Godless morality

[Squid]

Our concepts of right and wrong are merely arbitrary distinctions placed within us by the crawling chaos, he of a thousand forms and servant of Azathoth - Nyarlathotep.  These ideas we possess are only for the amusement of him and those who dwell in the unknown Kadath.  I'm surprised no one mentioned this...

[Sophus]

i'm not really interested in debating the existence of a designer.  i've been down that back and forth road before.  i'm here to debate the nature of right and wrong.

the designer's goal is not hard to fathom.  if you design something then we can infer that you prefer construction to destruction.  if the designer loved destruction we wouldn't be here.  you have to use the anthropic principle.

"You must believe the President passed this law."
"What if there's no President and he doesn't really exist?"
"That's not relevant to my case."

[Tank]

if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  
{snip}.

Before you type one more letter read the following Probability theory

Still talking unsupportable rubbish harriet? Yes you are, you just seem to want to continue to display your ignorance for all to see. The very first line in you OP is complete balderdash and piffle, yet you plough on as if simple effort will carry your case, it won't. And that's the problem for a theistic world view now. You can't bully people into believing your nonsensical world view with immediate or eternal threats of pain and torment. No mythical perfect father exists, what you see through your eyes is real and what you do is ALL your responsibility. Nobody else to let you off the hook of your bad thoughts and actions. It's all your fault harriet, get used to it.

[philosoraptor]

Heh, Tank, I was reading your post thinking how utterly British it sounded, and then I looked at your location.  *facepalm*

I don't really have anything to add that someone else hasn't said already, so I'm content to sit back and watch another theist flounder when confronted with the illogical consistencies of their own BS.

[harriet_tubman]

We almost all have similar goals: to be safe, to be happy, to be fed, to be comfortable... etc. Because of these similar goals, we all help each other out so that we all can achieve them. Working together has allowed the majority to achieve most of their goals.

not true, the spartans had one goal: kill the athenians, the athenians had a different goal: kill the spartans.  further, exxon's goals are radically diverse from mine.

No creator is required for us all to want to be safe and therefore create rules that we all abide by to keep us safe.

true, if this were an accidental universe we would still want security.  however if you believe the universe is intended then what is good is defined as what helps the creator achieve its purpose.

On a side note, if Christianity doesn't stop people from having "primitive morality" then what is the point?

what you seem to be saying is that if laws do not change humans then what is the point.  the point is the law exists and no matter what humans do the law will not change.  humans have to modify their behavior in accordance with the moral law of the universe.  even if we fail to adhere to the law we will still suffer it's consequences.  take global warming: right now we are destroying the planet, and if we don't change we destroy the planet.  irregardless of what humans do, if carbon levels rise above maybe 450 ppm then it will set off a chain reaction ruining everything.  

Maybe what is needed is to explain why things are bad and good instead of just saying there is some supreme "moral" (I put that in quotes because there are lots of examples in the bible that show that this version of god is very immoral), entity that will punish them.

in order for things to be objectively good then the definition of good must be anchored on some fact that is independent of humans.  humans do not decide what good is.  if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century.

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

[harriet_tubman]

The existence of your supposed designer seems to be at the heart of your argument, yet you won't debate the designer's existence?   Seems pretty pointless to continue the conversation.

you are so right, pinkocommie. see thread the universe is designed

[Tank]

Heh, Tank, I was reading your post thinking how utterly British it sounded, and then I looked at your location.  *facepalm*

I don't really have anything to add that someone else hasn't said already, so I'm content to sit back and watch another theist flounder when confronted with the illogical consistencies of their own BS.

You should read it hearing a Roger Moore accent. I haven't got a Roger Moore accent, but it would sound sexy if Roger Moore read it  

[pinkocommie]

The existence of your supposed designer seems to be at the heart of your argument, yet you won't debate the designer's existence?   Seems pretty pointless to continue the conversation.

you are so right, pinkocommie. see thread the universe is designed

 

[Davin]

We almost all have similar goals: to be safe, to be happy, to be fed, to be comfortable... etc. Because of these similar goals, we all help each other out so that we all can achieve them. Working together has allowed the majority to achieve most of their goals.

not true, the spartans had one goal: kill the athenians, the athenians had a different goal: kill the spartans.  further, exxon's goals are radically diverse from mine.

Seriously? No one has similar goals? I may be going out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure the Spartans had more than just one goal, and I'm sure that the Athenians had more than one goal. I'm also pretty sure that both Exxon execs and you don't want to be murdered.

No creator is required for us all to want to be safe and therefore create rules that we all abide by to keep us safe.

true, if this were an accidental universe we would still want security.  however if you believe the universe is intended then what is good is defined as what helps the creator achieve its purpose.

If you build your house from straw, don't expect it to weather a storm.

On a side note, if Christianity doesn't stop people from having "primitive morality" then what is the point?

what you seem to be saying is that if laws do not change humans then what is the point.  the point is the law exists and no matter what humans do the law will not change.  humans have to modify their behavior in accordance with the moral law of the universe.  even if we fail to adhere to the law we will still suffer it's consequences.  take global warming: right now we are destroying the planet, and if we don't change we destroy the planet.  irregardless of what humans do, if carbon levels rise above maybe 450 ppm then it will set off a chain reaction ruining everything.

But the laws at least work to a good degree. If someone is going to refuse to obey the law, we lock them up to protect others (while I do also agree that often we lock up people we shouldn't), with religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules (often very silly rules).
And please stop saying "irregardless." What does irregardless mean that regardless doesn't? All you're doing is adding two more characters and an extra syllable to the word regardless, to produce a word with the same exact meaning.

Maybe what is needed is to explain why things are bad and good instead of just saying there is some supreme "moral" (I put that in quotes because there are lots of examples in the bible that show that this version of god is very immoral), entity that will punish them.

in order for things to be objectively good then the definition of good must be anchored on some fact that is independent of humans.  humans do not decide what good is.  if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century.

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

Do we just make crap up and say, "hey, this magical man in the sky will give you sky cake when you die if you don't rape and kill me" or do we base our decisions what we can be sure about?

[harriet_tubman]

No one has similar goals? I may be going out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure the Spartans had more than just one goal, and I'm sure that the Athenians had more than one goal. I'm also pretty sure that both Exxon execs and you don't want to be murdered.

inevitably what happens is man divides into two camps: optimists and pessimists.  the pessimists distrust man and believe that the best course of action is the accumulation of power.  the optimist trust man and believe that the best course is wider cooperation. you cannot convince a pessimist he is wrong with objective facts if you start from the premise that the universe is accidental.

the laws at least work to a good degree.

no, the laws do not work to a good degree if you cannot establish a criterion from which to base laws.  a theist's criterion is that destruction is bad, construction good, death bad, life good.  what is the atheist's criterion for establishing laws?  

with religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules (often very silly rules).

i don't know what you mean

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

Do we just make crap up and say, "hey, this magical man in the sky will give you sky cake when you die if you don't rape and kill me" or do we base our decisions what we can be sure about?

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

[Sophus]

inevitably what happens is man divides into two camps: optimists and pessimists. the pessimists distrust man and believe that the best course of action is the accumulation of power. the optimist trust man and believe that the best course is wider cooperation. you cannot convince a pessimist he is wrong with objective facts if you start from the premise that the universe is accidental.

Sorry... I'm annoyingly optimistic and I don't trust anyone. Also, WHO ever said this universe is an accident?

[Davin]

inevitably what happens is man divides into two camps: optimists and pessimists.

Really? Why wasn't I notified of these two groups? Are the groups always optimistic and pessimistic, because I am optimistic about some things and pessimistic about other things and neutral or have no opinion about others, do we create different groups for each thing or do we count up the views we hold on everything and whichever has the most is the group you get placed in? I'd rather just not bother and stay out of both groups myself and continue to make decisions on the available information instead of preconceived ideas. However you said it was inevitable, so do I get like a letter in the mail from the group I'm selected for?

no, the laws do not work to a good degree if you cannot establish a criterion from which to base laws.  a theist's criterion is that destruction is bad, construction good, death bad, life good.  what is the atheist's criterion for establishing laws?

Like I said before, we create laws based on things we have in common. Don't steal is based on all of us not wanting people to take our stuff, don't kill comes from all of us not wanting to be murdered... etc. So create laws that we all must abide and we punish and/or lock up those that don't.

with religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules (often very silly rules).

i don't know what you mean

Might help if you kept it in it's sentence: If someone is going to refuse to obey the law, we lock them up to protect others, with religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules.

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

Why do we start from that assumption? Without deconstruction we'd all starve to death.

[pinkocommie]

Watching someone strain so hard to argue from the position of false dichotomies is kind of interesting.  

[i_am_i]

Destruction is bad. Construction is good.

Harriet Tubman will be signing copies of her book in the lobby.

[Squid]

I'm just curious as to how destruction can be considered "bad" when it is a necessary part of life.  For example, the death of one organism contributes to the life of another.  I think the destruction=bad, construction=good is an elementary view of things.