Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Student stabs himself in the hand with a pen to prove the existence of God. It didn't work   (collegiatetimes.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, stabbing, emergency calls, student groups, stabs, Student stabs, Nicole Schrand, existence, resisting arrest  
•       •       •

15511 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2011 at 3:04 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



439 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-04-14 03:34:18 PM  

abb3w: Popular Opinion: i suppose my posts are confusing you because i don't differentiate between faith in god and the actual existence of some sort of almighty being.

Rather, I suspect that your failure to make the distinction is confusing your reasoning, much like a software programmer can get in trouble if they don't keep the pointers and variables distinct.


let's take the opposite tact. if there is no god, what is it that these people believe in?

god is at least as real as compassion, love, lust or greed.

Popular Opinion: whether there is some actual being is irrelevant in the context of cause and effect.

On the contrary; there is at least one substantive difference.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - Philip K. Dick


people who receive charity from faith based groups don't have to believe in god, and yet they can still get nourishment from the food and feel warmth from the shelter. they can benefit without believing.
 
2011-04-14 03:52:11 PM  

Popular Opinion: abb3w: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - Philip K. Dick

Popular Opinion: people who receive charity from faith based groups don't have to believe in god, and yet they can still get nourishment from the food and feel warmth from the shelter. they can benefit without believing.


ablejack: For most of history people not only did not believe but were not even aware of the God of Abraham, He did not "go away."
Atheists can benefit directly from their own faith (without believing in God) as well as the kindness of others who may believe in God.
 
2011-04-14 04:44:23 PM  

lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify. That is insanity, plain and simple. All the pontificated arguments in this thread boil down to that one undeniable FACT. Theists are no different than some psycho fanboy who talks about Lord of the Rings as if that shiat had actually happened. Atheists choose to rely on what can be proven. Hey, I personally like the IDEA of god, it's pretty darn cool... some all-knowing father-figure who is always looking out for you, that's a freaking awesome idea. But to profess that a good idea is actually real just because it makes me feel good to think about it? That's just farking crazy, and that's pretty much what we Atheists are saying. It's awesome that you theists think that this "god" cat is so cool and loving, but at the end of the day, it's just a cool idea as far as you or anyone else KNOWS.


aw, thanks for calling us crazy and talking to us like we can't even tie our shoes! I'm sure that helps people see your point of veiw tons! no, really! ass
 
2011-04-14 04:50:26 PM  
I clicked it and then it went to the CT! Hahaha. The CT is a shiatty newspaper, but this is awesome! Hahaha.

Recent VT grad.
 
2011-04-14 05:12:01 PM  
God microwaved a burrito so hot that I could not eat it.
We are all part of god.
Paradox.
 
2011-04-14 05:12:24 PM  

doglover: A fair point. You put aside your childish beliefs in a magic sky jew and your adult beliefs in electromagnetic waves and atomic structure and practice a religion with an open mind for a change, expecting nothing. Then you may truly judge its worth. Chances are you will be surprised but likely not converted. (Unless it's Buddhism. Very tricksy, Buddhism is. But it's so full of amicable things almost anyone will find SOMETHING appealing. Especially if they don't believe in gods.)

The whole point of religion is this effort on YOUR PART. It's something you do, not something you read. Going to Church on Sundays and saying grace isn't nearly the same thing as actually being a Christian. Nor is squatting down five times a day and growing a beard gonna make you an actual Muslim. You have to change your mind from closed to open and then try honestly without expectations in order to observe something properly.


Why is it that when someone asks or tells you to open your mind, what they really mean is to ignore any contradicting evidence and blindly accept our truth/effectiveness/belief. It doesn't matter if it is religion, psychic readings, or homeopathic medicine. All require you to approach the subject with an "open" mind, or else you will not fully appreciate/believe in the subject.
 
2011-04-14 05:21:20 PM  

Oznog: THERE IS NO DREW!


DREW IS GOD!
 
2011-04-14 05:52:06 PM  

EngineerAtWork: Why is it that when someone asks or tells you to open your mind


Well... in a sense they're accurately asking for something. They want you to "open" your mind so they can "fill it with bullshiat". Notice they're not asking you to think...

I find it ridiculous too... but really I don't think they're even really putting as much thought into it as I just did. They're just regurgitating what they were told/taught.
 
2011-04-14 05:52:59 PM  

Gunther: Tsu-na-mi: Moral relativism doesn't exist, though. If you honestly believe that morality is relative, then you have to agree that my belief that morality is objective is just as true as your belief that morality is relative. If you don't, it proves you think that moral relativism is objectively more true than moral objectivism, and are thus a moral objectivist yourself. Hence; there is no such thing as moral relativism, and morality is objective.

Hoooold on chief, I have to call you on that one. Morality is clearly relative.

If so, you'll be able to point out a flaw in that argument.

You won't though; relativist philosophers have tried for thousands of years, ever since Socrates first used it to argue against Protagoras (who was possibly the world's first relativist) sometime around 420BC. Nobody has yet come up with a convincing counter-argument.


You mean that argument was meant to be serious? The "flaw" in it is that it's complete nonsense. You've completely confused the concepts of moral relativism and total epistemological relativism.
 
2011-04-14 05:55:39 PM  
I am amazed that so many people who can write with lucidity and at length, and who evidently have thought about this for years, have never bothered to go and read anything.

How can you sit and say 'Well how can man be good without God huh? you didn't think of that did you?', with hundreds of years of philosophy on ethics behind you? Have you never heard of Utilitarianism? Epicurianism? Mill?

This is hardly a new subject, for all that a lot of religious and relativist rubbish has characterised the public debate in recent years..
 
2011-04-14 05:58:53 PM  

Popular Opinion: let's take the opposite tact. if there is no god, what is it that these people believe in?


A causative agent which, while giving at least a pseudo-description of their experience, is not the description most probably correct.

It's essentially an example of pareidolia.

www.heavingdeadcats.com



Popular Opinion: people who receive charity from faith based groups don't have to believe in god, and yet they can still get nourishment from the food and feel warmth from the shelter. they can benefit without believing.


But it's not the recipient's belief that was the cause ascribed to the effect. Instead, the recipient is now receiving from a person who has fallen to an incorrect but socially advantageous delusion.

Of course, the charity may not go away with the belief; humans can also be charitable without a belief in God. On the other hand, it may.

Fish_Fight!: aw, thanks for calling us crazy and talking to us like we can't even tie our shoes! I'm sure that helps people see your point of veiw tons!


It depends on the metacognitive capacity of the individual; some people will stop and reconsider their beliefs if you suggest their conclusions are as unsupported by premise as those of a Zegnatronic Rocketeer. Others, however, won't. It tends to be rather ineffective on persuading the more highly religious (possibly due to other cognitive traits that contributed to the religiosity, rather than the religiosity itself); contrariwise, not much is significantly effective on persuading the highly religious, and I'm not convinced it increases the persuasion resistance all that much.
 
2011-04-14 07:00:31 PM  

Ablejack: A misguided boy deliberately stabs his hand with a pen.
His peers of differing beliefs and backgrounds immediately give him aid and contact strangers better able to help him recover from his self mutilation. They rush to his side to heal and comfort him. :: There is a God. (But seriously the boy did demonstrate his conviction of Faith rather well. He just needs to work on his understanding of Faith.)


i.imgur.com
 
2011-04-14 07:07:01 PM  

Skyrmion: You mean that argument was meant to be serious? The "flaw" in it is that it's complete nonsense. You've completely confused the concepts of moral relativism and total epistemological relativism.


Socrates' original argument was against epistemological relativism, but it's fairly easy to modify to show the inherent oxymoronic nature of any relativist position. To whit; moral relativism can be defined as "there are no objective moral statements", which is in an of itself an objective statement about morality.

Anyway, I'm curious as to what difference you moral relativists think of the old "Ted Bundy" reductio ad absurdum:

Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself""that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring "" the strength of character "" to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me""after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

Fairly certain that isn't a real quote, but it eloquently demonstrates a problem moral relativists face - strip away the sophistry, and what is the difference between moral relativism and moral nihilism? The latter doesn't have to worry about Socrates' argument, I suppose - denying the existence of morality makes the position a lot harder to argue against.
 
2011-04-14 08:03:59 PM  

Gunther: Skyrmion: You mean that argument was meant to be serious? The "flaw" in it is that it's complete nonsense. You've completely confused the concepts of moral relativism and total epistemological relativism.

Socrates' original argument was against epistemological relativism, but it's fairly easy to modify to show the inherent oxymoronic nature of any relativist position. To whit; moral relativism can be defined as "there are no objective moral statements", which is in an of itself an objective statement about morality.


Wow, you literally don't believe in the very concept of subjectivity. This may in fact be the most absurd position on anything I've ever heard.

(Hint: you're still confusing the two. An "objective moral statement" and an "objective statement concerning the topic of morality" are not the same thing.)
 
2011-04-14 08:15:59 PM  
At least he didn't get a toothache.

/shouldn't be obscure
 
2011-04-14 08:49:19 PM  

Fish_Fight!: lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify. That is insanity, plain and simple. All the pontificated arguments in this thread boil down to that one undeniable FACT. Theists are no different than some psycho fanboy who talks about Lord of the Rings as if that shiat had actually happened. Atheists choose to rely on what can be proven. Hey, I personally like the IDEA of god, it's pretty darn cool... some all-knowing father-figure who is always looking out for you, that's a freaking awesome idea. But to profess that a good idea is actually real just because it makes me feel good to think about it? That's just farking crazy, and that's pretty much what we Atheists are saying. It's awesome that you theists think that this "god" cat is so cool and loving, but at the end of the day, it's just a cool idea as far as you or anyone else KNOWS.

aw, thanks for calling us crazy and talking to us like we can't even tie our shoes! I'm sure that helps people see your point of veiw tons! no, really! ass

------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, you're the ones who choose to rabidly adhere to irrationality. If you think and act like a child, expect to be spoken to like one.
 
2011-04-14 08:50:41 PM  

Penman: lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify.

As do atheists.

---------------------------------------------------

You just stopped reading at that first sentence, didn't you? See, I know you did, because if you'd actually read the rest of the post, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.
 
2011-04-14 09:03:46 PM  

lisarenee3505: Penman: lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify.

As do atheists.
---------------------------------------------------

You just stopped reading at that first sentence, didn't you? See, I know you did, because if you'd actually read the rest of the post, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.


That one amazed me too. If the term 'atheist' means anything, it means not believing in things that can't be verified.

It makes literally no sense at all to say that atheists are the same as theists in this regard. Theists seem to think any argument, no matter how vacuous or nonsensical, is justified as long as it supports their pre-existing notions. It's just awful.
 
2011-04-14 09:06:12 PM  

lisarenee3505:
Hey, you're the ones who choose to rabidly adhere to irrationality. If you think and act like a child, expect to be spoken to like one.

-said the kettle.
 
2011-04-14 09:11:39 PM  

Ablejack: -said the kettle.


Again, it's not an argument to just take a criticism of theism and claim, without any justification, that it applies equally to atheism too. It's childish and completely devoid of reason.

"I know you are but what am I LOLZ!"

It's like if someone says: "Boxing is too violent", and a boxing fan defends it by saying: "NOTboxing is just as violent!"
 
2011-04-14 09:20:13 PM  

Skyrmion: Wow, you literally don't believe in the very concept of subjectivity. This may in fact be the most absurd position on anything I've ever heard.


Yep, that's totally what I said and you aren't repeatedly failing to understand a fairly simple point at all.

Skyrmion: (Hint: you're still confusing the two. An "objective moral statement" and an "objective statement concerning the topic of morality" are not the same thing.)


I noted that moral nihilism doesn't fall into the trap, and that's how - it isn't making any sort of objective moral statement, it's making a statement about morality. But moral relativism agrees with moral objectivism that morality exists, just disagreeing on the issue over whether it is objective. Do you see the difference? Moral relativism is arguing that, amongst other things, the belief that cannibalism is moral and the belief that cannibalism is immoral are equal, but that's a positive claim. It's no more or less an objective moral statement than stating that the belief that cannibalism is moral and the belief that cannibalism is immoral are not equal.

I honestly don't know how much more I can simplify this. I can point you in the directions of a few philosophy books if you still aren't getting it.
 
2011-04-14 09:46:15 PM  
It's easy to make an objective moral statement, you just have to assume that morality relates in some way to the well being of conscious creatures. This is the argument Sam Harris makes, and it's a pretty easy assumption I think.

Objective moral statement: "The worst possible universe, that is, a universe in which every conscious creature suffers as much as possible for as long as possible...is bad."

If you don't think the worst possible universe is bad, I don't know what you mean by bad. Now, once you've accepted that the worst possible universe is bad, you've accepted that every other possible universe is, by definition, objectively better. You've accepted that there right and wrong ways to move in our universe that result in a measurably better or worse reality.

I could go on, but we've already done established the point. However complicated morality may be, in principle it is no different from any other field of understanding.
 
2011-04-14 09:53:25 PM  

Fuller: but we've already done established the point.


Went to correct that...but I kind of like how it reads I think
 
2011-04-14 10:08:12 PM  

Popular Opinion: Gothnet: Popular Opinion: i find it funny that people who were raised in a judeo-christian society, under governments founded upon the tenants of those faiths and the rules set out by those faiths can so easily dismiss religion and claim it has no basis on human nature and society's morals and ethics.
"We would act the same if there was never any religion."
And just how would you know that?


I find it funny when people put up straw men and knock them down because it makes them feel like they've finally won something.

i'm sure you were trying to make a point, but i missed it. sorry bout that.



The point was that you set up a position in an argument that nobody in this thread was taking ("religion throughout has had absolutely no effect on morality, ever!"), then ridiculed it. This is a straw-man argument. Nobody was saying that, but well done for winning your made-up quarrel.
 
2011-04-14 11:24:05 PM  

abb3w: Do bear in mind, while I've a mild appreciation, I'm not a follower. If anything, I'm more inclined to Discordianism - older school still.


Then all hail Eris!

I do find it funny that this stuff gets invented over and over again.
 
2011-04-14 11:37:21 PM  

Gunther: Fairly certain that isn't a real quote, but it eloquently demonstrates a problem moral relativists face - strip away the sophistry, and what is the difference between moral relativism and moral nihilism?


Well, to give an analogy to Einsteinian relativity, it's legitimate to ask under moral relativism how exactly the moral framework changes with a change in co-ordinates. (Coming up with an analogy for acceleration and a general relativity seems an interesting notional challenge.)

Moral nihilism doesn't recognize any of the frameworks, and simply says "who gives a f*ck?"

Fuller: If the term 'atheist' means anything, it means not believing in things that can't be verified.


Even atheists have to start their reasoning from axiomatic level premises; and axioms can't be verified.

That said, it's a long way from picking axioms to the any argument, no matter how vacuous or nonsensical, is justified that seems common to too many theists.

Gunther: Do you see the difference? Moral relativism is arguing that, amongst other things, the belief that cannibalism is moral and the belief that cannibalism is immoral are equal, but that's a positive claim.


An alternate way of thinking about it, for anyone who's bothered looking at the stuff on Posets that I periodically point to: moral relativism says all frameworks are equivalent, while moral nihilism says all frameworks are incomparable.

Fuller: It's easy to make an objective moral statement, you just have to assume that morality relates in some way to the well being of conscious creatures.


Except that "well being" implicitly slips in an ordering relationship without an ought-justification. (Why it should be limited to "conscious beings" also isn't justified, but that's a secondary problem.) Now, one can give a definition of what biologists mean by "well being" to reduce the problem, but that doesn't give a premise as to why we OUGHT to seek such well being.

The pragmatic answer of telling the philosopher "I don't know; let's experiment on you with the alternative for a bit" tends to be frowned on.

Fuller: I could go on, but we've already done established the point. However complicated morality may be, in principle it is no different from any other field of understanding.


Not that different, anyway. Similar to going from Euclid's first four axioms to geometry with the fifth (or a non-euclidean variant), you do need an axiom to define which ordering relationship you're talking about; however, after that, getting further inferences is more tedious than difficult.
 
2011-04-15 01:06:33 AM  

Gothnet: Popular Opinion: Gothnet: Popular Opinion: i find it funny that people who were raised in a judeo-christian society, under governments founded upon the tenants of those faiths and the rules set out by those faiths can so easily dismiss religion and claim it has no basis on human nature and society's morals and ethics.
"We would act the same if there was never any religion."
And just how would you know that?


I find it funny when people put up straw men and knock them down because it makes them feel like they've finally won something.

i'm sure you were trying to make a point, but i missed it. sorry bout that.


The point was that you set up a position in an argument that nobody in this thread was taking ("religion throughout has had absolutely no effect on morality, ever!"), then ridiculed it. This is a straw-man argument. Nobody was saying that, but well done for winning your made-up quarrel.


ah, thanks for replying.

bullshiat! perhaps you should read the posts.
 
2011-04-15 01:18:42 AM  

abb3w: Even atheists have to start their reasoning from axiomatic level premises; and axioms can't be verified.


Yes but that's a long way from...

abb3w: That said, it's a long way from picking axioms to the any argument, no matter how vacuous or nonsensical, is justified that seems common to too many theists.


*nod*

abb3w: Except that "well being" implicitly slips in an ordering relationship without an ought-justification. (Why it should be limited to "conscious beings" also isn't justified, but that's a secondary problem.) Now, one can give a definition of what biologists mean by "well being" to reduce the problem, but that doesn't give a premise as to why we OUGHT to seek such well being.


Yes it does, so long as you assume that the worst possible universe, as outlined before, is bad. Once you've accepted that assumption, the rest follows, because an 'ought' to avoid the worst possible universe is a logical consequence of accepting that the worst possible universe is bad. It's a tautology in a sense, I don't deny it - but only in the same way that any field of scientific inquiry can be ultimately reduced to, if one so wishes.
 
2011-04-15 01:19:55 AM  
Popular Opinion: "bullshiat! perhaps you should read the posts."

Perhaps you should provide your own example of someone making that claim. That's your job, not his.
 
2011-04-15 01:22:45 AM  

Zamboro: Popular Opinion: "bullshiat! perhaps you should read the posts."

Perhaps you should provide your own example of someone making that claim. That's your job, not his.


get tossed. not my job to provide examples for retards.
 
2011-04-15 01:33:19 AM  

Popular Opinion: Zamboro: Popular Opinion: "bullshiat! perhaps you should read the posts."

Perhaps you should provide your own example of someone making that claim. That's your job, not his.

get tossed. not my job to provide examples for retards.


i am going to assume that was unacceptable.
it took a minute to find one...

Gawdzila:
The fact is that morality doesn't come from religion but from society and from our own emotional responses.
 
2011-04-15 01:34:26 AM  

abb3w: (Why it should be limited to "conscious beings" also isn't justified, but that's a secondary problem.)


Wait, I glossed over this bit. That's easy. Imagine a universe with no conscious life whatsover. No life at all, for that matter. What meaning does morality have in this universe?

Morality only has an apparent meaning in the context of conscious experience, it seems like a completely empty concept without it. Now, compare the conscious experience of a spider with a monkey. There seems to be a fairly common understanding that a monkeys conscious experience is far greater than that of a spiders.

Of course, we could be wrong about this, I guess. Maybe the makings of a conscious experience are not manifested in a central nervous system at all, maybe they come from something else, something ethereal, something supernatural. If that's the case, it could be that spiders are capable of feeling a far greater range of joy and pain than monkeys are. But as far as we can tell, that isn't true.

So we do what we can given the information we have. We call it far more acceptable to kill or torture a spider than we do a monkey, simply because we recognise that a monkey is capable of a far greater range of conscious experience, and we instinctively wish to maximise the well being of that conscious creature. We form our morals based on our understand of well being.

Why 'ought' we to do this? Well, even at an axiomatic level, its clearly the best option available. Even religious morals relate to well being - they simply posit a measure of well being that extends beyond natural life, and into a hypothetical next life. That's why heaven is supposed to be so great, and hell so shiat. Those experiences can be reduced to a measure of well being as well. It doesn't appear to go any deeper than that.
 
2011-04-15 01:39:27 AM  
Popular Opinion: "get tossed. not my job to provide examples for retards."

Woah there. Aren't you the religious "person" here?

Popular Opinion: "it took a minute to find one..."

And it's absolutely correct, humans had morality prior to religion and those of us without religion today have morality. Were it not for religion, things would surely be different, but we'd have the same core set of rules for purely pragmatic reasons.
 
2011-04-15 01:39:35 AM  

Zamboro: Popular Opinion: "bullshiat! perhaps you should read the posts."

Perhaps you should provide your own example of someone making that claim. That's your job, not his.


by the way, if you haven't noticed, i am not even religious and i still came the the conclusion that you are a retarded farking idiot.
 
2011-04-15 01:40:52 AM  
Popular Opinion: "by the way, if you haven't noticed, i am not even religious and i still came the the conclusion that you are a retarded farking idiot."

I'm sorry you're incapable of participating in an adult conversation. The rest of us would like to enjoy ours, so please leave.
 
2011-04-15 01:41:52 AM  

Popular Opinion: i am going to assume that was unacceptable.
it took a minute to find one...

Gawdzila:
The fact is that morality doesn't come from religion but from society and from our own emotional responses.


...so your challenge is to provide examples of morality that don't come from religion?

Seriously?
 
2011-04-15 01:46:18 AM  

Zamboro: Popular Opinion: "by the way, if you haven't noticed, i am not even religious and i still came the the conclusion that you are a retarded farking idiot."

I'm sorry you're incapable of participating in an adult conversation. The rest of us would like to enjoy ours, so please leave.


adult? please. you are a farking tard.

and yes, i meant that in the most adolescent way possible.
if you have something of value to say, by all means, otherwise, stfu.
 
2011-04-15 01:47:16 AM  

Popular Opinion: by the way, if you haven't noticed, i am not even religious and i still came the the conclusion that you are a retarded farking idiot.


What's with the personal attacks? We're just talking here, chill.
 
2011-04-15 01:47:39 AM  

Fuller: Popular Opinion: i am going to assume that was unacceptable.
it took a minute to find one...

Gawdzila:
The fact is that morality doesn't come from religion but from society and from our own emotional responses.

...so your challenge is to provide examples of morality that don't come from religion?

Seriously?


he asked for an example similar to the one i provided.
please try to keep up.
 
2011-04-15 01:51:06 AM  

Fuller: Popular Opinion: by the way, if you haven't noticed, i am not even religious and i still came the the conclusion that you are a retarded farking idiot.

What's with the personal attacks? We're just talking here, chill.


sorry, you are right...
however, when somebody wants to engage in debate, and acts and posts as though they are retarded, it is difficult for me to ignore the ignorance. i have to assume that they don't really want to discuss the topic intelligently, but are trolling, and are therefore not deserving of any respect.
 
2011-04-15 01:51:39 AM  
Popular Opinion: "adult? please. you are a farking tard."

I said nothing to deserve your attacks. You're simply a rotten person. You don't belong on Fark, or anywhere else.
 
2011-04-15 01:52:23 AM  

Gunther: Skyrmion: Wow, you literally don't believe in the very concept of subjectivity. This may in fact be the most absurd position on anything I've ever heard.

Yep, that's totally what I said.


Sounded like it to me (glad you're not totally nuts, though). Since you protest, it means we're disagreeing on a matter of definition, probably "relativism". I would have held that it was essentially a denial of "objectivism", which is to say (in the moral case) it is the position that no system of morality can have claim to objective truth; that any moral system must rest on some unsupported axioms / subjective beliefs.

On the other hand, your definition of "moral relativism" sounds like something completely incoherent, which I suppose may have something to do with why you object to it. Fair enough.
 
2011-04-15 01:56:08 AM  

Zamboro: Popular Opinion: "adult? please. you are a farking tard."

I said nothing to deserve your attacks. You're simply a rotten person. You don't belong on Fark, or anywhere else.


you baited me.

now i feel bad. :o(
 
2011-04-15 01:57:44 AM  

Ablejack: nubzers:
Some farker: Where does an atheist's moral come from?

nubzers: The reason you can't grasp the concept of a moral atheist is because you are starting with a false premise. The false premise of a deity being the source of morality or right and wrong. In your own definition of morality, there is no mention of any divine mandate or inspiration. Simply an agreed upon standard. And if you actually study cultures, you will find that despite having very different religious and philosophical views, nearly all cultures come to the same basic morals: Don't kill each other, don't steal, share, etc. Why does morality have to come from a god? It seems the evidence points away from any divine inspiration for morality so there must be a natural explanation. Is it written in our genetics? Is it simply a social meme that is successful because its the only way societies can exist? Thats where science comes in. Gather the evidence, make observations, and experiment and see what happens. You will find that most atheists are humanists and do far more to help others than 99% of christians. Try talking to a few and find out.

You could easily argue (as Catholics do) that an atheist's morals come stem their faith in God as well. Pope Paul VI epistles on faith separate it [faith] from belief systems. Faith is described as a grace from God. As Jesus stated you do not have the authority to judge the faith of another. Nor can you be sure of your own. At best, we can pray for the gift of Faith but even that is no guarantee and is not necessary to have faith.
Geneticists and sociologists having an explanation for morality would not displace it from being God's work. For instance the Catholic position on evolution is that it is an "effectively proven fact"- (John Paul). Yet Catholics do not suppose this means God did not "create" man. Evolution (for Catholics) gives us a worldly explanation of how God created the corporality of man.
You have provided no reason that attributing morality to a deity is a false premise, any more than I have reason to claim that attributing morality to mundane causes is a false premise.


Western morals are hardly unique to nor originate from christianity.
 
2011-04-15 01:58:02 AM  

Zamboro: Popular Opinion: "adult? please. you are a farking tard."

I said nothing to deserve your attacks. You're simply a rotten person. You don't belong on Fark, or anywhere else.


i did provide the example you implied didn't exist, and you weren't even man (or woman) enough to acknowledge it.
 
2011-04-15 01:58:24 AM  

Fuller: Objective moral statement: "The worst possible universe, that is, a universe in which every conscious creature suffers as much as possible for as long as possible...is bad."


Is it just the percentage that counts? Or do total numbers factor in? What's worse, a universe with nothing but one human in it, all living in agony, or one with just 100 persons in such a state?
 
2011-04-15 02:06:35 AM  

Mock26:
Western morals are hardly unique to nor originate from christianity.


i agree they aren't unique.
where did western morals originate from?
 
2011-04-15 02:11:03 AM  

Popular Opinion: however, when somebody wants to engage in debate, and acts and posts as though they are retarded,


That isn't happening. I don't know what else to tell you.

Skyrmion: Is it just the percentage that counts? Or do total numbers factor in? What's worse, a universe with nothing but one human in it, all living in agony, or one with just 100 persons in such a state?


Absolutely worthwhile questions, and this is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to be had, once we've accepted the premise that morals should be based on well being.

The point that I'm trying to get across is that questions such as the ones you have asked do not at all negate the premise. It's much like medicine, where there isn't necessarily only one right answer to any given problem. There isn't only one precisely correct diet or dosage of medicine or way to organise a medical system. Nonetheless, there is agreement that medicine overall is a good thing, and no one says that the fact that medicine isn't precise means the whole thing should be tossed.

In regards to your specific questions, farked if I know. I suggest we should focus our moral 'science' on pragmatic issues - in the context of a world with 7 billion people, many of whom suffer, and how that suffering can be alleviated. I would further suggest that those moral choices should not be based on religion or other forms of supernaturalism, which are frameworks that have simply failed to do the job that clearly needs to be done.
 
2011-04-15 02:15:58 AM  

Popular Opinion: where did western morals originate from?


My offering as someone with very limited historical knowledge would be: Greek philosophy, which led to the Enlightenment, out of which our ideas of democracy and secularism and science and naturalism evolved.
 
2011-04-15 02:20:38 AM  

Fuller: Popular Opinion: however, when somebody wants to engage in debate, and acts and posts as though they are retarded,

That isn't happening. I don't know what else to tell you.

i made a simple statement, based on previous posts that i read.
he refuted it, and placed the onus on me to provide examples, even though they existed for everyone to see and read. i don't know how else to take it, particularly since i wasn't even addressing him.
he was being argumentative without basis, thus my attacks on his credibility or sincerity (or ability to accept the obvious).
 
Displayed 50 of 439 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report