tommyc

Evidently the bot has not been programmed to respond to a challenge to its existence as a human.

tommyc

I think the most interesting argument on the subject of morality in the "Atheist Worldview" which Ed has presented is his
little trap which attempts to force the atheist debater into choosing between losing the argument and therefore admitting in
a higher divine morality, or admitting that one is on the same moral level as Hitler.

In my opinion, the question which Ed Posed:

is an entirely valid leap from the arguments presented before the point he asked it.

I think Mark_child adressed this topic well here:

My personal view is that if you accept there is no objective morality, then on a very base level, you can't blame anyone
for how they live there life. If you are born a rapist or murderer, then that's just bad luck, because you will find later in
life that when you pursue your "hobby" (sorry if thats insensitiv, I just thought it was apt), people will label you evil and
you will be punished by society, because you are harming society as a whole. Now even I will say that these people are
"evil", but that's because I have the same prejudices and hatred for people who seek to ruin society, even though when it
comes down to it, its not really their fault. Of course, it is a good thing that we see these people as evil and punish them, because most people would like to live in a safer society. I would also add that there are some problems with this argument if you
believe in free will, but I don't think that's an issue for most people on the board.

To Sum up: Yes I am on the same objective moral level as Hitler, rapists, child molsesters, but luckily Im not going to get locked up because hopefully my pursuits do not damage the people who haev the power to lock me up.

Ed

Hello tommy. Thanks for the response. It appears that nogo and starboy have wimped out and left the premises. So now I can discuss this with you.

Quote:

tc: In my opinion, the question which Ed Posed: is an entirely valid leap from the arguments presented before the point he asked it.

Thank you.

Quote:

tc: I think Mark_child adressed this topic well here: My personal view is that if you accept there is no objective morality, then on a very base level, you can't blame anyone for how they live there life. If you are born a rapist or murderer, then that's just bad luck, because you will find later in life that when you pursue your "hobby" (sorry if thats insensitiv, I just thought it was apt), people will label you evil and you will be punished by society, because you are harming society as a whole. Now even I will say that these people are "evil", but that's because I have the same prejudices and hatred for people who seek to ruin society, even though when it comes down to it, its not really their fault. Of course, it is a good thing that we see these people as evil and punish them, because most people would like to live in a safer society. I would also add that there are some problems with this argument if you believe in free will, but I don't think that's an issue for most people on the board. To Sum up: Yes I am on the same objective moral level as Hitler, rapists, child molsesters, but luckily Im not going to get locked up because hopefully my pursuits do not damage the people who haev the power to lock me up.

Thanks for the honesty tommy. But my primary point was not to say that most atheists are on the same moral level as Hitler, and in fact I dont think that. My point is that their behavior is irrational given that they don't have an rational basis for acting morally superior to Hitler or condemning him. You are confirming this by saying that you are punishing people that don't deserve to be punished and have not really done anything really wrong. Don't you think that is irrational and unjust?

tommyc

bah, maybe they’re on holiday
Ah yes, your point is that we aren’t on the same moral level as Hitler, because in your opinion there is an objective morality and (hopefully) you would rate me a little higher on the morality stakes. In fact, I am the one who is stating we are on an equal moral level (well actually I’m saying there is no level, but I think you know what I mean).
Well, on the point of it being unjust, we run into yet further difficulties, because in my mind (Im not going to speak for all atheists here as we are a mixed bunch), there is no divine justice, no ultimate authority. The standards most people expect of everyone else are defined by the society of the time. As I don’t believe in true free-will I can’t really blame anyone for what they do, but unfortunately I am not perfect and we all have feelings of revulsion towards people who harm society the most and we wish to punish them for it. Now that may be unjust on a completely objective level, but I certainly wouldn’t call it irrational.

Sure, it’s not the person’s “fault” they committed the crime, but in the interest of public safety they need to be locked away. Again, it may sound unjust from the viewpoint of an “atheist worldview”, but it’s perfectly rational in my mind for a society to protect themselves.

I hope you can understand that an atheist doesn’t need a God to tell him not to kill. He knows killing is bad because he empathises with other human beings, such as the victims family. He has been taught that killing is bad by his parents (whose advice you tend to take as gospel as they generally give you the information you need to survive), and hopefully he realises that acts such as murder and theft are detrimental to society, and most of us prefer to live in a safe environment. And for people who don’t have the benefit of this knowledge, there is prison. Unjust perhaps, but not irrational. Again, if you don’t believe in ultimate justice, then you can’t be unjust.

Ed

Absurd. Inaction for an omnipotent being is actually of greater significance than action. And not doing something to stop an evil deed for a greater good is totally unlike actively committing an evil deed. For example, say a man strapped with a highly sensitive bomb starts strangling someone in a crowded mall. By trying to stop him from strangling the person you could set off the bomb so in order to stop thousands from gettting killed you may have to let him kill that one person.

beyelzu

i would just like to say that i have spent the last couple of hours reading every post. and if i wasnt already an atheist i would definitely be one now. between nogo and jtb's searing attacks and the many biblical contradictions, or maybe its ed's complete inability to answer any question directly. regardless, ed's insistence that believing in an imaginary being who says go out and murder people and take the virgins as slaves as a basis for a rational worldview is just hilarious. never before, have i seen such a dogged and futile defense of christianity. it really was quite amusing. and i must say that sadly ed is the quintessential christian, with his head buried in the sand

xeren

How does God allowing a hurricane to pass through the Eastern Seaboard, decimating entire towns, ruining and ending lives fit into your equation? What greater good does that bring?

xeren

xeren

I'm sorry, i don't want to read through this entire thread, so can anyone tell me, has anyone brought up good ol' Socrates' argument: "Is something pious because it is god-loved, or God-loved because it is pious?" argument yet?

beyelzu

nah the socrates argument you mentioned hasnt been brought up

lots of good debate material for the bible thumping christian though

Starboy

A very cheap trick Ed. You don't answer my posts and then you accuse me of wimping out. Oh the Christianity of it all.

Starboy