Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It is clear to me that you have no clue about morality else you would understand why killing your son YOURSELF is a morally wrong thing to do compared to be obedient to god's orders like a good slave and servant.
An assertion of authority should not overrule your morality.
The fact that it does for you, proves you are an hypocrite about your own morality and it is dangerous to be around you.
Hi Jeff, thanks once again for the response. Read below my answers.
1. You said: “When you reply to a point...” That’s why in my last post I went point by point, answering each of the points you raised. You may disagree with my views, but I did not avoid any question.
2. You asked for proof about the Mayan’s beliefs. You are totally missing my point. The reason I took the example of Mayans is to show that as you go back in time the scientific knowledge of man diminishes. This is common sense. I hope you wouldn’t ask for proof for this claim. When man has limited knowledge, his understanding of the world is bound to be flawed. And if you claim that morality is something you draw from your current understanding of the world, then it doesn’t take rocket science to fathom that the moral judgements of the people of the old were flawed. This is the argument I was trying to prove through the example of Mayans.
You said “Mayans were dogmatic and followed their tradition.” The problem with your arguments is that you seem to be hiding behind vague words. Dogmatic etc. If you think about it, you are being dogmatic too. You are making assertions (there is no god etc) based on an epistemological system that you agree is changing and dynamic. Logically, the best position for you to take would be agnosticism (not being sure), but instead you are assertive about your beliefs, which becomes a dogma.
And then you say “Mayans did not reason their way to make sacrifices.” This shows how myopic you are about the history of epistemology. You seem to be assuming that mankind throughout history had our current level of knowledge. It’s a basic fact that our reasoning will change with growing knowledge. And it’s not hard to know that as you go back in time, knowledge diminishes. Therefore, you cannot expect people of all ages to engage in the same kind of reasoning. When a Mayan sees lightning and thunder, and floods and rains, and changing seasons with crops failing and succeeding... he obviously is amazed by these phenomena. He doesn’t have any understanding about these things because of the limited knowledge in those times. Moreover, he is living in constant fear of nature. Therefore he comes up with his own reasoning to explain these phenomena. Gods, spirits, etc are part of that. And based on these flawed reasoning he manufactures rituals and rites. The point I am making here is that a Mayan had his own reasoning for his beliefs. It’s wrong to say they did not reason.
(LET ME EMPHASIZE: i am not here trying to prove any point about the Mayans. I take their name just as an example. If you think the Mayans do not fit the bill, then it could be any other civilization from the ancient world. I hope you understand my point.)
.... continuing
4. You said: “We need evidence to accept a claim.” Once again, what do you mean by evidence? Do you mean that you should be able to see it with your eyes to be able to accept something? If that’s what you mean by evidence, then you shouldn’t believe in black holes or electrons and so on. Yet, we accept these things exist because we have derived them from other evidences. To take a more simple example, when you see a column of smoke rising up into the sky, it’s easy to conclude that there is fire. NOT necessary that you have to see the fire with your eyes.
Therefore, when I see organized complexity all around me (nature), reasoning leads me to a superior intelligence, a creator. This is the reason that atheists feel compelled to provide an alternate explanation for the complexity of life. And hence the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution fails it will be a big blow to atheism. Therefore, your rejection of God Claim (whether you like it or not) is predicated upon theory of evolution. You can’t dismiss it so easily.
5. You said: “Your external moral point is not external at all...” What I mean by external is that my morality does not come from human understanding of reality. People’s perceptions will change based on their own background, age, gender, culture, schooling etc. Therefore, moral precepts propounded by people can be faulty. I take my morality from God, who is external.
6. You said: “Hurting someone has no value to me...” This is yet another example of you using words meaninglessly. What do you mean by value? Does it mean material benefit? Does it mean emotionally feeling good? Please explain. If you can’t explain it, at least give an example. Please don’t think I am pushing the point too far. I feel this is at the heart of our discussion. In fact, ‘morality’ and ‘value’ are closely related words. Here we are exploring ‘morality’ and to use words that are almost synonymous with the word that is being debated will not shed much light. We need to be absolutely clear about these terms.
7. Further you said: “...If I am in his place, I wouldn’t want to be hurt.” If this is your position, l would like to know your stance on abortion and non-vegetarianism. A pregnant woman decides to kill her foetus, because she fears motherhood will affect her career. Now, who will you empathize with: the mother or the foetus? If you were the mother, then your career is important for you. If you were the foetus, then your life is important for you. What is your moral position on this? Similarly, with non-vegetarianism. Why don’t you empathize with the animal that gets killed and eaten? How would you feel if you were the animal? Or do you think that morality is restricted only to human rights, and not animal rights?
You also said: “...being able not to be egoistic, but be a good person...” You are begging the question here. We are debating in this forum because we don’t agree on what is “MORALITY”? And then to make sweeping generalizations such as ‘being a good person” etc is meaningless. Because morality in essence is about being a good person. And if we don’t agree on morality, it means we don’t agree on what it means to be a good person. Therefore, as long as you don’t clarify these terms (good, bad, value etc) these words are meaningless in our debate.
8. You said: “Stop transmigrating what I said...” This is more of a personal attack than any sensible argument. Therefore, I am not responding to this.
9. You said: “I never said I am your god...” Yes you are right. It was MY mistake. I concede that point to you. Yet, my answer doesn’t change. If God asks me to kill my child I will do it.
You said: “Do you know what we do to people that would kill their own children...” You asked me a hypothetical question, and I answered it because you wanted a YES/NO answer. According to my religion, God’s message has been fully delivered already, and he is not going to issue new orders to me now. And according to the revealed law it is a heinous sin to kill anybody, leave alone children. Therefore, I would never ever be in a situation that you hypothetically created. Now, let me turn that question around for you. Let’s imagine that science progresses to a level where genomics lets us know with absolute certainty the nature of a child. Say you give birth to a child, and genetic experts tell you that if you let this child grow into an adult, he would become a deranged serial killer. This is a certain outcome, and there is no way you can change this from happening. You have two choices in front of you. Put the child to death in a painless manner, or let him grow up and kill hundreds of innocent humans. What would you do?
The point I am trying to make is that it’s baseless to ask an improbable question and then pass judgements about others. And my question is not something I spun out of thin air. If you know about eugenics, you will appreciate how based on scientific theories, some people justified the extermination of “inferior” human races.
You said: “Muslims haven’t agreed after 1000+ years on the foundations...” This is a very good point you have raised Jeff. I don’t wish to get into all the complicated discussions on the science of Islamic jurisprudence here. But let me just say this much. There is only one lens through which the Quran has to be interpreted. That is the prophet’s teachings. The discrepancies arise because people break this rule for their selfish ends– political, economic and so on. Therefore, as a Muslim, I am NOT floundering through a maze of probable moralities confused as to which one of them is the ultimate truth. While I recognize that there are a slew of different sects and opinions, I know which one to follow and which ones to reject. To put it in perspective for you: your moral paradigm is rational reasoning. Now imagine, a group of atheist rely on psychic experiences to decide their morality. As a rationalist you would differ with them, because psychic experiences are not (logically speaking) a reliable source of gaining information. However, you would be confident, based on your fundamental paradigm, about your decision, wouldn’t you? The differences in Islam as far as I am concerned are somewhat similar to that.
10. You said: “Morality is an ongoing understanding of reality...” Is this your definition of morality? It raises more questions than answers. The problem is NOT only about new knowledge coming and changing your old ideas. It is also about there NOT being a precise answer to many of the questions. Say for example, Death Sentence. Experts in the field of law, sociology and psychology are so divided on this issue that you cannot ever come to a rational conclusion about it. Say the father of a person who was brutally murdered by a criminal wants to see him dead. Meanwhile, the poor little daughter of the criminal is pleading for forgiveness because she knows she can reform him. Whose side would you take?
And then you said: “The good feeling when you do something not for yourself...” That’s the most absurd argument I have ever heard. If you say that altruism is a natural quality in man, why on Earth is there so much suffering? If just the top 10 richest people in the world think, they can eliminate poverty from the world. But the problem is, it is very difficult to make them think so. The main reason for the recent spate of economic crises in the world, experts say, was human greed. Greed and selfishness seem more natural to man than selflessness. There definitely has to be a strong motivating factor to make man selfless. Imagine what would happen if there were NO penalizing laws against tax evaders. Do you think anybody would pay their taxes, even though taxes go for common good? Belief in God is the greatest motivation to do good.
I think I have answered this point in my posts above. You said "An assertion of authority should not overrule your morality." Once again you are begging the question. What you are doing right now is asserting your morality on me. You are vociferously saying that my morality is wrong, and yours is right. If by assertion of authority you mean enforcing morality through law, then any nation that has a system of laws is actually doing that. There are secular countries that ban streakers (people who walk nude in public places). This is an assertion of authority, because a streaker thinks he or she is free to do what they want with their body.
The last post was an answer to your last post.
1. "That’s why in my last post I went point by point, answering each of the points you raised."
Yes but my complaining was on the post before that one.
2. "You asked for proof about the Mayan’s beliefs. You are totally missing my point."
I did not miss your point, you just made use of the wrong example to promote your idea that less knowledge= less good morality.
Which if you think just a bit about it, it is what I was saying, that morality is an ONGOING understanding of reality.
Yes what is morally good today can be morally bad tomorrow.
The idea of objective morality is absurd since it is very hard to find anything which is objective at all since to claim it, you need to know every possible scenario and since we do not know everything no one can claim such a thing.
You have to understand that who ever claims that objective morality exists is claiming that he knows everything.
Thus claiming that he himself is god like or omniscient.
So whatever argument you will ever rise against subjective morality will always be illogical.
You will never convince any reasonable person of such nonsense.
3. provide those medical reports that support the idea that gay people have more diseases then normal people(regarding sex)
You are the one who made the claim, I just questioned it.
4."Once again, what do you mean by evidence?"
Verifiable and testable evidence will give confidence to a claim.
It will not make it 100% true.
Your claim that the Mayans did bad reasoning and had no effect from their religion is not based on any evidence I know of and you have presented none so far.
5. "I take my morality from God, who is external."
How do you know that your god is not fake? It is not just in your head, or is not a delusion. Like a delusion that will ask you to kill your son just like it did to Abraham?
You take your morality from what you think god wants or is.
That is the truth and your knowledge of this god comes from an interpretation of a book by humans.
Your feelings or personal experience are just being exploited by this interpretation of this book. Think about it.
So your morality comes from the morality of ancient dwellers that claim things about this god including that slavery is a good thing.
This is an example where you ignore the point or change subject.
How do you explain the fact that slavery is OK for your god?
"Therefore, when I see organized complexity all around me (nature), reasoning leads me to a superior intelligence, a creator."
That is why you are jumping to conclusions.
If we assume for a moment that what you are seeing is correct and there is a creator and has superior intelligence. Where does this in anyway link to a god? Please explain this link.
How do you get from a superior creature that can Terraform a planet to a god that can convict you of thought crime?
See the flaw in reason? Here is where your bias of a book theology does not let you see reason.
"Therefore, moral precepts propounded by people can be faulty. I take my morality from God, who is external."
Who is faulty just as well, when he promotes slavery and submission of women by the will of men.
Your bias does not allow you to see that your god has the same exact traits as if it was invented by humans which are faulty.
Maybe just maybe it was, can you even consider it as a possibility?
6. "What do you mean by value? "
If I would not benefit in any way "AND if I was in his place I wouldn't want to be hurt"
It is a balance between those two things. It is not a clean cut decision.
For example, if I am dying of virus and so is an other person but there is enough only 1 person.
The decision is based on a balance between those 2 things.
It largely depends on the situation/mood/etc.... so there is no objective decision, it is subjective. That was what I was trying to make you understand.
You just took part of what I said and interpreted the way you wanted, to make your point which was your bias taking the better of you.
"Therefore, your rejection of God Claim (whether you like it or not) is predicated upon theory of evolution. You can’t dismiss it so easily."
No it is not, we are quite fine with the notion of not knowing something.
You are mixing us with Darwinists.
7. l would like to know your stance on.....
Lets not start new discussions before we agree on some of the most basic concepts you seem to miss.
Human Morality is subjective because everything around us shows that it is ever changing depending on knowledge and time.
Until you agree on this we cannot proceed on more complex things.
"You also said: “...being able not to be egoistic, but be a good person...”"
Where did I say that because I am pretty sure you are taking it out of context.
So if you have a delusion of seeing your god or a dream or a joke or you were hypnotized you would kill your own son.
That is why you get closed up in a mental hospital because the brainwashing you sustained does not allow you to question the possibility of other options rather then your god is right always.
We atheist on the other hand look at other possibilities too when something creepy pops up.
We are actually thinking and not obeying like good slaves and servants.
9.
"if you let this child grow into an adult, he would become a deranged serial killer."
or
"This is a certain outcome, and there is no way you can change this from happening."
Do they tell me(their professional opinion) or is it for certain(i am omniscient and know the future type)?
You are claiming that the hypothetical question I asked you about the killing of your child is an improbable scenario and are comparing it with a nearly impossible scenario which you badly defined.
First of all you are wrong that it is improbable, actually it already happened many times over where religion forced people to kill their own child.
It was in the news lately too where a mother burned her own child alive because she thought her child was the anti Christ.
It is history not just a hypothetical question.
It is the danger of religion.
That the first guy that sees something not usual does not question or check for other solutions but kills his own son.
Just like you did in this post.
You are so much biased not to question god that it reflects in your actions and posts.
That is why I said that you proved to me how dangerous you are and how much you let your religion interfere with your reason and morality.
"There is only one lens through which the Quran has to be interpreted."
I'll quote you:
"People’s perceptions will change based on their own background, age, gender, culture, schooling etc."
Your current lens is human and it may change depending on which country you were born into.
No there is not just "one lens", that is your bias talking again.
That lens supports slavery btw.
Still missed to reply to this point btw.
"What you are doing right now is asserting your morality on me."
NO I am not.
I am stating the fact that you prefer to obey orders of your god rather then follow your instincts of protecting your own child or even try to think or reason.
Obedience to your god comes first.
That is bad since Morality has nothing to do with it.
We call that slavery
You are just a slave to a totalitarian belief system.
Slavery of the mind where this monster you call god can convict you of thought crime.
The worst type of slavery ever imagined.
Morality has really nothing to do with the argument.
It is a choice you have been condition to do from birth.
You parents raped you mentally to accept this as a morally good thing which in reality it has nothing to do with morality at all.
Since morality has to do with understanding which requires thinking but you are refusing to even think,
Just obey like a good slave and servant.
Hi Jeff
I think you are losing your way because of all the long-winded posts. Therefore, let me give a quick rundown of some of the basics we need to stick to. This is not a response to your debate, I am just resetting the stage for our debate to continue. If you agree with the points I have listed below, kindly send me a confirmation, and then I will begin to respond to your arguments. If there are any points you disagree with, let me know. I think it’s important that we settle this, before we proceed further.
1. We are NOT debating the moral precepts here at all. For example, we are not debating if homosexuality is right or wrong. Or drinking alcohol is right or wrong. I had mentioned that in one of my earlier posts.
2. What we are debating is the foundation from which we draw those morals. Your foundation is ‘Reasoning’ and my foundation is ‘Islam.’ If you can prove that ‘Reasoning’ is a feasible method for drawing moral values, then all that you consider as moral becomes valid. If I can prove that ‘Islam’ is a feasible method for drawing moral values, then all that Islam puts forth as morally right is true (including slavery, though I will explain Islam’s real position on it later).
3. I was trying to prove that if you go by “Reasoning’ morality will change with time, space, culture etc. From what I understand, you AGREE with me on that.
4. You are now trying to show that the moral positions in Islam have also been changing with time, culture etc. I have not agreed with you on that point so far.
5. If we try to undermine each other’s moral foundation (Reasoning/Islam), by attacking a moral precept (homosexuality, prostitution etc) it would be like begging the question, or in other words it’s like presenting as proof the very points we are debating.
Kindly, let me know if you agree on these points, before we proceed.
1. Agree that we are not debating them itself but some things have to be used as a bases of comparison.
You are hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.
2."What we are debating is the foundation from which we draw those morals."
What you seem to lack understanding is that there is no foundation, there are just comparisons between better or worse depending on an ongoing accumulation of knowledge and experience.
From those comparisons you build your morality.
3. we agree
4. Islam have also been changing with time
The fact that there are so many variations and different interpretation that came from a single source proves that time has changed Islam. There is no debate here.
You have absolutely no better claim for your version of islam then most others.
The arrogance in thinking that your version is the right one is pure arrogance.
5. there is no foundation, reasoning is just reason, a tool, it has nothing to do with morals itself.
Reason is used for many other things, you are mixing an ability with a foundation.
Only when you use reason to compare 2 actions you can build your morality.
You have claimed things but not supported them.
Who told you that there is a foundation for morality?
Let me make you an analogy of how ridiculous this foundation idea of yours sounds:
Let us compare Morality with Taste.
I am saying that taste is an ongoing understanding of reality that is built with time.
So if we have been eating shit all the time and variations of shit like; backed shit, sun dried shit, cow shit, bull shit, etc...
Our understanding of taste is mostly shit right now.
If suddenly someone tastes an apple for the first time, the apple is better compared to most of the other shit.
You come alone and claim that comparing Taste like that has no solid FOUNDATION and that foundation of taste comes from a BIG HOLY SHIT just because a book says so.
From this Holy Shit that you cannot even prove it exists is where our understanding of Taste comes from.
Seriously you can apply any argument you want and declare that it has a foundation, but in reality you are just inventing it.
You need to first show that a foundation exists first before claiming it as if it is a fact.
Jeff,
Therefore you agree with all my points but for the idea of a foundation for morality. Maybe foundation is not the right word to use. Let me explain it: you are saying that morality can be derived from rational understanding of reality. That, according to me, is your foundation. If you don't like the word foundation, may be we can call it 'Axiom' or 'Principle' or whatever you like. Whereas I am saying that you can decide moral questions through a holy book. This is my moral "Axiom', or "Principle" or whatever you like.
What we are debating is: "Which of these two axioms or principles or whatever you like is more feasible to arrive at moral conclusions."
To borrow your Shit example: We are NOT debating if shit is tastier or Apple is tastier. We are only trying to find out on what basis we can decide good taste. It could be based on tradition (what everybody likes to eat can be termed as tasty). It could be based on a study of neural excitement in the brains (if shit lights up more neurons its tastier, if apple lights up more then it's tastier). It could be based on the words of the greatest chef in the world. Etc.
While we are trying to decide which of these methods is most suitable to decide good taste, it would be pointless to say things like 'Your shit is yucky, therefore your basis to find good taste is useless. That would be begging the question."
Hope my point is clear. Do you agree on this? If yes, then i will begin answering your questions one by one (including the changing morality in Islam and things like that).
"Therefore you agree with all my points"
I only agreed with 1 and 3 so if you want to say that is all your points, fine with me.
"you are saying that morality can be derived from rational understanding of reality"
That is part of the definition of morality
'morality IS built from an ongoing rational understanding of reality', is more precise.
"That, according to me, is your foundation."
What you are missing is that it is the definition of the comparing of 2 actions.
You cannot say that you understand that definition and then says something like:
"therefore your basis to find good taste is useless. That would be begging the question."
There is no begging the question Taste is different depending on the person and there is no foundation, it just is different every time and there is no 'Axiom' or 'Principle'.
That definition means that there is NO foundation, 'Axiom' or 'Principle' or whatever you like.
There cannot be if it is an ongoing understanding of reality.
Since it is constantly updating itself.
It is not a static thing, it is much much more.
it is superior in many ways.
The idea of a command by an entity being considered a moral "Axiom', or "Principle" is absurd.
It is just an order which a good slave and server must obey.
There is no morality with that, it is slavery.
Jeff
Okay you have agreed with points 1 and 3.
Points 2 and 5 are basically talking about the foundation of morality, which you DON’T agree with. So, I have taken it as one point.
Point 4 says that YOU are trying to show that moral positions in Islam also changes. And you agree with that, don’t you. And I am saying that it doesn’t change. This point is only reinstating our positions on the issue. I am not putting forth any argument. Why do you disagree with this point?
Therefore, as far as I can see, the only point of difference is that you don’t agree that morality can be derived from any foundation. And that’s the point I was trying to explain.
I thought you would get this without any explanation, that’s why I summed up your reply as meaning that you agree with all the points except the idea of a foundation. However, for your benefit, let me rephrase the points.
You AGREE with:
1. This debate is not about details of morality, such as drinking, homosexuality etc.
2. That by using reason, morality changes with time, place etc.
3. You say Islamic morality also changes with time, place etc.
You DISAGREE with:
1. The idea of a foundation for morality.
Now, let me explain the point you disagree with.
I don’t understand why you are dodging this point so much. Let me pare it down to even simpler terms. What I am trying to ask you is only this much: What is your method to find out if something is good or bad?
Are you saying you don’t have any method? Isn’t reasoning your method? Take for example, homosexuality. If you say that it’s not wrong, what method did you use to come to that judgment? This is my question.
If you ask me what method I use to make such decisions, I would say I get it using my holy book. This debate is about which METHOD is the best to arrive at moral conclusions.
It may be that your method will give different answers at different times. But your method will still remain the same.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR METHOD IS?
If you are still going to insist that there is no such thing as a method for your decisions of right and wrong, then it can only mean one thing: your method is random. You might as well toss a coin and decide what is right and what is wrong.
NOTE
This post does not put forth any argument. I am just trying to clarify our positions, so that we can proceed with the real debate. So, kindly, don’t take to attacking my “METHOD” in your reply. In your last post you said: “The idea of a command by an entity being considered a moral "Axiom', or "Principle" is absurd.” I know it sounds absurd to you and that’s the reasons we are debating. But before we launch into attacking each other’s positions, let’s first agree on what our positions are.
Jeff,
Therefore you agree with all my points but for the idea of a foundation for morality. Maybe foundation is not the right word to use. Let me explain it: you are saying that morality can be derived from rational understanding of reality. That, according to me, is your foundation. If you don't like the word foundation, may be we can call it 'Axiom' or 'Principle' or whatever you like. Whereas I am saying that you can decide moral questions through a holy book. This is my moral "Axiom', or "Principle" or whatever you like.
What we are debating is: "Which of these two axioms or principles or whatever you like is more feasible to arrive at moral conclusions."
To borrow your Shit example: We are NOT debating if shit is tastier or Apple is tastier. We are only trying to find out on what basis we can decide good taste. It could be based on tradition (what everybody likes to eat can be termed as tasty). It could be based on a study of neural excitement in the brains (if shit lights up more neurons its tastier, if apple lights up more then it's tastier). It could be based on the words of the greatest chef in the world. Etc.
While we are trying to decide which of these methods is most suitable to decide good taste, it would be pointless to say things like 'Your shit is yucky, therefore your basis to find good taste is useless. That would be begging the question."
Hope my point is clear. Do you agree on this? If yes, then i will begin answering your questions one by one (including the changing morality in Islam and things like that).
since you double posted, check my previos post as a reply to this.
Also why are you inventing the idea of an 'Axiom' or 'Principle' exists for Morality or taste.
"'Your shit is yucky, therefore your basis to find good taste is useless."
it is useless because you complety mixed up the meaning of the definition.
the definion actually means that there is no foundation.
You just wanted to assume that there is a foundation and then you assumed again that somehow the definition I gave is the foundation.
No wonder it makes no sens and becomes useless.
The foundation is a term you invented to explain a command being somehow morality.
there is no basis for this and you have not supported this obsurd claim.
How is a command or and order by god become a foundation, "Axiom', or "Principle"?
A command is a comand and is not an "Axiom', or "Principle".
You made a stupid assumption and then you wonder why things do not make sens when you make even more stupid assumptions mixed with it.
Though I know where the term foundation comes from:
"God is your foundation" is a nice expression right?
This is a typical example where one builds his own reality based on the conclusion instead of following where the evidence leads.
You even used the same word to explain something that does not exists.
Prove that a foundation or "Axiom', or "Principle" exists for Taste and it is not different depending on the person, then and only then you can try to apply it to morality.
An other thing is that without knowing you are introducing the idea of objective morality since foundation "Axiom', or "Principle" are terms derived from and objective source.
When my definition is saying that morality is subjective.
When you said that you consider my definition as my foundation you are actually saying that:
Subjective morality is Objective Morality.
No wonder you keep repeating that I am begging the question.
The ongoing understanding of reality means that it is subjective to new knowledge.
This is done by constantly comparing actions to determine which is worse or better at a particular point in time.
Then when new knowledge comes in, the comparison is done again.
That is why it is an ONGOING understanding of reality and not done once like your invented god which is stuck with slavery.
Just like Taste it is subjective to the person.
I chose Taste for an example because it magnifies the Subjectivity of the argument where it is less complex and more evident then morality.
You simply cannot accept the fact that morality is subjective and not objective.
The term Objective, "Axiom', or "Principle" Foundation simply do not exist in the realm of morality or Taste since it is subjective, ever changing with time/knowledge.
I saw this post after i replied to your first post. Please read that reply. I think it answers everything.
I will post my reply at the end of this bracket of replies since this is getting too narrow.
1. This debate is not about details of morality, such as drinking, homosexuality etc.
Agree
2. That by using reason, morality changes with time, place etc.
NO, by using reason+knowledge+comparisons morality changes with time, place, person, etc....
3. You say Islamic morality also changes with time, place etc.
NO, Islamic morality does not exist, Islamic slaves that think that they are dictated unchanging morality also changes with time.
1. The idea of a foundation for morality.
"I don’t understand why you are dodging this point so much."
I do not think you have the right to lie about me dodging this point after putting an entire wall of text trying to explain it to you.
You are the one dodging all the question I asked about this point.
"What is your method to find out if something is good or bad?"
Which part of this phrase didn't you get?
An ongoing understanding of reality that gives me a moral guideline of what is good or bad when I compare things to it.
eg:
Eternal torture is worse then dying, So I can conclude that if working 2 hrs more is better then dying then working 2 hrs more is better then eternal torture.
I build my morality this way but it may actually change depending on new knowledge.
That is the method and can be summed up as:
An ongoing understanding of reality.
"If you are still going to insist that there is no such thing as a method"
I never said so, so take that back, I said there is no such thing as Objective method that requires a foundation.
This has nothing to do with anything objective or a foundation, it is not my fault if you are confused about this matter.
"This post does not put forth any argument."
It does, you claimed a bunch of things that I said where in reality I did not say them, and then made conclusion on them.
I'm just replying to those.
You did the same when you claimed that a foundation exists as a fact when you demonstrated no evidence or logic that supports such a claim. Then use that fact(assumption/claim) to support the idea that my definition is also a foundation.
Thus you could insert an other wrong assumption that an order or command is somehow a foundation too.
It is not possible to make any discussion if you got so many basics wrong. This is not a matter of position, it is a matter of agreeing on basic concepts first.
Like do we both speak English? etc...
It is imperative for me to point out the major flaws in your logic to have a meaningful debate.
If we cannot even agree on what I said because you are misinterpreting things it is a major flaw I must point out.
Jeff
Thanks. Now, I think there is greater clarity. Therefore, let me sum up the points we agree.
1. This debate is not about details of morality, such as drinking, homosexuality etc.
2. Using reason+knowledge+comparisons morality changes with time, place, person, etc....
3. The so called Islamic morality (which according to you does not exist, and which according to me exists) also changes with time.
4. Your method for making moral decisions is "An ongoing understanding of reality."
If you agree on the above points, we will proceed. Please confirm.
By the way the 3rd point I think needs to be modified for greater clarity.
3. The Islamic morality changes with time (according to you) and does not change with time (according to me).
(I do accept that according to you Islamic morality does not exist, just as an atheist morality does not exist in my view)
You said that we are only stating what I said so you have no right to accept or refuse anything.
stop arguing on what I said or claimed.
I claim that Islamic morality does not exist.
You just have to accept that I claimed it.
it does not mean that you agree on it.
One thing is sure No. 3 is wrong.
"3.The Islamic morality changes with time (according to you) and does not change with time (according to me)."
I am not claiming that "Islamic morality changes with time" since I do not think it exists.
Islamic theology changed with time.
Morality has nothing to do with it, morality comes from humans.
Islamic theology changed with time.
In the theology there is the absurd idea that god can dictate a static moral code.
Which I claim changed with time.
It is not Islamic morality but it is Islamic theology.
There is no such thing as Islamic morality but there is an Islamic static dictated moral code that has changed with time.
Fine Jeff. In that case I will take out point number three. Do we agree on the following?
1. This debate is not about details of morality, such as drinking, homosexuality etc.
2. Using reason+knowledge+comparisons morality changes with time, place, person, etc....
3. Your method for making moral decisions is "An ongoing understanding of reality."
Yea I agree with those but no 2 is a very stupid way of describing no 3.
basically they are the same thing.
So I agree with no 1 and no 3 and think no 2 is not needed.
Fine. In that case we fully agree with points 1 and 3. To sum up.
1. This debate is not about moral precepts such as homosexuality etc.
2. Your method of making moral decisions is "An ongoing understanding of reality."
Before we proceed, I would also like to clarify one more point. You agreed that your method is subjective. By that what I understand is that "When two people, A and B, apply your "Method" to find out the morally correct position on a given subject in a given situation, there is a chance that they can come up with two different answers. Yet, there would be no way to ascertain which of the two positions in more correct."
Do you agree with my understanding of 'Subjectivity"?
Agree on 1 and 2.
In your "one more point" you are correct here; "there is a chance that they can come up with two different answers."
But you are completly incorrect here:
"there would be no way to ascertain which of the two positions in more correct."
"An ongoing understanding of reality." is based on knowledge and logic so in most cases there are ways to ascertain which position is better.
Whoever has a position must support it with logic and evidence, thus the one who has more of those is more likely to to have a better position.
This is the bases of science.
If there is a way to ascertain which of the two positions is more accurate then it is not subjective. Remember, your example of taste. If person A likes the taste of orange, and person B likes the taste of apple, there's really no way to tell which of the two tastes is better.
On the contrary, say we are doing math. You ask the question, what is 1 + 1. A says it is 2. B says it is 3. These are two opinions. But if we can ascertain through mathamatical logic that A is right and B is wrong, then it is OBJECTIVE. Not subjective.
Waiting for your response
Are you forcing me to insult you again or what?
Why do you think the food competitions exists?
Yes, there are ways to say which food tastes better.
"there's really no way to tell which of the two tastes is better."
It is wrong, there are ways.
"If there is a way to ascertain which of the two positions is more accurate then it is not subjective. "
Seriously man subjective morality does not mean that one cannot find a better position between 2 positions, what are you drinking?
It is about find the best between 2 positions, quite the opposite of the nonsense you just said.
It is just based on levels of logic, knowledge and evidence instead of an assertion of authority of a dictator like your god.
There is no absolute though, no objective taste/morality.
There are cases where one just cannot tell but to say something like;
" there's really no way to tell which of the two tastes is better" on any scenario like you asserted originally is a very arrogant and stupid claim.
Maths is objective, no one said it wasn't. We are talking on Morality and Taste.
No one claimed that Objectivity does not exists but that there is no evidence to suggest that objective morality/Taste exists.
Don't make me insult you again, you seriously try my patience with your incredibly stupid claims.
"When two people, A and B, apply your "Method" to find out the morally correct position on a given subject in a given situation, there is a chance that they can come up with two different answers. Yet, there would be no way to ascertain which of the two positions in more correct."
Here you are saying that when using my method on every scenario when people come up with 2 different positions there is no way to find the one which is more correct.
which is completely wrong.
There are ways but not always that is why it is subjective.
There is a time when there is no way to tell but in most cases there is.
EG' deciding between killing 1 brother or an other brother is a problematic moral dilemma.
but deciding between killing one loving brother or killing 2 murderers is a much more easy choice.
Still it is subjective to the person but with the right knowledge, logic and evidence one can agree that saving your brother by killing 2 murderers is a better of 2 evil deeds where no other option is available.
There is no objectivity though, there might be a case where with the right knowledge and logic the position of killing your brother might be a better moral position.
Like for example, your brother is infected with a disease (will die soon) and if left alive can infect the entire world with a deadly disease.
In that case with the new knowledge, the better moral position is to kill your brother then killing some random 2 murderers.
(still subjective to the person feelings but the good moral person will most likely take that choice)
Pages