Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Llyricist · 06-24-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Perhaps you should read it before asserting that it says something significant.

I DID read it, you are the one that said you partially skimmed it, and backed up the impression you gave by ignoring the substantive points made therein and only addreessing the small points.

Quote:

Because they presume to speak authoritatively about the nature and meaning of human experience. Because they claim to be able to comprehensively understand the full scope of human existence based on materialism alone. Because morality, as a concept, is clearly not material.

And this has to do with "explain morality as a transcendent , immaterial entity?" exactly how?
Concepts are not entities, as much as theologists would like to claim they are.

Quote:

That's odd. I just issued a challenge and you poo-pooed it.

no you asked a question about morality as a transcendent, immaterial entity..... I wanted a go at the idea of "Objective moral Standards" which is indeed quite well dealt with in the aforementioned post, that you didn't bother READING it is YOUR problem.

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
I DID read it, you are the one that said you partially skimmed it, and backed up the impression you gave by ignoring the substantive points made therein and only addreessing the small points.

Well, if you read it so thoroughly, you should have no difficulty in quoting the sections which demonstrate that my assessment was wrong, i.e., that it doesn't establish or explain an objective moral standard based on atheistic/materialism.
If you do so, I'll admit I was mistaken - that would be a novelty on these boards.

this has to do with "explain morality as a transcendent , immaterial entity?" exactly how?

No, it has to do with my initial post about the article to which you responded. I asserted that it did not deal with an objective atheistic moral standard. I asserted that it could not be done.

cepts are not entities, as much as theologists would like to claim they are.

They're not? Then what are they? Have you ever seen a concept; handled one; tasted, smelled or heard one?

It is an entity which exists independent of any specific belief system. Atheists believe in morality and so do theists. The difference is, Christians can explain how such an entity can exist; atheists cannot.

no you asked a stion about morality as a transcendent, immaterial entity..... I wanted a go at the idea of "Objective moral Standards" which is indeed quite well dealt with in the aforementioned post, that you didn't bother READING it is YOUR problem.

Well, here's your change - again. Have at it.

theophilus · 06-24-2003, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Your question assumes without argument that a transcendent, immaterial entity is required for morality to exist. That would need to be demonstrated before your question would be germane.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

No, I am stating that the idea of morality, by its nature, IS a transcendent, immaterial entity.

As a Christian, I can explain that; I'm just asking some of these hot-shot materrialists to explain it from a purely naturalistic basis.
They all say they can but, so far, haven't done so.

If they can't then they should either abandon any talk about "evil" in the world or admit that they are actually operating on my worldivew.

It's always nice when you decide to "pop" in.

Llyricist · 06-24-2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Well, if you read it so thoroughly, you should have no difficulty in quoting the sections which demonstrate that my assessment was wrong, i.e., that it doesn't establish or explain an objective moral standard based on atheistic/materialism.

And the point of the post, which blew right on by your head, was that there is no such thing as an "objective" moral standard

Any more than the distance of a foot is a standard dictated by a higher power, or is somehow "objective" and not merely a standard agreed to by humans. Any more than any shape whose outline is always the same distance from a central point is "objectively" a circle.

Bill Snedden · 06-24-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
No, I am stating that the idea of morality, by its nature, IS a transcendent, immaterial entity.

Well, that doesn't relaly explain why a transcendent, immaterial entity is necessary for morality, but it does render your question somewhat easier to answer.

"Morality" is an abstract concept. It is therefore, by definition, transcendent (in the sense of individual humans) and immaterial.

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
As a Christian, I can explain that; I'm just asking some of these hot-shot materrialists to explain it from a purely naturalistic basis.
They all say they can but, so far, haven't done so.

See above. Glad I could be of assistance...

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
If they can't then they should either abandon any talk about "evil" in the world or admit that they are actually operating on my worldivew.

Well, no. You would first need to answer the question I posed: why is a transcendent, immaterial entity required for morality to exist.

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
It's always nice when you decide to "pop" in.

Hmmm...thanks?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Normal · 06-24-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
And the point of the post, which blew right on by your head, was that there is no such thing as an "objective" moral standard
Any more than the distance of a foot is a standard dictated by a higher power, or is somehow "objective" and not merely a standard agreed to by humans. Any more than any shape whose outline is always the same distance from a central point is "objectively" a circle.

The point about objective morality is that it is not something that can be explained in a materialistic viewpoint. The distance of a foot is measureable as a function of matter. Morality is not measureable like this, ie. as a function of matter. Because of this, materialists have no basis for measuring the morality of someone who prefers to kill over someone who doesn't, because there is no objective morality to measure against. Thus, if you condemn someone who kills, you are "speaking for God".

Llyricist · 06-24-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

The distance of a foot is measureable as a function of matter. Morality is not measureable like this, ie. as a function of matter.

We aren't talking about how to measure, we are talking about the standard itself, a foot is not a foot because of some hard function of matter, it is a foot because it is the distance agreed upon by humans to call a foot. In the SAME way that Killing is wrong because it is agreed upon by humans to be wrong. Humans created, and agreed upon the standard, and that's what makes it in any way "objective" the same way a foot can be "objectively" called a foot. Because it is the agreed upon standard. Very simple actually.

Normal · 06-24-2003, 10:15 PM

And the measurement for the foot came from easily detectable standerds in measuring techniques. It was found as a product of matter.

Where did the standerd for killing being wrong come from?

Llyricist · 06-24-2003, 10:37 PM

Well we're in for a pound now to get this thread booted over to moral foundations, so what the heck

In my opinion, the "natural" tendency for humans not to harm eachother, at least within their own basic group, came about as an evolutionary advantage. Of course this came along with another tendency for animosity toward individuals from outside the group. The group in hunter gatherer times was probably no more than a few dozen individuals. But when agriculture and animal husbandry came along (the precursers to "civilization") and people started collecting in larger and larger groups, it became a practical problem of the natural animosities for people outside the smaller group being in such close proximity. It must now be remembered that these early societies were VERY dictatorial and higherarchical. And the leaders were probably VERY intellegent as compared to the common folk, and would realize it would be an advantage that people did not act on their natural animosity within the larger groups now collecting. So the morals were codified and enforced by the leadership. as time went on, more and more behaviors were found to be harmful to society as a whole, so more and more got codified....

No mystery, pure practicality.

Joe V. · 06-24-2003, 11:08 PM

Quote:

We believe God has spoken through his creation, in his word and by his Son.

And who told you all of this? Did God personally tell you? He certainly didn't tell me. Humans are the only ones who ever tell me this.

Quote:

If he has in fact spoken by these means, then what they say is authhoritative whether it is communicated directly to you or someone else repeats it to you.

Who are "they" and why do "they" have authority? Your god didn't tell me who he left in charge.

Quote:

Scripture says that all men do know God through his creation but supress this knowledge, i.e., refuse to acknowledge him, because of their sinful rebellion.

This would be really convincing if, as Jobar mentioned previously, all cultures throughout the world recognized God as the only god. If what you are saying is really true, then all those Native Americans were just in denial for hundreds of years.

Quote:

The question for you is how you know anything? How much of what you know have you presonally discovered? Have you personally experienced all the events which comprise your scope of knowledge? Have you personally tested and verified every scientific concept which you assume as part of your system?

How can I know anything? How can I know that the world I live in is really the world I live in? I want to be sure that I'm not crazy, that I'm not losing my mind. For all I know, there really are demons in the world and they're the ones who control everything I see, but why should I believe that? Wouldn't that just make me crazy?

Quote:

Most of what we believe is on the basis of what someone tells us. We believe or don't based on how credible we believe the source to be.

So what's the motiviation for mosttheists to tell me about their god? They (you) want me to be saved, right? But saved from what? An eternity in Hell? It sure sounds like a dire fate, but if you can't provide me with any evidence that I have an eternal soul, and that Heaven and Hell are the only possible destinations for my soul, what makes you think you have any credibility at all? What's to keep from concluding that you're just selling me snake oil? What conclusions can I make about your motivations now?

And what convinces you that you haven't bought snake oil?

- Joe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2003, 10:15 PM	#28
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	And the measurement for the foot came from easily detectable standerds in measuring techniques. It was found as a product of matter. Where did the standerd for killing being wrong come from?

06-24-2003, 10:37 PM	#29
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Well we're in for a pound now to get this thread booted over to moral foundations, so what the heck In my opinion, the "natural" tendency for humans not to harm eachother, at least within their own basic group, came about as an evolutionary advantage. Of course this came along with another tendency for animosity toward individuals from outside the group. The group in hunter gatherer times was probably no more than a few dozen individuals. But when agriculture and animal husbandry came along (the precursers to "civilization") and people started collecting in larger and larger groups, it became a practical problem of the natural animosities for people outside the smaller group being in such close proximity. It must now be remembered that these early societies were VERY dictatorial and higherarchical. And the leaders were probably VERY intellegent as compared to the common folk, and would realize it would be an advantage that people did not act on their natural animosity within the larger groups now collecting. So the morals were codified and enforced by the leadership. as time went on, more and more behaviors were found to be harmful to society as a whole, so more and more got codified.... No mystery, pure practicality.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.