@Cognostic and @Old_man_shouts_at_cl, I’m still wondering by what standard you (specifically you–not all atheists, not Christians, not the Bible) label something evil/harmful. It seems you are turning the question around on me without an answer…
Because one of you said this:
And the other said this:
How can you definitively say that something is evil/harmful? What standard are you applying to evaluate actions as belonging to the category of evil/harmful?
I completely agree that hurting someone can be justified for the greater good. We agree on that. In your example, I agree that punching the rapist to save the girl is morally right. I would agree that harming the rapist by depriving him of freedom (putting him in jail) is morally right and upholds justice. I have a framework for definitively naming things as right, just, and fair. My framework consists of absolute morals that we all know are true.
Would you make the case that morals are the product of the evolved human brain and that they are subjective? In your view, are they a social construct? Do they change?
@Sheldon I agree that not all atheists are materialists. Just as I might say not all Christians believe in Calvinism. But I do think that there are people in this discussion thread arguing their points from a materialist or physicalist perspective. Maybe I’m misusing the terms. But I am reading a lot of responses to my claims that assume all that exists is the physical/material objects. Matter. In other words, morals are a product of the brain. Where a non-materialist or non-physicalist perspective could hold that morality is something universal, consistent, and not material.
My attempt here is to engage those Atheist Republic members who do happen to hold to a materialist perspective. I consider that perspective self-contradicting due to the existence of moral absolutes and universal laws of logic. I do not mean to lump every atheist into a single category but simply thought that amongst the Atheist Republic, I would find some people to defend the materialist perspective.
But “we” ( I take it you mean humans) do not, otherwise there would not be prisons/executions/exile.
Again I challenge you to present even ONE absolute moral imperative that “we” all know to be true.
[Try and answer direct questions, there’s a good chap]
By my own considered values, and the society I live in, and CHOOSE to live in, standards.
E.g in my chosen country we have a right to medical care at no cost.
I consider a country and society that does not cater for all its citizens, regardless of income, in affordable/free healthcare very harmful.
I consider the “right to bear fully or semiautomatic weapons” at will, extremely harmful to society and individuals. (Never mind large crowds and schools)
I consider the right to bodily autonomy a good thing, and those who seek to undermine those rights, even for those who do not subscribe to a particular belief system, harmful.
Does that give you a clue?
Materialism is nothing to do with atheism, since the former is a belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Whereas atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
This is another false equivalence, since Calvinism is a type of christianity, and materialism is not a type of atheism, it is an unrelated belief.
Not one poster in this thread has claimed to be a materialist, and more then one has explained to you that not believing anything exists beyond the material is not materialism, it differs from a belief that nothing exists beyond the material, since the latter is a claim, and the former disbelieving a claim.
Definitely you have misused it, by implying it is synonymous with atheism. What an atheist claims or believes does not change the definition of atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
I doubt that, anyone is making assumptions, as I am reading the same posts, more likely they simply accept the material physical universe exists as an objective fact, and parenthetically see no objective evidence there is anything more, so withhold belief from such claims, but so what if anyone did? If you want to address those specific claims then fine, but they have nothing to do with atheism, and do not evidence any deity.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for a single example of a moral claim or assertion that is made in the absence of a functioning brain? You do know that research demonstrates morality in other species that have evolved to live in societal groups?
Again then, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that any objective morals exist? I keep asking this, and you have yet to respond, why is that, as repeating the claim without responding to the request you evidence it seems pretty disingenuous.
This is a public debate forum, anyone can post as and when they are minded to. You have posted a flawed irrational false equivalence fallacy, and are trying to use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Materliams is defines as : **the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
** So abstract ideas like logic, created using our brain’s imagaintion are not negated by materialism, you are simply wrong. Even were this not the case, amd materialists as you have implied were being inconsistent, it would not evidence any deity, why would you think it would?
You have not offered any objective evidence for moral absolutes, or that the method of logic exists or can exist independently of the human brains that created / imagined it. ONe last time then, even were this not the case, how would this perceived inconsistency in a materialist argument or belief evidence any deity, you simply keep asserting this, but have offered nothing to support the claim?
Do you think trying to ringfence the debate like that is honest? Leaving that aside, you have not answered my questions yet, I hope now you will read this post and not simply repeat your assertions, as even though I am not a materialist, I think your argument is irrational and your conclusions unevidenced.
No you don’t, you have a subjective basis. Please demonstrate some objective evidence of any moral absolute, I have asked several times now?
Have you even seen any human moral assertion made in the absence of a functioning human brain? I use my brain and my ability to reason to determine if I think something is moral, as do you, you are adding a claim you have yet to even try and evidence.
Yes, and yes.
It is a fact morals can and often do change and evolve, and there is plenty of research that demonstrates other species exhibit morals where they have evolved to live in societal groups. It would be impossible for societal cohesion without some shared ability to recognise which actions were considered acceptable and which not.
How can you not get that “Evil” is not a thing. It is a word to describe situations we find abhorrent. Atheists do not believe in your God thing. Dividing the world into ‘Good/Evil, Right/Wrong, Positive/Negative,’ is just fallacious thinking. Anything and everything is evil from the proper perspective. To you, according to your Bible, we are born in sin (Psalm 51:5 ) and are evil from our youth up (Genesis 8:21). Therefore, death reigns over all (Romans 5:12) “because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. EDIT: And somehow the Christians twist this crap around to be something good? Come to my house and spout this shit and I will show you the door. How warped does a brain have to be to call the God of the Bible ‘Good?’
Your Biblical definition is not the definition a non-believer would use. Perhaps when you use terms you should define them clearly to avoid equivocation fallacies. Sin - is not a thing. We do not believe in your god. Evil - is not a thing, it is a word used to describe some situations, and not a force or entity. Generally the term is attached to acts of extreme immorality. We could just as easily use the words, extremely immoral, wicked, really bad, wrong, terrible, corrupt, vile, terrible, unconscionable, or more.
Do morals change? Of course they do! It used to be considered immoral in many places, and still is in some, for a woman to walk about with her ankles showing. Are morals a social construct? Of course they are! The previous example speaks to that. Are morals the product of the human brain? Yes, and additionally, of other species’ brains…species who do not, btw, indicate any belief in your god. Are morals subjective? Of course they are! Otherwise morals would not be different across time and culture.
That’s fascinating. However, if you hold to a xtian belief system, then your morals are not absolute. For instance, what your god is morally justified in doing, you are not. Ergo…not absolute.
Please give us at least one example of what you think is an “absolute moral” as I don’t believe any such thing exists. Also it would be wise for you not to tell me or others what we know is true.
Why not ask if anyone holds a materialist perspective instead of assuming it? Next: Do you even realize that all material perspectives are not the same? Do you know which position you are talking about.
Next: You said you were trying to compare naturalism to faith - That’s just asinine. There is no comparison. When faith can produce the same results as naturalism, then you will have a leg to stand on. Until then you are just fapping your gums.
OF COURSE NOT - MORALITY NEVER CHANGES - The following verses prove it. (ALL PERFECTLY REASONABLE AND MORAL WAYS OF LIVING IN THE WORLD).
---- If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. (New King James Version)
(Psalm 137:9) O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! 9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! (Psalms 137:8–9
In 2nd Kings 2:23-24 Elisha the prophet struck down 42 young men for mocking his baldness by summoning two bears to attack them - what is the best way to understand this extreme text from the Bible PERFECTLY REASONABLE BECAUSE MORALS NEVER CHANGE.
Then there’s Lot and his 2 daughters - first the part where Lot suggests that a mob of people rape them instead of the 2 “angels” that are guests in their house (instead of praying to god to take them back to sky, or to murder the would-be-rapists like he did with the 42 kids in the Elijah story.
I have at least 50 more verses if you would like to see them. I am absolutely certain, based on the Bible, that morality does not change. Anyone who thinks it does should be not suffered like a witch or damned to hell like a man who slept with a man as he did with a woman. Thank god for his unchanging morality.
Brought to you by
GayChurch.org ministers to the LGBTQI Christian community with the largest gay Welcoming and Affirming Church Directory in the world."
EDIT > Do you think it is still moral to burn down their meeting place and kill them all? It must be! Isn’t that how Christianity spread. Burning down pagan temples and converting or killing any pagans who did not go along with the program?
I’m just starting not to take anything this guy says seriously. Why bnot have a real conversation instead of this tired worn to death apologetic bullshit.
You believe in a piece of shit god that butchers people by the million and can not think of any way to change his mind but by killing himself disguised as his own son for a weekend. Have you actually looked at the bullshit you believe?
Because he is a rookie apologist…he said that. He is practising his gotchas to astound his congregation.
He should maybe have cut his teeth on a few facebook pages before entering a place that has so many SMEs that we could rent a crowd. Not the place to be a novice.
Name one absolute moral. When I google a list I get nothing but bullshit:
We can even do better than the golden rule.
Treat others as you would like to be treated is moronic. I want you to treat me like a king. If I am a king I don’t have to treat you like a king. That is a part of treating me like a king.
Instead we could just “In the immortal words of Jim Jefferies” “Don’t be an ass.” It works out to about the same thing.,
Ah so @christianapologist still hasn’t offered a single example of an absolute moral, can’t say I’m surprised as this is usually the kind of reticence that accompanies this claim.
So to recap:
"The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."
If @christianapologist is genuinely interested in honest debate he needs to address all of those objections to his argument, and not simply repeat his original claim. he also needs to address the logical fallacies in his argument that several posters have highlighted.
One last time for the record, materialism is not synonymous with atheism.
His argument unravels if he does this, and he doesn’t seem keen to accept that.
Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) there was parity between a “strong belief in the doctrines of religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof” (religious faith), and “the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter **and its movements and modifications”, (materialism). This does not remotely evidence anything supernatural or any deity. For the record I don’t accept any parity, because even though the belief (materialism) carries a burden of proof (as do all beliefs), we already know the physical material universe exists as an objective fact, but we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible, so it is another false equivalence fallacy.
I already covered this topic in extensive detail in my opening gambit. It appears you ignored my post in its entirety.
From where do you get this absolute moral? The bible?
I see no other option but the social construct case (and influenced by things like empathy, logic, and the desire to make society as good as possible for as many as possible, i.e. optimise well-being), as so-called god-given absolute morals is just an unfounded claim, all the time that a god has not been shown to exist. The contents of the bible is therefore just a set of claims pulled out of it’s (human) authors’ asses, based on bronze- and iron age mythology, coloured by the collective views of the leaders of a ~2000 years old religious sect, and further promoted by its followers. Christian morals has certainly changed over time, as has the morals of most or all of the world’s societies. For example, the bible accepts slavery and the obtaining, keeping, and beating of slaves, and tells the slaves to obey their masters. Now, as far as I know, most contemporary christians do not accept slavery. This means that christian morals has changed. Which makes it a product of society, influenced by secular empathy towards other people.
Exactly, one scenario has objective evidence to support it, the other none, but even if @christianapologist could objectively evidence a deity, he would still need to demonstrate absolute or perfect morality, and evidencing a deity would not on its own achieve this of course.
Yes. Given the total arsehole-ishness that the god of the bible publically displays (jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully)[*] @christianapologist and other bronze-age mythology followers would have to work very hard to convince me that the morals promoted by this god and his followers would be “perfect” in the sense of optimising well-being for as many as possible (including animals) instead of being a control mechanism for a god (should it exist) and its followers (most likely).
[*] description courtesy of Richard Dawkins