Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hey Atheists

Jarjar3000
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?
Ohh Lord How you love me, you change my heart and soul, renewing my mind into something I could never imagine, You make me strong when I am weak, you encourage me when I'm despaired, You stick by me when everyone deserts me, You are my Lord You are my God.

Charles: I'm not a Christian because I'm afraid of hell, I'm a Christian because I love Jesus.

Geolaureate: The Pope
He looks like a Sith lord, I don't trust him.

Charles0103: Just like my God, my faith won't change.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:19:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?

I enjoy life :)

so.. yeah, I enjoy being an atheist... and a human... and being Every other thing that I am.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:21:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What the hell is an atheist?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:43:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?

No, I hate it.

Que bad arguments for God, evasion on questions of theology, insults and hissy fits.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:58:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The vocal atheists I tend to see dancing around sometimes come across as being no better than the religious people they mock, sometimes even worse.

Both the religious and the irreligious are absolutely terrible at communicating with each other.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 2:01:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:43:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?

No, I hate it.

Que bad arguments for God, evasion on questions of theology, insults and hissy fits.:

LMAO!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 2:09:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 2:01:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:43:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?

No, I hate it.

Que bad arguments for God, evasion on questions of theology, insults and hissy fits.:

LMAO!

I just thought it would be easier to summarise the thread now, instead of after ten pages of the same old crap.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 2:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 2:09:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 2:01:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:43:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?

No, I hate it.

Que bad arguments for God, evasion on questions of theology, insults and hissy fits.:

LMAO!

I just thought it would be easier to summarise the thread now, instead of after ten pages of the same old crap.

Problem with you is that you can't tell if you are serious or not; at least in a question/thread like this.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 3:41:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 2:09:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 2:01:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:43:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:12:51 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
Do You People enjoy being Atheists?

No, I hate it.

Que bad arguments for God, evasion on questions of theology, insults and hissy fits.:

LMAO!

I just thought it would be easier to summarise the thread now, instead of after ten pages of the same old crap.

'Que' is spelled with a 'c', I think.
Cue, not Que.
I miss the old members.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 3:47:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, there are things that do suck about being an atheist, things like the inevitability of death, the realisation that most of the incredible suffering in the world will be completely uncompensated and the struggle to substantiate things like moral values in the world. I think when you're going through a really rough time, atheism is not really helpful either.

On the plus side, I don't have to defend things like biblical morality, hell and such, and the conclusion reached is the most honest one with my current understanding of the world.

Either way, whether one likes it or not, I don't really have a choice. The reasons that I have for being an atheist (of which there are many) far, far outweighs that of Christianity (unsure about other religions), and I couldn't just choose to stop finding these reasons compelling of my own volition, even if I didn't like the conclusion. Having been at both sides of the fence of the religious debate, I'm probably happier being an atheist, in the sense that my opinions are far more justified than when I was a Christian.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 4:16:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 3:47:44 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Actually, there are things that do suck about being an atheist, things like the inevitability of death, the realisation that most of the incredible suffering in the world will be completely uncompensated and the struggle to substantiate things like moral values in the world. I think when you're going through a really rough time, atheism is not really helpful either.

On the plus side, I don't have to defend things like biblical morality, hell and such, and the conclusion reached is the most honest one with my current understanding of the world.

Either way, whether one likes it or not, I don't really have a choice. The reasons that I have for being an atheist (of which there are many) far, far outweighs that of Christianity (unsure about other religions), and I couldn't just choose to stop finding these reasons compelling of my own volition, even if I didn't like the conclusion. Having been at both sides of the fence of the religious debate, I'm probably happier being an atheist, in the sense that my opinions are far more justified than when I was a Christian.

See, posts like this are why you are awesome.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 4:35:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 4:16:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2011 3:47:44 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Actually, there are things that do suck about being an atheist, things like the inevitability of death, the realisation that most of the incredible suffering in the world will be completely uncompensated and the struggle to substantiate things like moral values in the world. I think when you're going through a really rough time, atheism is not really helpful either.

See, posts like this are why you are awesome.

I don't know anything about his level of awesomeness.. but I think this post was pretty "egh"

Moral valuations are substantiated by the personal Emotive manner in which they occur..
They are the valuations themselves.. they don't need to be compared to some other valuation to gain legitimacy.. Just as God's valuations would be based in his cares.. Mine are based in Mine... They have the same type of legitimacy.. they're just based in different subjects.

and feeling sorry for yourself about the "inevitability of death" is a lot less healthy than simply accepting the world as it is.. people who spend their time pining away for things which don't exist (like immortality) can only really be indulging in self-pity due to, and reinforcing, psychological weakness... I find such indulgence to be both pitiful and contemptible..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Aibohphobia
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 5:15:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm perfectly happy as an Atheist. There is absolutely nothing religion has to offer that would make me happier than I am now.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 5:25:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My complete lack of religious beliefs are irrelevent to my happiness.

It's like me asking you if you're happy being a non-Muslim or non-Buddhist.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 5:29:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 4:35:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2011 4:16:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I don't know anything about his level of awesomeness.. but I think this post was pretty "egh"

Moral valuations are substantiated by the personal Emotive manner in which they occur..
They are the valuations themselves.. they don't need to be compared to some other valuation to gain legitimacy.. Just as God's valuations would be based in his cares.. Mine are based in Mine... They have the same type of legitimacy.. they're just based in different subjects.

and feeling sorry for yourself about the "inevitability of death" is a lot less healthy than simply accepting the world as it is.. people who spend their time pining away for things which don't exist (like immortality) can only really be indulging in self-pity due to, and reinforcing, psychological weakness... I find such indulgence to be both pitiful and contemptible..
See, posts like this are why you are awesomer.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 5:37:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 5:29:07 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/11/2011 4:35:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2011 4:16:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I don't know anything about his level of awesomeness.. but I think this post was pretty "egh"

Moral valuations are substantiated by the personal Emotive manner in which they occur..
They are the valuations themselves.. they don't need to be compared to some other valuation to gain legitimacy.. Just as God's valuations would be based in his cares.. Mine are based in Mine... They have the same type of legitimacy.. they're just based in different subjects.

and feeling sorry for yourself about the "inevitability of death" is a lot less healthy than simply accepting the world as it is.. people who spend their time pining away for things which don't exist (like immortality) can only really be indulging in self-pity due to, and reinforcing, psychological weakness... I find such indulgence to be both pitiful and contemptible..
See, posts like this are why you are awesomer.

Ha! thank you very much :)

And That's Why you're my favorite theist!
(though.. realistically it's prolly a tie between you and koopin)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 6:38:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 4:35:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2011 4:16:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2011 3:47:44 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Actually, there are things that do suck about being an atheist, things like the inevitability of death, the realisation that most of the incredible suffering in the world will be completely uncompensated and the struggle to substantiate things like moral values in the world. I think when you're going through a really rough time, atheism is not really helpful either.

See, posts like this are why you are awesome.

I don't know anything about his level of awesomeness.. but I think this post was pretty "egh"

Moral valuations are substantiated by the personal Emotive manner in which they occur..
They are the valuations themselves.. they don't need to be compared to some other valuation to gain legitimacy.. Just as God's valuations would be based in his cares.. Mine are based in Mine... They have the same type of legitimacy.. they're just based in different subjects.

and feeling sorry for yourself about the "inevitability of death" is a lot less healthy than simply accepting the world as it is.. people who spend their time pining away for things which don't exist (like immortality) can only really be indulging in self-pity due to, and reinforcing, psychological weakness... I find such indulgence to be both pitiful and contemptible.

I must say I don't really get the criticism here. I DO believe that death and suffering are facts of life, but this fact is surely regrettable. To say that such regret is "pitiful and contemptible" strikes me as an outrageous statement. As someone who has seen acute suffering first hand, wishing things were otherwise is not some airy-fairy, pie in the sky, happy-go-lucky way to view the world, it is a natural reaction from sentient beings who have the capacity for love and empathy towards fellow human beings. In fact, the denial of such sentiments is not only very hard to believe and extremely callous, but is also, ironically, harmful to the very proposition that you believe in. Things like the problem of evil for example (IMO, the most powerful argument for atheism) use this fact brilliantly to successfully challenge Christianity and other faiths, contrasting the world as it is with the way one would expect to find it if there were a God.

On morality, I agree that theistic morality is problematic, and that atheistic moral realism can probably be established, but IF relativism were true, then again I would be pretty unsatisfied. To think that rape, murder and torture for instance could not be objectively condemned would be pretty hard for me (and I would imagine, most atheists) to swallow, but if that's the way the world is then I would have to live with it.

As for it being unhealthy to fixate about the impossible, I don't. I take the world as it is, and get on with it. What choice do I have? However,, I would argue that anyone who does not find reason to mourn at the state of suffering in the world would not only be detached from the real-world, but would be "pitifully and contemptibly" so.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:06:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 6:38:33 PM, unitedandy wrote:

and feeling sorry for yourself about the "inevitability of death" is a lot less healthy than simply accepting the world as it is.. people who spend their time pining away for things which don't exist (like immortality) can only really be indulging in self-pity due to, and reinforcing, psychological weakness... I find such indulgence to be both pitiful and contemptible.

I must say I don't really get the criticism here. I DO believe that death and suffering are facts of life, but this fact is surely regrettable. To say that such regret is "pitiful and contemptible" strikes me as an outrageous statement. As someone who has seen acute suffering first hand, wishing things were otherwise is not some airy-fairy, pie in the sky, happy-go-lucky way to view the world, it is a natural reaction from sentient beings who have the capacity for love and empathy towards fellow human beings. In fact, the denial of such sentiments is not only very hard to believe and extremely callous, but is also, ironically, harmful to the very proposition that you believe in. Things like the problem of evil for example (IMO, the most powerful argument for atheism) use this fact brilliantly to successfully challenge Christianity and other faiths, contrasting the world as it is with the way one would expect to find it if there were a God.
Funny that, I find problem of evil as the worst of all the atheist arguments.

All I can say here is that you value weakness. One can mourn about all the ills of the world but that the end of the day it does nothing to change the world as it is. I woundn't go as part as to say it was contemptuous but I find it a worthless quality one naught value. Sorry, but you sound extremely emotive.

On morality, I agree that theistic morality is problematic, and that atheistic moral realism can probably be established, but IF relativism were true, then again I would be pretty unsatisfied. To think that rape, murder and torture for instance could not be objectively condemned would be pretty hard for me (and I would imagine, most atheists) to swallow, but if that's the way the world is then I would have to live with it.
God's objective morality, fall victim to the Euthyphro dilemma, just because God says these things are true doesn't make them true and therefore gives NO more validation that these things are true at all. A theist doesn't go to sleep just because he knows, God is right. As PCP quotes: "If the problem of evil does not keep you up at night, then you don't really understand it" In the same way atheists doubt, theists doubt. Many atheists make the assumption that theists go whole heartedly and blindly into faith buts that's only a very small select few, fidest to the very extreme the term can describe.

As for it being unhealthy to fixate about the impossible, I don't. I take the world as it is, and get on with it. What choice do I have? However,, I would argue that anyone who does not find reason to mourn at the state of suffering in the world would not only be detached from the real-world, but would be "pitifully and contemptibly" so.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:49:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:06:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/11/2011 6:38:33 PM, unitedandy wrote:

and feeling sorry for yourself about the "inevitability of death" is a lot less healthy than simply accepting the world as it is.. people who spend their time pining away for things which don't exist (like immortality) can only really be indulging in self-pity due to, and reinforcing, psychological weakness... I find such indulgence to be both pitiful and contemptible.

I must say I don't really get the criticism here. I DO believe that death and suffering are facts of life, but this fact is surely regrettable. To say that such regret is "pitiful and contemptible" strikes me as an outrageous statement. As someone who has seen acute suffering first hand, wishing things were otherwise is not some airy-fairy, pie in the sky, happy-go-lucky way to view the world, it is a natural reaction from sentient beings who have the capacity for love and empathy towards fellow human beings. In fact, the denial of such sentiments is not only very hard to believe and extremely callous, but is also, ironically, harmful to the very proposition that you believe in. Things like the problem of evil for example (IMO, the most powerful argument for atheism) use this fact brilliantly to successfully challenge Christianity and other faiths, contrasting the world as it is with the way one would expect to find it if there were a God.
Funny that, I find problem of evil as the worst of all the atheist arguments.

All I can say here is that you value weakness. One can mourn about all the ills of the world but that the end of the day it does nothing to change the world as it is. I woundn't go as part as to say it was contemptuous but I find it a worthless quality one naught value. Sorry, but you sound extremely emotive.

On morality, I agree that theistic morality is problematic, and that atheistic moral realism can probably be established, but IF relativism were true, then again I would be pretty unsatisfied. To think that rape, murder and torture for instance could not be objectively condemned would be pretty hard for me (and I would imagine, most atheists) to swallow, but if that's the way the world is then I would have to live with it.
God's objective morality, fall victim to the Euthyphro dilemma, just because God says these things are true doesn't make them true and therefore gives NO more validation that these things are true at all. A theist doesn't go to sleep just because he knows, God is right. As PCP quotes: "If the problem of evil does not keep you up at night, then you don't really understand it" In the same way atheists doubt, theists doubt. Many atheists make the assumption that theists go whole heartedly and blindly into faith buts that's only a very small select few, fidest to the very extreme the term can describe.

As for it being unhealthy to fixate about the impossible, I don't. I take the world as it is, and get on with it. What choice do I have? However,, I would argue that anyone who does not find reason to mourn at the state of suffering in the world would not only be detached from the real-world, but would be "pitifully and contemptibly" so.

Well, Zetsubo, if you don't value things like love and empathy for people who are suffering, then I think you maybe the only nihilistic theist out there. If people think these are weaknesses, then no wonder a whole host of inhumane and truly abhorrent practices can be "justified". Moral relativism/nihilism might work great in an essay or in a seminar, but applying it to the real world when people are being tortured or during a cycle of genocide, it becomes a whole lot harder to justify. As for the problem of evil, if it really is the case that this is one of the poorest arguments for atheism, then theists should pack up their sh!t and call it a day. The PoE (along the the argument from nonbelief and others) is easily one of the best arguments for atheism, and even most theists would grant that it is persuasive by its nature. If you don't think so, then you are in a pretty small minority, I would imagine.

On theistic morality, the Euthyphro dilemma is only one problem with theistic morality, although it is admittedly quite an acute one. The nature of theistic morality, it seems to me, would be necessarily subjective, if it were grounded in a particular being (God) - which would be another problem, as would biblical morality, but as other atheists would point out to you, the biggest problem of theistic morality would that we have reason to doubt that God exists.

On theists in general, I would challenge any atheist who says that theists are necessarily lead by blind faith and so on. PCP and InquireTruth are two theists whose conclusion I certainly don't agree with, but are certainly more rational than many atheists on DDO, and better informed than most, including myself. Although I think that atheism is the more rational position, all other things being equal, this doesn't commit me to the sentiments of New Atheism, and I don't really know why you would think it would. Maybe you prefer the more confrontational atheists, but in my experience, those who act like that are usually overcompensating for poor arguments.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:58:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are now many things I'm itching to argue against but I'll just pick this one just because it's so common:

At 2/11/2011 7:06:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

God's objective morality, fall victim to the Euthyphro dilemma, just because God says these things are true doesn't make them true and therefore gives NO more validation that these things are true at all.

1) First of all, even granting that the Euthyphro is successful, God as the source of morality doesn't necessarily have be construed in divine command theorist terms. There's a lot of other conceptions of God's relation to morality that don't fall prey to the Euthyphro. One of them is fairly important: natural law theory - this has been mainly been advocated by Catholics for, like, a thousand years or something.

2) Second of all, the Euthyphro doesn't work in the first place. It has been ably responded to - especially within the last 40 or so years.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:03:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:49:37 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Well, Zetsubo, if you don't value things like love and empathy for people who are suffering, then I think you maybe the only nihilistic theist out there. If people think these are weaknesses, then no wonder a whole host of inhumane and truly abhorrent practices can be "justified". Moral relativism/nihilism might work great in an essay or in a seminar, but applying it to the real world when people are being tortured or during a cycle of genocide, it becomes a whole lot harder to justify.

I'm just letting you know, united, that there are a couple of nihilists here (ann/cody/others?) that will probably jump all over you for typing that. ;)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:14:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:49:37 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:06:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/11/2011 6:38:33 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Moral relativism/nihilism might work great in an essay or in a seminar, but applying it to the real world when people are being tortured or during a cycle of genocide, it becomes a whole lot harder to justify.

I respect you as a debater, unitedandy. You are very clever and I enjoy reading your debates... However, as a moral nihilist, I have to disagree with you quite vehemently when you state nihilism becomes harder to justify in the presence of torture and genocide. So, could you elaborate on this point so I can at least see your thought process? So far it's an unsubstantiated assertion -- and I would hate for it to remain so.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:23:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:14:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:49:37 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:06:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/11/2011 6:38:33 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Moral relativism/nihilism might work great in an essay or in a seminar, but applying it to the real world when people are being tortured or during a cycle of genocide, it becomes a whole lot harder to justify.

I respect you as a debater, unitedandy. You are very clever and I enjoy reading your debates... However, as a moral nihilist, I have to disagree with you quite vehemently when you state nihilism becomes harder to justify in the presence of torture and genocide. So, could you elaborate on this point so I can at least see your thought process? So far it's an unsubstantiated assertion -- and I would hate for it to remain so.

Yeah, I kinda knew this was going to happen, and have probably painted a big target on myself, but hey, such is the way of it.

I suppose I should have qualified the statement, to apply to certain nihilist positions which assert "that all moral claims are false." If ALL moral claims are deemed such, then moral condemnation of things like the examples mentioned above as morally wrong are, well, false. Admittedly, this is probably not the most common usage of the term that people use, and so is perhaps unfair and foolish to generalise, but could equally apply to positions of nihilism that see morality in a similar way to relativism. Taking this approach, condemnation of genocide for example, seems to me to be expressing displeasure not on the basis of some objectively grounded and universal standard, but on the personal values or tastes that the speaker would have or the cultural would deem undesirable, no more objectively true than one's taste in art, music or food. I have no problem with denying things like "intrinsic value" and such, but if one is a moral skeptic, then how can they say that something is morally wrong?

On the issue of objective moral values, if I were to put it in a syllogism, it would be something like this:

If genocide is objectively wrong, then objective moral values exist

Genocide is objectively wrong

Therefore, objective moral values exist

Obviously, by "objective", I would mean something like transcendent moral values which exist whether we believe them or not. Admittedly, trying to actually show that objective values exist in this way is not only controversial, but extremely difficult, but if they do exist, then condemnation of things such as genocide (by pretty much whatever metric one uses, be it happiness, desires, contractarianism, etc) would not only be universally binding, but by definition, would be on the basis of it contradicting moral facts. Of course, such a position probably contains several debate resolutions itself, but at least the end result would be one which offers such condemnation of genocide from a factual basis. Just out of interest, how would (if indeed one could) condemn these things on the basis of nihilism, and would this be subject to the criticisms raised?

Anyway, I'll need to go and read some Fueurbach or Meslier or something, I'm sounding far too much like a theist.

Oh by the way, belated happy birthday:)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:44:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I quite agree with your take on nihilism, but I fear you might be painting with a large brush here and consigning relativists to the same fate. The two are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive.

On the issue of objective moral values, if I were to put it in a syllogism, it would be something like this:

If genocide is objectively wrong, then objective moral values exist

Genocide is objectively wrong

Therefore, objective moral values exist

Obviously, by "objective", I would mean something like transcendent moral values which exist whether we believe them or not. Admittedly, trying to actually show that objective values exist in this way is not only controversial, but extremely difficult, but if they do exist, then condemnation of things such as genocide (by pretty much whatever metric one uses, be it happiness, desires, contractarianism, etc) would not only be universally binding, but by definition, would be on the basis of it contradicting moral facts.:

Condemnation of genocide is not universal, that's seems obvious enough since the perpetrators of such actions didn't seem to think so.

Genocide is generally condemned by the numbers, but there is always an extenuating circumstance when it comes to morality. This is why moral absolutism fails, and will continue to fail, for it's lack of cogency.

Lies and deceit are generally viewed as immoral behavior, and for those who don't like the term "immoral" for its inherent religious connotation, then perhaps aberrant social behavior. Regardless, there is some consensus that lying is wrong, even though every human being on the planet has at some point lied.

But if we were to take the absolutist point of view, then lying would be wrong at all times and under all circumstances. But ask any theist if it is was morally wrong to lie to the Nazi's about the whereabouts of Anne Frank, and you'll see some entertaining mental gymnastics.

Even the bible credits people for deliberately lying to save people. That's completely inconsistent with moral absolutism. It either is absolute or it's relative, and no one can live consistently within the extremes of nihilism on one side of the spectrum, nor moral absolutism on the other.

The sensible answer is moral relativism. That's how everyone lives, and it's incontestable.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:48:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:44:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I quite agree with your take on nihilism, but I fear you might be painting with a large brush here and consigning relativists to the same fate. The two are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive.

Yeah, they're not the same...at least nihilism is internally coherent.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:49:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:44:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I quite agree with your take on nihilism, but I fear you might be painting with a large brush here and consigning relativists to the same fate. The two are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive.

On the issue of objective moral values, if I were to put it in a syllogism, it would be something like this:

If genocide is objectively wrong, then objective moral values exist

Genocide is objectively wrong

Therefore, objective moral values exist

Obviously, by "objective", I would mean something like transcendent moral values which exist whether we believe them or not. Admittedly, trying to actually show that objective values exist in this way is not only controversial, but extremely difficult, but if they do exist, then condemnation of things such as genocide (by pretty much whatever metric one uses, be it happiness, desires, contractarianism, etc) would not only be universally binding, but by definition, would be on the basis of it contradicting moral facts.:

Condemnation of genocide is not universal, that's seems obvious enough since the perpetrators of such actions didn't seem to think so.

Genocide is generally condemned by the numbers, but there is always an extenuating circumstance when it comes to morality. This is why moral absolutism fails, and will continue to fail, for it's lack of cogency.

Lies and deceit are generally viewed as immoral behavior, and for those who don't like the term "immoral" for its inherent religious connotation, then perhaps aberrant social behavior. Regardless, there is some consensus that lying is wrong, even though every human being on the planet has at some point lied.

But if we were to take the absolutist point of view, then lying would be wrong at all times and under all circumstances. But ask any theist if it is was morally wrong to lie to the Nazi's about the whereabouts of Anne Frank, and you'll see some entertaining mental gymnastics.

Even the bible credits people for deliberately lying to save people. That's completely inconsistent with moral absolutism. It either is absolute or it's relative, and no one can live consistently within the extremes of nihilism on one side of the spectrum, nor moral absolutism on the other.

The sensible answer is moral relativism. That's how everyone lives, and it's incontestable.

Moral objectivism is not the same moral absolutism. They may often go together but they are very distinct and separate concepts.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:55:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:48:43 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:44:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I quite agree with your take on nihilism, but I fear you might be painting with a large brush here and consigning relativists to the same fate. The two are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive.

Yeah, they're not the same...at least nihilism is internally coherent.:

It isn't coherent, and you couldn't live consistently within that framework. But we could very easily put that to the test.

You're an avowed anarchist, are you not? If the government came to suppress you, imprison you, or kill you, what would your argument against that be?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Moral objectivism is not the same moral absolutism. They may often go together but they are very distinct and separate concepts.:

There are subdivisions within it that cladistically separate the reasons for why something is the way it is. I'm not even examining the reasons (i.e nature or God)

Such as: "Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)