Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1061  
Old 6th February 2017, 10:23 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
A guy asks his doctor whether avoiding sex, wine and music will give him a longer life. the doctor replies: "I can't guarantee that it will be longer, but I will guarantee it will seem longer"

1. they may SEEM obvious, does not mean they ARE obvious.
2. ignoring the linguistics for a moment ... you are making an assertion. prove it.



let's not. how about you tell us what your hypothesis is and prove it.



how are you judging attractive? you are simply transferring the burden of objective assessment from one domain to another. it proves nothing.



now we are getting somewhere. you are right, there is no right or wrong in reality. these are human concepts, and as such different humans will differ in their views.



ofcourse you are free to act however you choose. but there will be consequences. and even if we assume there are objective morals, how does their existence stop you from ignoring them? and how does the fact that you can act freely prove that there are no objective morals. free will and objective morality are not related.



what is lacking of a justifiable reason is me spending time arguing with you.

what is 'good'? this is a circular argument. 'good' is something that by definition has net value, or it would not be good. unless ofcourse you are assuming that there is a universal 'good'. aka begging the question



I just did. you are begging the question.
I think the meaning of being a 'good' person is simply a person who is deemed to exhibit moral behaviour. Yes, what is deemed as moral may be subjective...but it is fairly closely aligned in a shared culture.

I do believe that our view of what is good would have a fair amount of overlap, and I think if you are honest you can contemplate such points as follows.

Sometimes the consequences will be positive when you cheat. If you look at it from risk/return perspective you could calculate when you are more likely to net a positive result from cheating...yet cheating is not 'good'...so why be 'good' when you, on probability, missing out on net benefit?
  #1062  
Old 6th February 2017, 10:30 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
dude, if objective moral values exist it does not matter what I, or you or Jay Z or the entire Boston Celtics team think. this is the whole fucking point. objectivity is not an opinion. not to mention that by definition, if I think something is immoral then I would immediately view its absence as bad. circular reasoning.
You are correct to say one's thoughts/feelings/beliefs about moral values has no bearing on whether they are objective or not.

The point is if one is satisfied holding to a view that moral values are subjective when that is in conflict with one's moral view of the world.

Now, I haven't demonstrated, yet, the extent of how difficult it can be to reconcile a view that moral values are subjective with real moral interactions.
  #1063  
Old 6th February 2017, 10:37 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
For clarity's sake here, this represents a poverty of imagination on your part. There are many ways to provide a rational reason for being good even when it entails a cost, sometimes even a heavy cost to yourself.
Maybe I have imagined one step ahead of you

I think it depends on how you define a net cost. A parent sacrificing for their children would consider the pay off seeing their children live/succeed/etc and a potential cost could be guilt if they didn't.

It also depends on how you apply rationality. If the rationality is working influenced by evolved/social conditioning...or, as I meant apart from those guiding factors.

I would be happy to discuss a specific example if you can raise one.
  #1064  
Old 6th February 2017, 10:57 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Stubby said View Post
I originally asked the questions in this post.





Your own logic, as explained to you in the linked post above.




I already did, in the linked post above. 7 months ago.



You see, this is morally reprehensible. That you actually think dressing up a vile story of genocide and wanton destruction to make it palatable for kiddies is an indication that you have no moral high ground whatsoever. What you are doing, when you kiddify the flood myth, is exactly the same as saying that physical child abuse is good because daddy loves his family.



Well of course not. Because that detracts from the message that god loves everyone. Because it was physically impossible for the overwhelming majority of innocent humans and animals (and none of the plants, fish etc) to fit on Noah's absurd ship. It's like a Church hierarchy "not mentioning" that a priest sexually assaulted children because he fed 100 homeless people every week.



Drawing in the kiddies with pretty pictures of cartoon animals and forgetting that all of the other animals on the planet were killed. How is that not manipulating them?

The whole obey me or I'll kill you shtick is so fucking offensive to decency that it is amazing that modern believers cannot see they are the victims of a protection racket.
While I disagree with just about everything you have written, I think we could agree that our views are so divergent on the topics you have raised there would be little value to counter the issues you have raised. I have covered my views on how I can rationalise some of the apparent moral deficiencies in the bible. You have chosen not to agree with my defence on the topic, that's fine...but you are still continuing to use the same form of argument and for what purpose? The bible says something that you perceive as evil. Now there are a few options on how this can be reconciled.

1. You lack information to make a complete moral assessment of the situation.
2. Your view of what is moral is wrong.
3. Your interpretation of the bible is wrong.
4. The bible does not have an accurate account.
5. God is evil.
6. God does not exist.

I think 1 and 2 are difficult to refute. The fact is you are not omniscient. We know that moral choices are dependent on the information at hand. You are also not omnibenevolent. Your understanding of what is moral is flawed and yet you are making moral judgements you assume to be correct. The weird thing is you are using your moral framework to judge God, your moral framework based on the presupposition that God does not exist and the bible is just a fairy tale.

It is a long road to form any argument to support atheism using this line of reasoning.

To be clear the moral argument has nothing to do with the bible, nor Christianity. It is an argument for theism, arguably mono-theism, with a God possessing a perfectly good nature.
  #1065  
Old 6th February 2017, 11:12 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Or rather, don't see it.




I expect we all know what naturalism means.




This has nothing to do with naturalism.
Yes it does. Because it would take something beyond our chemistry to be able to act. A soul would be a good description of what that could be. I don't think there is any naturalistic explanation as to what could move us beyond what our chemistry is telling us to do. Our chemistry, as I understand it, is fully deterministic.

Quote:




No, he doesn't. Free Will is a religious concept to make up a cosmic story about human intentionality and agency. Non-religious people don't need magical stories to account for these words.




Free Will is a religious concept, so it's a rather useless question to ask a non-believer who naturally doesn't believe in it as it presupposes the existence of a human-creating god.

Instead, as many years and thousands of researchers have discovered, the brain and the mind don't always work coherently together. The brain can know stuff and make decisions before the mind is aware of it, but the mind can override the brain. There are lots of technical rejections of the concept of Free Will, but the simplest is that it's a gross simplification of what's actually occurring neurologically.
[This is not a proof] It seems as though our society operates on the presupposition that free will exists. In a court of law a person can plead insanity, meaning they did not have control of their actions. Society needs to be protected from such people, but they are not punished as such. If there is no free will, no-one has control over their actions, they are just obeying their chemistry. There was no alternative action, given the same circumstances and brain state they would always choose what they chose. Choice is then is illusory.
  #1066  
Old 6th February 2017, 11:28 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
hackenslash said View Post
Yes, and the fact that you keep erecting the subjective/objective dichotomy is evidence that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Morality is neither.
3. Or you are wrong.

inter-subjectivity is merely a sub-set of subjectivity. Dichotomy still exists.

Where I disagree with Matt Dilahunty (in that video) is that he starts off with the definition of a moral framework and asks the caller if he agrees with it. That can be a pragmatic approach to reason what is moral or not, but cannot get you to how one ought to behave if that person does not accept the moral framework...you would have to show to that person why they ought to accept your chosen moral framework, and to do that you would have show why the ought to share your values...and so on.

Your post was in response to the questions I raised at the end of this post:
http://atheistfoundation.org.au/foru...892#post563892

As you can see, my main issue is justifying the ought's in morality...something I don't believe (have I missed it?) has been done.
  #1067  
Old 6th February 2017, 11:59 PM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,567
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
inter-subjectivity is merely a sub-set of subjectivity.
No it isn't,p because it's a qualitatively different thing. It's neither mind-dependent nor mind-independent.

Quote:
Where I disagree with Matt Dilahunty...
Well done. You missed the entire point.

Quote:
As you can see, my main issue is justifying the ought's in morality...something I don't believe (have I missed it?) has been done.
I reject the notion of an ought independent of a moral agent. Morality isn't what you think it is. You're talking about rules, which are the antithesis of morality.
__________________

  #1068  
Old 7th February 2017, 12:06 AM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,567
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

I should add that, if there were such a thing as objective morality, your imaginary friend would be the most deeply immoral cunt ever devised. Bible? Fuck that, and the equine quadruped that propelled it hence.
__________________

Like Stubby liked this post
Thank Stubby thanked this post
Laugh at DanDare laughed at this post
  #1069  
Old 7th February 2017, 12:08 AM
Stubby's Avatar
Stubby Stubby is offline
Omu'sata
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 2,205
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
While I disagree with just about everything you have written, I think we could agree that our views are so divergent on the topics you have raised there would be little value to counter the issues you have raised. I have covered my views on how I can rationalise some of the apparent moral deficiencies in the bible. You have chosen not to agree with my defence on the topic, that's fine...but you are still continuing to use the same form of argument and for what purpose? The bible says something that you perceive as evil. Now there are a few options on how this can be reconciled.

1. You lack information to make a complete moral assessment of the situation.
2. Your view of what is moral is wrong.
3. Your interpretation of the bible is wrong.
4. The bible does not have an accurate account.
5. God is evil.
6. God does not exist.

I think 1 and 2 are difficult to refute. The fact is you are not omniscient. We know that moral choices are dependent on the information at hand. You are also not omnibenevolent. Your understanding of what is moral is flawed and yet you are making moral judgements you assume to be correct. The weird thing is you are using your moral framework to judge God, your moral framework based on the presupposition that God does not exist and the bible is just a fairy tale.

It is a long road to form any argument to support atheism using this line of reasoning.

To be clear the moral argument has nothing to do with the bible, nor Christianity. It is an argument for theism, arguably mono-theism, with a God possessing a perfectly good nature.
Yeah I understand you disagree - but that doesn't make you correct. You are yet to prove anything.

Firstly, where is your evidence that anyone has "inherent knowledge of good and evil"?

You didn't provide any.

Secondly, none of your six points answer this problem, from my post:

"Make no mistake here, no-one outside the ark survived did they? That means, according to your comment (second bold above) that no-one anywhere on Earth (except Noah and his family) had acted in accordance with god's law. Even infants."

Think about that. How can you possibly defend the execution of infants as moral?

Then there's this massive piece of evidence that you are utterly wrong when you claim that morality is objective:

Quote:
I think 1 and 2 are difficult to refute. The fact is you are not omniscient. We know that moral choices are dependent on the information at hand.
This proves that morals evolve with time and information. Get it now? What we consider moral today was not necessarily the case back when the bible was first dreamed up after a bad batch of dates. This has been my point all along. You do realise that your first sentence in the above quote is a direct contradiction of the third don't you?

Quote:
The weird thing is you are using your moral framework to judge God, your moral framework based on the presupposition that God does not exist and the bible is just a fairy tale.
I'm not even trying to justify atheism here. You were the one who raised the argument from morality and claimed morality was objective. Luckily your own stories (and for the record I don't believe they are anything other than stories) prove what an evil fucker your god is.

Quote:
It is an argument for theism, arguably mono-theism, with a God possessing a perfectly good nature.
Please give me an example of a god with a "perfectly good" nature.

Now, on to the points you are continuing to ignore:

1. You said "How can one arbitrary moral value be better than another?" and I said that was a fairly good critique of your own position. Care to address that?

2. I said, "I notice you ignored the callous destruction of virtually all animal and plant life in a manner which would have caused a staggering amount of suffering and terror. Doing that to animals and plants is pretty much the antithesis of moral conduct." You have yet to provide any answer to this criticism - let alone a satisfactory answer.

3. I said "And the worst part of the flood myth? Your god never had to kill anyone or any animals or trees etc. If he really loved his creations, he would have forgiven them. Isn't that what you lot are supposed to do?" You have not addressed that.

F.
__________________
"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah
  #1070  
Old 7th February 2017, 12:13 AM
Stubby's Avatar
Stubby Stubby is offline
Omu'sata
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 2,205
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Now, I haven't demonstrated, yet, the extent of how difficult it can be to reconcile a view that moral values are subjective with real moral interactions.
In your own time then, bearing mind that you have the onus of proof on this.
__________________
"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.