Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Read these recently on another website, thought they were pretty interesting food for thought... for those inclined.

• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?

• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of ob ...[text shortened]... ry? Why can't it simply be ignored? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?

• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the Big Bang really spew forth “love your enemy?”

Who says there is such a thing as a set of "objective moral values"? You? Do Klingons believe in "love your enemy"?

You're asking everyone to gather 'round the camp fire and explain how something that arguably does not even exist could have come into existence by purely physical means. You see the problem, I hope.

• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?

You could ask the same of thought itself, or even consciousness, and it would be less loaded and possibly more interesting.

• What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory?

By itself? Nothing. Nothing at all. Morality has weight and exercises authority over the behavior of individuals only in the context of a specific society that observes a particular moral code of conduct.

Originally posted by JS357
"I was pointing out Atheist only have themselves..."

What haven't you ruled out, as a moral guide? It's a sincere question.

I do not follow your question. What haven't I ruled out, what do you mean?
Kelly

Originally posted by Soothfast
I'm having trouble with the construction of this statement. What does "true beyond the...desires of man" even mean?

Anyway, good luck with that search for the Absolute Frame of Reference of Morality. Determinism went out with aethereal aether sometime shortly after the turn of the last century.

Rules of good behavior are either real or not, they are either timeless or not.
If they are not timeless, if they can be changed on dime, than we are not at
all talking about timeless rules. With God man does not get to change today
what was true yesterday, or accept something as true for another, and not
one's self to the same standard. God turns the selfish standards of man into
what it really is a falsehood.
Kelly

Originally posted by Soothfast
Ah, so now you're back to talking about morality, after trading several posts with me about issues that are not the least bit relevant to morality. So you don't want to talk about "complexity" anymore, and defend your thesis that "no thing created can ever be more complex than its creator"...? You're the one who brought it up, my good fellow.

I'm sure ...[text shortened]... just happens. If it didn't, this thread probably would have become extinct eons ago.

Ah, so now you're back to talking about morality, after trading several posts with me about issues that are not the least bit relevant to morality.
Ah, so you're the type that adds superfluous two-letter words that bring nothing to the conversation other than to convey your imagined position of superiority. Interesting.

The several traded posts were a diversion to the main topic, thus my preference to get things back on track. The thread wasn't created with a mind to bring sundry topics into play; it was intended to discuss the concepts found in the OP. That being said, I stand by my statement as put forth, namely, that the complexity derives from the ingredients within--- not from magic or any other force acting upon the object.

If it didn't, this thread probably would have become extinct eons ago.
I see that you fancy yourself an academic/learned person, throwing around such sophisticated sounding phrases, but you have a tendency to overreach your grasp of the basics my good fellow. While any thread on this (or other forums) is subject to an eventual lack of interest, none of them can actually cease to exist: they're all part of the permanent record. And as far as determining how long ago interest would have waned, it is beyond a stretch to think that a thread only two weeks old could have 'eon' applied to it with any meaning other than exaggeration.

But, you probably already knew that, dintcha?

Originally posted by Soothfast

• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the Big Bang really spew forth “love your enemy?”

Who says there is such a thing as a set of "objective moral values"? You? Do Klingons believe in "love your enemy"?

You're asking everyone to gather 'round the camp fire and explain how something ...[text shortened]... nly in the context of a specific society that observes a particular moral code of conduct.

Who says there is such a thing as a set of "objective moral values"?
So your answer to the question is: there are no objective moral values. I'm sure in your hermetically-sealed thought vacuum such a world exists, but here in the real world that everyone else moves and lives in, such a stance looks a touch cuckoo.

Do Klingons believe in "love your enemy"?
Which episode?

Are you serious? This is how you engage others in thought? What a douche bag!

You could ask the same of thought itself, or even consciousness, and it would be less loaded and possibly more interesting.
Oh. I get it now: you really don't get it, do you? Thought is neutral, possessing no value one way or another--- kinda like emotion. Intention is another thing, but that's another discussion. Morals demand weighted values, thus the interesting nature of the question. Do pull your head out and either discuss the topic or tell me to simply shag off, won't you?

By itself? Nothing. Nothing at all. Morality has weight and exercises authority over the behavior of individuals only in the context of a specific society that observes a particular moral code of conduct.
Crap. Name a society--- hell, I'll even let you use your Klingons--- that values cowardice. Tell us of a culture, real or imagined, that considers acting with malfeasance toward other members of its society as praiseworthy.

Now that you've exhausted your silly little third grade games, either engage or let the thread become extinct.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not follow your question. What haven't I ruled out, what do you mean?
Kelly

Let me state in in a more positive way. I was responding to "I actually agree completely! People will use whatever they can find that justifies their desires, religion, their views of basic fairness, passed crimes from people who lived a hundred years ago, whatever it takes. I was pointing out Atheist only have themselves, but even theist will bend whatever they can to their desires to suit themselves. Only a standard that comes from a greater source than mankind can be true beyond the warped desires of man."

What is the greater source and how do we learn its standard, in your opinion?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Are you serious? This is how you engage others in thought? What a douche bag!

Are you serious? This is how you engage others in thought?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

I see that you fancy yourself an academic/learned person, throwing around such sophisticated sounding phrases...

And I'm sure there's some 4-year-old out there that would fancy you to be sophisticated sounding.

Or at least, there's a possible rebuttal for you, intended to get you thinking about why you should find my rather prosaic prose to be "sophisticated sounding". Take a toke and ruminate on that, because if your brow were any lower your could use it as a deck broom.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Crap. Name a society--- hell, I'll even let you use your Klingons--- that values cowardice. Tell us of a culture, real or imagined, that considers acting with malfeasance toward other members of its society as praiseworthy.

I bring up the Klingons because they're a widely recognized alien culture -- fictional, yes, but we know of no real ones yet. And my point is that an alien culture (such as the Klingons) may not cleave to the "love thy enemy" moral imperative that you find in your bible (and which, I might add, you hardly practice yourself as evidenced by your behavior on this forum!)

As for "cowardice," well, the problem here is that different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes cowardice. Among the Quakers pacifism is paramount, and so refusing military service is not considered cowardice at all. Among a large segment of the general population, however, "draft dodging" was considered the height of cowardice in the 60's and early 70's. And again, even if we found some kind of moral value that seems consistent among all human societies, what would we do if we encountered an extraterrestrial civilization tomorrow that does not share those same values? You better hope E.T. never phones home or you're likely to find your comfy little preconceptions scrambling for cover like chickens with their heads cut off.

Originally posted by JS357
Let me state in in a more positive way. I was responding to "I actually agree completely! People will use whatever they can find that justifies their desires, religion, their views of basic fairness, passed crimes from people who lived a hundred years ago, whatever it takes. I was pointing out Atheist only have themselves, but even theist will bend whatever th ...[text shortened]... ires of man."

What is the greater source and how do we learn its standard, in your opinion?

I believe you may be thinking that I hold the view that Atheist and Theist are
quiet different types of people, I do not. People are people the Atheist only
has them to look at nothing more, Theist can twist the words of God,
gods, or god to suit them. Bottom line with God there is a static moral
judge that is not going to be swayed by popular opinions, by today's human
views, by whatever we throw at Him, He will judge everyone justify.

One of the scariest verses in scripture for us all is whatever judgment we use
on others will be the used on us. So whenever you see someone condemning
another they better be walking righteously before God and man on that topic.

How we learn is simple, we go to the source, we ask God to lead us and teach
us. You can always go to another man and ask their opinions because we all
have them, some people's opinions you get to hear even if you didn't ask for
them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe you may be thinking that I hold the view that Atheist and Theist are
quiet different types of people, I do not. People are people the Atheist only
has them to look at nothing more, Theist can twist the words of God,
gods, or god to suit them. Bottom line with God there is a static moral
judge that is not going to be swayed by popular opinions ...[text shortened]...
have them, some people's opinions you get to hear even if you didn't ask for
them.
Kelly

The problem with that is today's society and civilization has advanced in a million ways that would be incomprehensible to the ancient ones who made the bible. Today we have moral dilemma's that way exceed the power of the bible or any religion to resolve.

We may need a 'power greater than ourselves' to give moral leadership but what if that power becomes silicon instead of god? I am talking about the 'singularity' in computer power that may exceed human intelligence in the next 30 to 50 years.

What would happen if we followed hyper intelligent computer guidance in terms of morality?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem with that is today's society and civilization has advanced in a million ways that would be incomprehensible to the ancient ones who made the bible. Today we have moral dilemma's that way exceed the power of the bible or any religion to resolve.

We may need a 'power greater than ourselves' to give moral leadership but what if that power becom ...[text shortened]... What would happen if we followed hyper intelligent computer guidance in terms of morality?

You assume the Bible or the power of it is limited to the faith people put into
it if I understand you. If that is all it is, than okay we are on our own and we
cannot stay true to the things we say we believe in.

I have no faith in silicon solving any moral problems! Think about that, what
you are really saying that we need to trust in the work of our own hands,
something we build with silicon, to stop our head from moral errors seems a bit
laughable to me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume the Bible or the power of it is limited to the faith people put into
it if I understand you. If that is all it is, than okay we are on our own and we
cannot stay true to the things we say we believe in.

I have no faith in silicon solving any moral problems! Think about that, what
you are really saying that we need to trust in the work of o ...[text shortened]... g we build with silicon, to stop our head from moral errors seems a bit
laughable to me.
Kelly

Just posing it as an alternative to the war strewn nature of religion with its thousands of separate moral codes. Which one is the true one? I'm sure you will answer in such and such a way, and Hindu's another, and Rastafarians will just grab a big joint, but you are all as full of shyte as a christmas turkey.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]WTF are you talking about?
The same thing I've been saying since the opening thread. The atheist who claims that existence is a result of itself--- materialism--- has no way of categorizing or in any other meaningful and consistent way describing what a moral value is.

For the atheist who refuses to discuss origins [hidden]taking the position i ...[text shortened]... existence.

Or do you think God's existence is simply at bottom a brute fact?
I do.[/b]

The same thing I've been saying since the opening thread. The atheist who claims that existence is a result of itself--- materialism--- has no way of categorizing or in any other meaningful and consistent way describing what a moral value is.

Is that what you have been saying? I'm afraid I honestly do not even really know what you mean. I have asked for clarification more than once in this thread, and you just do not seem to accommodate. I like arguments a lot and I tend to take them seriously; but I'm afraid I do not understand what your actual argument is. In fact, I'm not even convinced thus far that you actually have one.

For the atheist who refuses to discuss origins...

I think it's just painfully bizarre how you appear to think that the atheist needs to furnish some detailed view on cosmological origins in order to describe what he thinks a moral value is. There are, in fact, many atheists who do not think there is much by way of warranted beliefs regarding cosmological origins, and yet who have very considered and detailed views on morality and such. Are these people just hopelessly confused or something?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The thing[hidden]existence[/hidden] cannot be both the thing and the thing outside of itself. Our study of time insists that all of this matter started at a single point in the past, therefore, existence could not have created itself.

Only one entity known to man[hidden]via revelation[/hidden] has claimed properties of an existence outside of this exis ...[text shortened]... arious methods and medium in the past in ways which are at least comprehensible.

I like that.

Only one entity known to manReveal Hidden Content

via revelation

has claimed properties of an existence outside of this existence, namely, God. The fabric of His being is something other than what we find in this existence, although He has manifested Himself to us using various methods and medium in the past in ways which are at least comprehensible.

This is all painfully bizarre as well. Not sure what to make of any of this. Frankly, it all sounds quite vague and lacking in real substance. It also sounds quite arbitrary; what are the evidential considerations for any of this? Anyway, regardless, is this what helps the theist describe what a moral value is? I'm afraid I still don't get what your actual argument is.