Godless morality

[harriet_tubman]

Removes pain and increases happiness for who?  Suddenly destruction is dichotomous now?  Is there also "bad construction"? Please define "continuity of the universe".  Dealing in abstraction does nothing for progression of a meaningful conversation.

i admit that it's a fair question and a difficult one.  the atheists certainly don't have an answer.  i elaborated somewhat before with this

if you're a designer your whole modus operandi is about manipulating reality to suit your desire. living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer. life therefore is good, death bad. joy which promotes life is good, joy which promotes death is bad. pain which promotes death is bad, pain which discourages death is necessary if not good.

let me try to elaborate a little more

as a creator you're interested in the whole growing, becoming more healthy (less death, less pain), itself learning new capabilities.  

so let's take the film avatar, the sky people were the clear bad guys because they were destroying another planet and another people for the sake of their personal enrichment.  the sky people were not helping the whole, they were satisfying a part at the expense of another part.  the navi on the other hand were not threatening the stability of the whole.

is there bad construction?  sure, building an oil rig in the ocean, very bad construction because it threatens the whole.

definition of continuity of the universe, as a creator the universe is just a platform, life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary.  any action that threatens the existence of life or the platform as a whole is bad.

[JillSwift]

Harriet, you whole argument is based on the assumption of a creator. Since you've already stated you can't know the creator or what it wants, your argument falls flat. Why keep re-asserting this argument when it's already fatally flawed?

[harriet_tubman]

Life isn't always good, death isn't always bad.  Your argument is a false dichotomy.  

i never said life is always good.  only life which helps the whole of life is good.

Also, creator again?  If you're not willing to discuss the validity of your perceived creator, why do you keep bringing it up?  

i already told you that i opened this debate in another thread.

wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.

Oh, I thought we were making ridiculous statements without providing any proof of our claims ... now we're meant to take your word on knowing what this unproven creator's core concerns are?  

creators by their very nature enjoy creating, otherwise they wouldn't be creators.  that's obvious.  would you like to take the opposing view that creators don't like to create?

Did I ever say the cosmos was an accident?

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

[harriet_tubman]

Harriet, you whole argument is based on the assumption of a creator. Since you've already stated you can't know the creator or what it wants, your argument falls flat. Why keep re-asserting this argument when it's already fatally flawed?

no, it's based on the radical proposition that, one, where there is a design there is a designer, and two, creators like to create.  

since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

[i_am_i]

Harriet, please answer my question, please, pretty please with sugar on top:

here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

[harriet_tubman]

Therefore, I don't know if what I consider a moral act is the right one, but then again I never claimed to.

i'd like to see what your definition of a rational moralist is.  i would think it would be one who believes that there is a REASON why a certain moral act is good, or right and that the REASON is an objective fact independent of any human influence.  the opposite of a rational moralist would be moral relativist, one who believes that "anything goes," or what is good depends on the tastes of the person.

I' also never claimed that the universe is an accident. I accept that knowing that is beyond my ability (but apparently it's not beyond yours). Quite frankly (as I've said before) I couldn't care less about issues concerning the origin of life or the creation of the universe

then you're an agnostic.

each creature is fighting for its existence, especially the meat eaters.  how are you going to reason with the snake and say you're bad because you eat mice.  as for human morality, let's take all these primitive americans that believe that if we cut and run in afghan then the "terrorists" have won.  how do you come up with a reason to persuade them that they're wrong, especially when they believe it's kill or be killed

I wouldn't tell the snake he/she is bad, he/she is just trying to survive in a harsh world. (I don't see how this has anything to do with what I stated before).

it relates to the definition of a rational moralist.

I also don't think we should cut and run in Afghanistan. We created the mess they are in now, and it's up to us to fix it. On top of that terrorism is evil and I'd like to see the entire Taliban exterminated.

terrorism is evil and america is terrorist nation number one.  they attacked us on 9/11 because we have military bases in THEIR country.  if the muslims had a military base in your backyard would you take it lying down or would you be a man and fight back?  americans have killed more foreign citizens since wwwii (1.5 million korean, 3.5 million vietnamese), dropped bombs on about 22 nations, and have attempted to overthrow 70 governments and succeeded in 35.  as for fixing the mess, what, are we going to fix the mess by dropping bombs on civilians?

Here's a question for you. How come you keep ignoring what people are actually saying to you and instead, pretend we say something else and ask us about that?

[/quote]
show me where i've done this and we'll discuss it.

[harriet_tubman]

Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

i answered it elsewhere, here is what i wrote

definition of continuity of the universe, as a creator the universe is just a platform, life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary. any action that threatens the existence of life or the platform as a whole is bad.

[i_am_i]

Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

i answered it elsewhere, here is what i wrote

definition of continuity of the universe, as a creator the universe is just a platform, life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary. any action that threatens the existence of life or the platform as a whole is bad.

But, you see, that is not an answer. In fact it's hard to get to whatever it is you're driving at. "Life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary." I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Okay, so tell me one human action that has impeded or otherwise had a negative impact on the continuity of the cosmos.

[JillSwift]

since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

[harriet_tubman]

since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

[Davin]

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?

the point is you believe that human beings can decide what is moral in an accidental universe.  that is impossible.  in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power.  if someone takes power from you he is bad, but that person that just took power from you he did a good thing from his point of view.
inevitably some humans will understand that this dog eat dog philo will get us nowhere and that we should work together.  but some humans, like stalin, can not be persuaded of this and will think that the best course of action is the accumulation of personal power.

Really? That is what I believe? My my, to think I've going all this time thinking that I thought other things. It's a damn good thing you came along to let me know what I think instead of what I thought I think. Seriously though, if you want to have a discussion with someone else, it's important to have the argument with them and not some person from your imagination.

in an intended universe there is one goal: that the universe should continue.  anything that fosters the universe's continuity is good, anything that harms it is bad.

In the universes I created, destruction was good. It's what got you points and extra lives. The point is: without first even knowing that a creator exists, speculating as to what the imaginary creator wants is completely pointless.

Like I said before, we create laws based on things we have in common.

well how about things that we do not have in common.  only 4% of the population is homosexual.  should they be excluded because they are not common?

Stop this. Really? Most of us humans have similar goals. By bringing up homosexuals, Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, slaves, purple aliens, Mexicans... it doesn't matter, almost all of us want to stay alive and don't want our stuff taken. That doesn't require a god at all, just us.

Don't steal is based on all of us not wanting people to take our stuff,

in most third world countries 1% own 50% of the land.  is it lawful to steal their land and give it to the poor?

So most people do like to have their stuff taken?

don't kill comes from all of us not wanting to be murdered... etc.

how about killing stalin? you see, if you cannot anchor morality in an objective fact that doesn't change then what is good depends on what majority wants.  what the majority wants changes each decade.

I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't want to be killed. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing whether you're agreeing or disagreeing that even without making shit up about a sky cake man, we can create some very good morals.

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

what you're referring to is terminating harmful life.  terminating a destructive life force is good.

Really, cute little rabbit frolicking in the forest is a destructive life force? First thing you need to do is stop these assumptions of what I'm talking about and just read what I'm talking about.

Every single post you've ignored me and talked about something else. You asked how we can create laws without some made up cloud man, I answered and you ignore that line of reasoning for something else. FOCUS! Stay on target. If were talking about French Toast, don't change the subject to plastic figurines. You want to talk about how the laws go created without the need for and often in spite of religion. There are several laws that came from people claiming to know that a god existed and on top of that what that god wanted, do you support these laws? Because that is exactly what you're proposing.

[Davin]

since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Wow...  

[JillSwift]

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

[pinkocommie]

living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer. life therefore is good, death bad.

i never said life is always good.  only life which helps the whole of life is good.

Seems like you're doing a bit of the ol' moving the goalposts here.

i already told you that i opened this debate in another thread.

So now you are willing to prove your claims of a creator, but only on a different thread?  Why all the crazy rules of engagement?  Prove your wild claims as you make them or stop making them, here there and anywhere else on this forum.  I can tell, people are growing pretty tired of your fallacious arguments and this 'comment on my other thread if you want to talk about this' song and dance isn't helping.

creators by their very nature enjoy creating, otherwise they wouldn't be creators.  That's obvious. would you like to take the opposing view that creators don't like to create?

More wacky assertions made without evidence.  This statement is just your conjecture put forth as fact.  I'm going to let you in on a secret - even if you add comments about your own assertions like 'that's obvious' and seem to really REALLY believe your assertions are factual, that's not enough to make them factual.    Taking the opposing view would be equally illogical.  I don't know the motivations of everything that could possibly be considered a creator, so claiming that creators don't like to create is the same amount of absurd as claiming creators like to create.

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

...I'm not Richard Dawkins, why is it relevant what Dawkin's thinks?  No, I don't think the universe is the result of an intention.  Not believing the universe is a result of an intention does not mean that I have to think the universe was created by accident.  Stop trying to pigeon hold me within your false dichotomy.

(edited to fix a quote fail on my part)

[harriet_tubman]

I don't have to offer a counter-claim

Jill, every human decision is a claim, even the decision to remain skeptical or agnostic is a claim.  

let's take this photo



there are various claims:
1) i need to see more context, but even this is not a valid claim because a human can make a judgment solely from the photo
2) it's an accident perhaps due to something like wind or erosion or an earthquake
3) it's the result of humans
4) it's the result of some other intelligence such as aliens

almost everyone except atheists goes with 2. atheists don't want to admit humans did it because they understand that they're inferring design based on intuition.  most atheists prefer choice 1 because then they don't appear completely irrational, but if you think about it, let's say you could see more of the desert, what if there was a building next to it, would that matter? what if there was an alien next to it, would that matter? no because humans know that photos of aliens can be faked.  

so your refusal to make a decision is itself a decision that must be supported by reason.  

sometimes it's rational to remain agnostic such as with the question whether or not izzy stone was a spy.  well, in order to make an intelligent decision on whether or not izzy stone was a spy you have to sift through moutains of kgb documents, most of it in russion, plus they used code names making it very difficult to confirm whether or not izzy stone was a spy.  in that case agnosticism is actually the best mode of conduct.