Atheist Foundation of Morality and Moral Accountability

[Josephhasfun01]

So, what says the objective morality about plagiarism?

I find it quite ironic.

It say's what should be done is not always done by everybody. Including me.

 

[Prolescum]

There really is no point carrying on, Joseph, if you do not address Hackenslash's posts. He reiterated all the points you haven't addressed legibly (or at all) and added several of his own that require your attention. Don't make other posters waste their time repeating it all to you because you aren't mature enough to handle swear words without wetting your pants. That isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

Of course, I don't believe for a minute that you haven't read them in full already...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Of course, I don't believe for a minute that you haven't read them in full already...

Funny thing about the phrase "I'm not reading this dribble because of X" - not only does it imply that one already read the document, but it also ignores the fact that your average human being is interested in discussion up until the point where they intentionally select that which they do want to talk about, and that which they do not (which can only be discerned by reading a post in it's entirety).

 

[Frenger]

Ad Hominem attacks are not really arguments. They are fallacious at best.

Ad hominem

It helps if you understand the definitions of these fallacies. What I was saying was that "knowing" something means precisely fuck all. This isn't something you can just assert and then get pissy when people demand more than your word for evidence.

I tried to read "hakenslach" posts but I just can't soldeir through all the profanity. It's the equivalent of sticking my brain into a garbage disposal. I just find it replusive that people talk like that. I wish I could read it but it makes me want to vomit. All he has to do is omit the garbage words and I would be happy to address the posts.

I'd grow up if I were you. Like he says, he doesn't care if you read, respond, masturbate whatever. The posts were aimed at people who want to understand better. It's actually quite a gift to write something both funny and thought provoking, especially in a topic like this.

Apparently you don't keep up with current events.

Don't tar me with the same shitty brush you use on yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_India

Notice arrests, laws passed, wide spread protests to such tragic events. It's not perfect but your assertion there is no law against it or people weren't arrested for it is again, unfounded and fucking ignorant.

Now that you have some dialog going now, how about you tell me where empathy comes from? Stating 'evolution' is not an answer. You would need to explain how evolution gives us empathy.

Empathy is quite likely the result of mirror neurons which fire when you witness an act on another animal.

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.

It also goes on to say

Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy

We are a social animal, understanding how an action effects another means we can avoid it without having to live through it ourselves (this is one part of the function of mirror neurons).

I called you on cherry picking fallacy.

And I called you on your misuse of that term.

What was the reason you would not wish to converse with some one that assumes your wrong before you speak? You say that there is just no point. Why is there no point? Just simply stating there is no point is a non answer.

A conversation on a topic such as this is an interchange of ideas, of knowledge. As you said you weren't interested in reading what I had to say and would simply assume I was wrong, you effectively removed yourself from the conversation. The only point of me staying in was if you had something to offer me, some knowledge, a nugget of something interesting. Unfortunately I don't need dogshit at the moment so I was happy to leave it there.

Good enough explanation for you?

I notice you also skimmed over the biblical references to your god killing children and raping. Is this because you don't like to think of your god as being a bit rapey?

 

[RedYellow]

In fact, without the Moral Law, simple value-laden terms such as "good," "bad," "better, and "worse" would have no objective meaning.

Is the Moral Law itself good or bad, Joseph? Nothing destroys meaning more than an objective law. A Law is an 'IS' statement. You can only get an 'OUGHT' statement from a qualifier, like 'IF.'

IE, I OUGHT not murder, IF I want to be the kind of person I would want to be surrounded by.

What good is a moral law if nobody accepts it or finds it useful on a personal level? And further, how are you NOT using your own subjective judgment to say that moral laws are good?

I challenge you to explain why we should adhere to objective moral laws, WITHOUT using any reasons that secular people would use to justify secular morality.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

In fact, without the Moral Law, simple value-laden terms such as "good," "bad," "better, and "worse" would have no objective meaning.

Is the Moral Law itself good or bad, Joseph? Nothing destroys meaning more than an objective law. A Law is an 'IS' statement. You can only get an 'OUGHT' statement from a qualifier, like 'IF.'

IE, I OUGHT not murder, IF I want to be the kind of person I would want to be surrounded by.

What good is a moral law if nobody accepts it or finds it useful on a personal level? And further, how are you NOT using your own subjective judgment to say that moral laws are good?

I challenge you to explain why we should adhere to objective moral laws, WITHOUT using any reasons that secular people would use to justify secular morality.

I appreciate your post on this thread. I must say that you seem confused about moral law. It is no something that we have all the answers for. Just like we don't know all the answers concerning mathematics. We do have an inbuilt sense of morality. we know it best by our reaction when someone violoates it. Take bullying for example. How do we know bullying is wrong? One could argue that being bullied can help make you stronger. Hence, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. However there are just to many other things to consider about the reality of bullying. Why should we not bully people? I have witnessed parents bullying their own children. These children are the ones that usaully become the bully.
children learn by examples that are set by their parents. I have heard it said that if your child bites you, bite them back and that teaches them not to bite because they realize it hurts to be biten. This may not work as a general rule of thumb because it actually reinforces the behavior by signifying that if someone hurts me then I should hurt them back so that they know that I was hurt. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Is the Moral Law itself good or bad, Joseph? Nothing destroys meaning more than an objective law. A Law is an 'IS' statement. You can only get an 'OUGHT' statement from a qualifier, like 'IF.'

Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice. I find it odd that you say "nothing destroys meaning more than an objective law." Objectivity is a goal we strive to achieve. I can surely use a qualifier in objective moral law. If it's bad, it should not be done. If murder is wrong, we should not murder.

I challenge you to explain why we should adhere to objective moral laws, WITHOUT using any reasons that secular people would use to justify secular morality.

I again, sense that you are confused. Securalists have the same sense of objective morality as anyone else.

:?: What is secular morality?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Ad Hominem attacks are not really arguments. They are fallacious at best.

Ad hominem

It helps if you understand the definitions of these fallacies. What I was saying was that "knowing" something means precisely fuck all. This isn't something you can just assert and then get pissy when people demand more than your word for evidence.

I tried to read "hakenslach" posts but I just can't soldeir through all the profanity. It's the equivalent of sticking my brain into a garbage disposal. I just find it replusive that people talk like that. I wish I could read it but it makes me want to vomit. All he has to do is omit the garbage words and I would be happy to address the posts.

I'd grow up if I were you. Like he says, he doesn't care if you read, respond, masturbate whatever. The posts were aimed at people who want to understand better. It's actually quite a gift to write something both funny and thought provoking, especially in a topic like this.

Apparently you don't keep up with current events.

Don't tar me with the same shitty brush you use on yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_India

Notice arrests, laws passed, wide spread protests to such tragic events. It's not perfect but your assertion there is no law against it or people weren't arrested for it is again, unfounded and fucking ignorant.

Now that you have some dialog going now, how about you tell me where empathy comes from? Stating 'evolution' is not an answer. You would need to explain how evolution gives us empathy.

Empathy is quite likely the result of mirror neurons which fire when you witness an act on another animal.

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.

It also goes on to say

Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy

We are a social animal, understanding how an action effects another means we can avoid it without having to live through it ourselves (this is one part of the function of mirror neurons).

I called you on cherry picking fallacy.

And I called you on your misuse of that term.

What was the reason you would not wish to converse with some one that assumes your wrong before you speak? You say that there is just no point. Why is there no point? Just simply stating there is no point is a non answer.

A conversation on a topic such as this is an interchange of ideas, of knowledge. As you said you weren't interested in reading what I had to say and would simply assume I was wrong, you effectively removed yourself from the conversation. The only point of me staying in was if you had something to offer me, some knowledge, a nugget of something interesting. Unfortunately I don't need dogshit at the moment so I was happy to leave it there.

Good enough explanation for you?

I notice you also skimmed over the biblical references to your god killing children and raping. Is this because you don't like to think of your god as being a bit rapey?[/quote


It was fun watching you scramble to cover your failings and all, but I really must move on now. I am finding all this to be a bit too dramatic for my liking. I have an idea that will be much more objective. I just have only one thing left to say to you about your belief that moral law is subjective. Your confusion is most irritating. You believe, since we don’t know how every single moral dilemma should be handled, that means that there is no objective morality. But if there is no objective morality then everything pertaining to what should be done in moral situations is relative to opinions. That is the most laughable thing I have ever heard. It is so far from reality. It is just amazing to me that people really believe that in the face of what we know about objective morality. I noticed how you addressed what I said about never use the word “should” when trying to refute objective morality. Unfortunately what you said has nothing to do with morality. See the examples you gave below?


I love it when I see people use the word “should”. You should, at all costs, avoid using the word “should” when attempting to refute moral law. Because it implies that there is an objective, a goal, a way that something “should” or “ought to be” done.

I wasn’t talking about moral law, I was talking about your false sense of superiority. But as we are on it, does “you should go for a run” mean there is an objective distance that a person should run?

I must say tha I am surprised that it really bothers you that I have a false sense of superiority when you claim that morality is subjective! I don’t see why it bothers you that I have a high opinion of myself according to you. You inferred that I do. There are things I have said and done that bother you and austral.
Like when we got into over plagiarizing other peoples works. I don’t see what all the fuse was about. If it is merely opinions because morality is subjective than why all the hullabaloo over plagiarism?

Luckily I have google maps, that should lead me out. Oh sorry, I said should again, I mean that will subjectively lead me out.

No your fine. Google maps have nothing to do with objective morality. However you should consider the reliabilty of Google maps before you use them!

I have never seen you give anything coherent as far as your explanations for morality.

My final question is, how can morality be subjective? Is it not that our moral reasoning is subjective? How can morality be subjective without a goal (objective) to use our moral reasoning to be subjective to? We don’t know everything about the laws of mathematics so is math subjective too? I guess that all the equations we have in mathematics are all subjective and we can kiss science goodbye. If I use your logic science is just an opinion. It’s subjective because we don’t have all the answers pertaining to mathematics. There is nothing concrete. Nothing. Because it’s all subjective! You remind me of what I read in a book and better name it and the aurthor and use quotations because people that believe morality is just an opinion around here get really bent for an unknown reason if I plagiarize somebody else’s stuff. I find that weird that they get mad cause, after all, it’s just their opinion AS THEY CLAIM MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE!

The below is quoted from ‘THE ANSWER TO THE ATHEIST HANDBOOK’ in the chapter titled “The Unreasonableness of Atheism”

“A fool was sent to buy flour and salt. He took a dish in which to carry them. He was told not to mix the 2 ingredients but to keep them separate. After the shopkeeper had filled the dish with flour, the fool, thinking of the instructions, inverted the dish, asking that the salt be poured on the upturned bottom.
Therewith, the flour was lost, but he had the salt. He brought it to his boss, who inquired, “But where is the flour?” The fool turned the dish over to find it. So the salt was gone too.”

“Atheist sometimes act like this man. They bring very earnest and useful criticisms against religion. They have the salt. But do they not thereby lose the flour? Do they not throw away arguments for religion which may also be right?
And in the end will they not have to shed the salt of atheism, too, in moments of deep crisis?”(end of quote from The Answer To The Atheist Handbook)

This is what you do when you refute objective moral law. When you tried to refute moral law you turned the plate over and lost the flour. But you still had the salt. However, in when you also refuted the objective laws of mathematics, you inverted the dish and lost the salt too. I realize of course that mathematical laws don’t correlate in the same sense as moral laws. They are completely different. One is laws of Mathematics and one is laws of Morality. The point about the law part is the same. There are still objective laws of mathematics even if we have a hard time understanding math. There are also problems with understanding what all the objective laws of morality are. There is a correlation in the sense of laws of mathematics’ we don’t get, and laws of morality we don’t get. We don’t understand everything about mathematics but that does not mean that the things we do understand are not objective. We don’t understand everything about morality but that does not mean what is understood about morality is subjective? We understand that the taking of innocent human life is wrong. We understand the E=mc squared. These are both objective.

More from ‘The Answer To The Atheists Handbook’ from the chapter THE REASONABLENESS OF ATHEIST
<Quote>Atheists should know, first of all, that we Christians are not their enemies but their friends. We love atheists. And love understands.

In the twentieth century, when millions of innocent men, women, and children have been burned in furnaces, gassed, or otherwise killed in concentration camps of different political regimes (some of which proclaimed themselves Christians), it is difficult to believe in a God who is both almighty and good. If He is almighty, why did He not prevent the atrocities? If He is good, why did He create a world of such cruelty? We cannot reproach someone for being an atheist when high prelates of the Christian church are often on the side of oppressors and exploiters, when they flatter the tyrants of tomorrow.

When Jesus hung powerless on a cross and cried, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” it must have difficult to convince anyone that this crucified Man was the hope of humanity or that the One who thirsted after water but only received vinegar, possed all power in heaven and earth. It took a resurrection to make the proclamation of the truth possible.
Those who call themselves after the name of the Son of god have killed each other in two world wars. A man baptized in the name of Christ gave the order to drop the first atomic bomb.

And then, even if prodigal sons would like to return to the Father’s house, they would not know where to find it. In its stead are many divergent denominations, each claiming to have the truth. They are united in only one point, not to practice the all- embracing love for innocents still behind bars of who have died in concentration camps. Furthermore, in the minds of multitudes, religion is tied up with superstition, backwardness, or strange dogma.

Atheism is the effect of these as well as many other causes. We could not expect otherwise; it is only logical that many should be atheists.

God allowed room for atheism in the world. The bible teaches that God created a material world with intrinsic laws and an endless chain of causes and effects. He allows men to exist. Therefore, the possibility of atheism was contained in the plan of creation, and when it was decided that christ would atone by His blood for the sins of mankind, He agreed to atone for the sins of atheists, too. If god allows atheism to exist, who are we to forbid it?
We have full understanding for atheists. But atheists, on the other hand, have to account for what is from their standpoint an anomaly: Many of those who suffer horribly in this world created by God love Him with all their heart. Tradition and custom can account for churchgoing and attendence at religious rituals. But how can atheists explain that a burning love for God is sometimes seen precisely in the men who suffer most? How can they explain what Christians call “joy in the Lord,” felt by men who are beaten and tortured for their faith and who may have fifty pound chains on their feet?

Religion is flourishing in some very poor countries. Hungry men on Sundays with starving children and sing of the glory of God. Why? How is it that widows with only “two mites” for their living gladly give their last coins in order that God may be served with greater pomp?
The questions posed to Christians by atheists are reasonable. If God is almighty, why does He allow death to rule on the earth? Why have I been bereft of my most beloved, asks the atheist? Why does my child suffer and my friend die young?
But how can atheists explain the fact that other men, similarly bereaved or themselves facing death, accept tragedy with serenity and even joy? For them death means to go to the Father. <End Quote>

Atheists only look at part of the picture of reality so they are missing some big essentials.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I notice you also skimmed over the biblical references to your god killing children and raping. Is this because you don't like to think of your god as being a bit rapey?

:facepalm: No. I already stated that I would be addressing this later. If you find yourself impatient then by all means give me one reference and your accusation and I will address it. One at a time please. If you post a bunch of them I will not answer a single one.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

There really is no point carrying on, Joseph, if you do not address Hackenslash's posts. He reiterated all the points you haven't addressed legibly (or at all) and added several of his own that require your attention. Don't make other posters waste their time repeating it all to you because you aren't mature enough to handle swear words without wetting your pants. That isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

Of course, I don't believe for a minute that you haven't read them in full already...

If I choose not to read a post filled with offensive language then i will not. Calling me immature is does not justify anything. Just sayin'.

 

[australopithecus]

How do you know it's filled with offensive language if you haven't read it?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

How do you know it's filled with offensive language if you haven't read it?

Let's say I was skimming it over. When writing a refutation, it is like sticking my brain in the toilet while people come in and crap in it over and over without flushing, I usaully reread everything I reply to.

 

[australopithecus]

Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.

Hackenslash did give an acceptable respnonse without all the profanity and I will be responding so...

 

[australopithecus]

Cherry picking which arguments you will and will not respond to on the premise that you can't handle a little bad language. Based on this I'm going to assume you're about 12 years old.

 

[RedYellow]

Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice.

Except we can judge a moral law by other means, like how useful it is to us. You are clearly the one who is confused: You say that moral law is good, but we can't know good without moral law. This is circular reasoning, you can't judge a moral law until you introduce a 'subject.' If the subject is modern human society, then the objective becomes how to best preserve that. You have subjective reasons for why you accept the morals you do, unless you would admit that you'd follow any objective moral law handed down to you. The laws only matter, not the reasons why we have them, right?

Saying morality is subjective is an easy target for folks like you, because you take that to mean it's just whatever people subjectively desire at the time. But what it actually means, is that we use subjects to qualify moral arguments, which would otherwise just be empty rules that people could take or leave.

But IF being a functioning member of society with friends and family who care about me is important to me, then the way to get there isn't subjective. In short, morality isn't just objective or subjective, it's the interplay between the two. It's the interactions between people, not the rules governing the interactions.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.

That was far from valid. I did address it and Hackenslash has a lot of explaining to do now.

 

[australopithecus]

Well the important thing is that you've found a novel way to ignore valid refutations of your argument so you can pretend that no one has refuted them.

That was far from valid. I did address it and Hackenslash has a lot of explaining to do now.

:lol:

You crack me up, kid.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice.

Except we can judge a moral law by other means, like how useful it is to us. You are clearly the one who is confused: You say that moral law is good, but we can't know good without moral law. This is circular reasoning, you can't judge a moral law until you introduce a 'subject.' If the subject is modern human society, then the objective becomes how to best preserve that. You have subjective reasons for why you accept the morals you do, unless you would admit that you'd follow any objective moral law handed down to you. The laws only matter, not the reasons why we have them, right?

Saying morality is subjective is an easy target for folks like you, because you take that to mean it's just whatever people subjectively desire at the time. But what it actually means, is that we use subjects to qualify moral arguments, which would otherwise just be empty rules that people could take or leave.

But IF being a functioning member of society with friends and family who care about me is important to me, then the way to get there isn't subjective. In short, morality isn't just objective or subjective, it's the interplay between the two. It's the interactions between people, not the rules governing the interactions.

Judge moral law? I think your still confused. when I say moral law I mean the moral law that is written on our hearts and the moral law that we know best by our reactions. Did you see how pissed some people got when I used a textual writing that was not my own? They reacted and got after me about it. So if moral law is subjective then I see know reason they could be mad. They should not be mad because subjective means that it's just opinions. Their reactions proved that moral law exists. Moral law is innate. It's built into us. We discover it by experiencing and reacting to those experiences because deep down when we feel something is wrong we object to it being continually done the wrong way.

why are you talking about subjects? I am talking about subjective reasoning. there is a no correlation between a subject and subjectivness.

 

[Prolescum]

Judge moral law?

Perish the thought!

I think your still confused. when I say moral law I mean the moral law that is written on our hearts

Mark of the Beast? Tattoo eclipse of the heart? Chiseled on the face of white Jesus?

and the moral law that we know best by our reactions

That's empathy, not your metaphysical imaginary "moral law", as noted on several pages of this thread. Including the very first one.

Did you see how pissed some people got when I used a textual writing that was not my own?

The problem was that you tried to pass off copypasta as your own, they weren't "pissed" (isn't that a swear word? By Toutatis, hypocrisy!), they were insulted.

They reacted and got after me about it.

Because you were being intellectually dishonest, not because of your so-called "moral law".

So if moral law is subjective then I see know reason they could be mad.

Dishonesty is frowned upon here because it is not conducive to discussion. We have only words to go on here, and you are taken as you are found.

They should not be mad because subjective means that it's just opinions.

This has been refuted numerous times, please go back a few pages and re-read. Then stop repeating it.

Their reactions proved that moral law exists.

Wrong. Their reactions proved that they find dishonest discourse repugnant.

Moral law is innate.

No matter how many times you repeat it (like a mantra - you're hypnotising yourself) yada yada...

It's built into us.

In the aorta, right? No wait, the kidney spleen pancreas scrotum.

We discover it by experiencing and reacting to those experiences because deep down when we feel something is wrong we object to it being continually done the wrong way.

No, that's empathy.

 

[RedYellow]

when I say moral law I mean the moral law that is written on our hearts and the moral law that we know best by our reactions

And has this always been the same? Don't you think people knew in their hearts it was right to conquer and kill? You are just being vague and inconsistent here. People have all sorts of feelings in their hearts, from compassion to pure, black hatred.

They should not be mad because subjective means that it's just opinions

Again, wrong. Subjective means a subject is used to qualify a moral argument. Once the subject is introduced, it's not up to opinion how to best reach a goal.

Their reactions proved that moral law exists.

Their reactions proved that people react to things. And again, would everybody react that way? The people here happen to care about those things, but what if you went to a creationist message board..........

Moral Law is not innate, it's our tendency to care about the behavior of others around us that is innate. We are social creatures.

why are you talking about subjects? I am talking about subjective reasoning. there is a no correlation between a subject and subjectivness.

Well then maybe you are talking about the wrong thing. Do you really think anyone here just believes that morality is completely subjective, up to whoever's opinion? This what moral objectivists like you do, you think that it either has to be written in stone, or it's just whatever. It's a false dichotomy.

You can't debate people like me until you actually make an effort to understand what it is I think. Your just doing what every theist apologist does, you project your own idea of what people who don't think like you are. Stop arguing with people in your imagination and talk to us.