that imperative goal.

And since this imperative derives from our subjective preference to exist rather than not, why is something that derives from our subjective preference "imperative?"

1. I think that's also an objective preference, as it's written into our DNA.

2. Because we choose to designate as such, for ourselves.

The fact is that the well-being of any one of us it complicit with the well-being of all of us. And we don't need to believe in a God to recognize this fact of our reality, and to develop our ethical and moral codes, accordingly.

Why should people who want to cause suffering instead work towards increasing well-being?

They won't. Fortunately, there are few among us who want to cause suffering, because most of us recognize that our own well-being is dependent upon the well-being of everyone else.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:26:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. If humanity has no inherent purpose, all purpose must be extrinsic. Any extrinsic purpose that we assign ourselves is no better or worse than any other extrinsic purpose because the true value of our purpose is always equal to zero.

And here is where I will post an argument by Fkkize:

The original Euthyphro should be familiar to everyone.
"For any act, is this act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already good?"

The former option would make goodness arbitrary, the latter independent of God.
Similarly, when discussing the meaning of life, we can ask
"do our lives have meaning simply because God decrees that they do, or does God choose his decrees based on some independent standard of meaningfulness?"
Again the former appears to make meaning arbitrary: God could have planned that we roll a boulder up a hill, just for us to slip and the boulder to roll down again, for all of eternity and that would then be a meaningful life.
Which, too, seems implausible.
The False-Dilemma response to the Euthyphro has gained some popularity lately.
When applied to the new dilemma we might say that, just as goodness must be grounded in the nature of a person who is perfectly good, the meaning of our life must be grounded in the nature of a person who exemplifies perfect meaningfulness.

However, if God can exemplify meaningfulness without an external standard giving her life meaning, then there is no reason not to suppose that the same applies to us.

So, I am going to have to disagree with you on that one.

If you accept that the above is true, moral objectivism is false. It also means that ideals such as respect, compassion, diligence, courage, truthfulness, etc., are no better or worse in comparison to disrespect, hatred, cowardice, deceitfulness, etc.

1) So what?
2) You have to first demonstrate that the above is true.
3) Why would moral realism (which works in place of objectivism for all the below) require people be intrinsically valuable?

It means that the pursuit of truth and knowledge is not better or worse than pursuing lies and ignorance. It means that there's no truth of the matter on how humans should behave.

Again, so what?

Not only does this render atheism (meaning disbelief in God) to be arbitrary (because truth is no better or worse than fiction), but it also means that there's no foundation on which to advocate moral or ethical concerns.

Not to sound like a broken record, but so what?
Moral/Ethical concerns can easily be replaces with a form of Social Contract Theory that lacks the existence of "morals"/"ethics" but has a foundation on the goals/desires of the people, and what actions would tend to hinder/support those goals/desires. All extrinsic, but still works just fine.

If you argue that we should all be compassionate and loving towards each other (self-evident), this could only actually be true if God exists. If you reject God's existence, then you've also forfeited the possibility that the pursuit of truth is actually better than the pursuit of ignorance.

Only if:
1) Your first point is true, which you have not yet demonstrated.
2) Moral realism requires people to be intrinsically valuable, which you also have not demonstrated.

Oh, and so what.

Thus, you should believe in God. Without God's existence, belief systems are arbitrary (including atheism) and we have no foundation to stand on when advocating for moral truths.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:28:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 2:04:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:49:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:47:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:37:39 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:05:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
" If God doesn't exist, humanity has no inherent purpose. "

I could equally argue that humanity has no inherent purpose therefore God does not exist.

As evidenced by?

Common logic

It's not common logic.

The controversy over abortion hinges upon whether a fetus is considered a human being. Why is it important to make a distinction between fetus and a human being if both are inherently purposeless?

If someone sees a baby drowning in a shallow puddle, and they are able to turn it over, are they obligated to save it? If the baby is inherently purposeless, the answer is no. Universally, people would save the baby.

Our justice systems are based on the notion that all human beings have value and that you'll impose penalties for harming others.

I'll wait for some of your examples.

By posting this, I'm not making a case for or against the existence of God - rather to follow the reasoning.
You say that if God doesn't exists, there is no intrinsic purpose in life, only extrinsic. Whether intrinsic or extrinsic, how does that affect the validity of the worth. Many people, religious and irreligious, enjoy many aspects of life - eg - food, beauty, companionship, learning.
If there were no purpose of life, that doesn't mean there's no purpose IN life - people make their own