Evil Bible Quote of the Day for July 14 (Foreigners Enslaved to Build Temples)
Editor of EvilBible.com
Foreigners Enslaved to Build Temples (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
"There were still some people living in the land who were not
Israelites,
including Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These
were descendants of the nations that Israel had not completely destroyed.
So Solomon conscripted them for his labor force, and they serve in the labor
force to this day. But Solomon did not conscript any of the Israelites for
forced labor. Instead, he assigned them to serve as fighting men,
government officials, officers in his army, commanders of his chariots, and
charioteers. He also appointed 550 of them to supervise the various
projects." (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:G4ednQTAjc0...@adelphia.com...
> Evil Bible Quote of the Day for July 14, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
>
> Foreigners Enslaved to Build Temples (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
>
> "There were still some people living in the land who were not
> Israelites,
> including Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These
> were descendants of the nations that Israel had not completely destroyed.
> So Solomon conscripted them for his labor force, and they serve in the
labor
> force to this day. But Solomon did not conscript any of the Israelites
for
> forced labor. Instead, he assigned them to serve as fighting men,
> government officials, officers in his army, commanders of his chariots,
and
> charioteers. He also appointed 550 of them to supervise the various
> projects." (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
And with that he built a *great* nation for him and *his* people. I think
that's just great. How about you Chris?
> What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
> myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Since you keep asking the question, Chris, how about if you tell us what
kind of a person this would be.
Scott
Levy Oates
<Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>I'm waiting for Duke's rationalisation of this one.
>
>Funny, how christians always declare morals to be absolute, but with
>the attrocities in the bible it's suddenly OK in that particular
>context.
Look you, it's perfectly simple. Solomon was a NICE slave owner and not at all
like that nasty pharoah who enslaved the Jews. Besides, it just goes to show how
much better YWHW is than everybody else's god. The Amorite and Hittite gods
couldn't even rustle up a plague or two, never mind organising a mass passover
slaughter. So you just start worshipping him, alright?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Jude & Sandra
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:EJcJc.15191$Da4....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
Scott, if a person told one group of people to go into another nation and
kill them because of their religious beliefs and take them for slaves we
would call that person EVIL.
>
>
Jude & Sandra
"Jude & Sandra" <Jud...@somewhere.usa> wrote in message
news:KXcJc.1$oG...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
P.S. Such a person would be like Saddam Hussein.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
> news:G4ednQTAjc0...@adelphia.com...
> > Evil Bible Quote of the Day for July 14, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
> >
> > Foreigners Enslaved to Build Temples (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
> >
> > "There were still some people living in the land who were not
> > Israelites,
> > including Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These
> > were descendants of the nations that Israel had not completely
destroyed.
> > So Solomon conscripted them for his labor force, and they serve in the
> labor
> > force to this day. But Solomon did not conscript any of the Israelites
> for
> > forced labor. Instead, he assigned them to serve as fighting men,
> > government officials, officers in his army, commanders of his chariots,
> and
> > charioteers. He also appointed 550 of them to supervise the various
> > projects." (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
>
> And with that he built a *great* nation for him and *his* people. I think
> that's just great.
You think racism, violent conquest, and slavery
are just great?
> How about you Chris?
>
> > What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book
of
> > myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and
plunder?
>
> Since you keep asking the question, Chris, how about if you tell us what
> kind of a person this would be.
The answer is pretty obvious: Evil people.
--
RB
aa#2187
Scott
"Jude & Sandra" <Jud...@somewhere.usa> wrote in message
news:KXcJc.1$oG...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
This is a running feud and am poking fun at Chris.
Chris is an atheist and materialist who somehow believes morals are
objective and that Evil is a fact.
Most atheists are moral subjectivist/relativist. If you don't understand
what that means, you should look it up.
Scott
Scott
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <jo...@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:94dJc.30017$SO5....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Is that a fact.......or just your opinion?
Scott
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
It see that you were just trying to bait Editor
into that old objective morality argument again.
Seeing as how you were disingenuous and that
I have heard your relative morality position before,
continuing this doesn't sound interesting.
--
RB
aa#2187
Scott
No I'm not baiting. I'm poking fun. I and an atheist already have a debate
going on in another thread with Chris that is not being cross-posted to a.a.
Scott
Editor of EvilBible.com
And Scott continues to lie and distort because he can't defend his
stupidity.
Icarus
> I and an atheist already
> have a debate going on in another thread with Chris that is
> not being cross-posted to a.a.
Given your track record, I'd recommend giving up now rather than
later, and saving everyone the time and bandwidth.
Just trying to be helpful ;-)
ChucklesPF
> No I'm not baiting. I'm poking fun.
You're not funny, you're really boring. You go on and on about
an obscure philosophical issue that nobody cares about.
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
Chris, both me and Silberstein are telling you the same thing and you keep
disagreeing with both our arguments. There is no way for you to logically
defend *your* argument for objective morals! Since Matt has made the same
point I have, is he stupid too?
Scott
Scott
"ChucklesPF" <Chuck...@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:jYgJc.94679$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
How'd you get out of my killfile?
<plonk>
Rick Merrill
You misunderstand: it reports the history and does not endorse the
evil. EVERY single 'hero' in the old testament was an s.o.b.:
moses: murder; noah: incest; etc.
Scott
"Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
news:2llk6hF...@uni-berlin.de...
Yea well, I happen to think Chris' kooky rationalizations are amazing ;-)
hughb...@yessiree.ca
On 14-Jul-2004, "Jude & Sandra" <Jud...@somewhere.usa> wrote:
> Scott, if a person told one group of people to go into another nation and
> kill them because of their religious beliefs and take them for slaves we
> would call that person EVIL.
Not necessarily. The official stand would depend on the interests of the
permenant members of the Security Council, and whoever has the rotating
seats that year. It could vary from 'not worth our time' ie. Sudan, 'bad for
business' ie. Iraq , or '*none* of your damn business' ie. Tibet.
What a (relatively) wonderful world.
H.
Editor of EvilBible.com
And the lies keep on coming.
Editor of EvilBible.com
"Rick Merrill" <RickM...@comTHROW.net> wrote in message
news:C4hJc.78227$a24.22745@attbi_s03...
Much of the Old Testament explicitly endorses these evil actions. Most of
the rest it condones. It rarely, if ever, condemns any of these evil
actions.
> EVERY single 'hero' in the old testament was an s.o.b.:
> moses: murder; noah: incest; etc.
I agree.
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:mZgJc.2265$O42....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > And Scott continues to lie and distort because he can't defend his
> > > stupidity.
> >
> > Chris, both me and Silberstein are telling you the same thing...
>
> And the lies keep on coming.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cr16f05dhvii1ribms5sor6io9ctumumca%404ax.com&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_bDIc.8012%24F_.3982%40newssvr23.news.prodigy.com&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sqJIc.14924%24TH3.11418%40newssvr24.news.prodigy.com&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4149859176d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=lcl7f0lsvgmuvmml28a4nhn4kbglhjik3a%404ax.com&rnum=54
pretty much the same thing. I'll sum it: a person can have a subjective
opinion/feeling about an objective fact. If you don't like some objective
act you can subjectively call it an 'evil'. There is no objective cause
creating the effect of an objective/factual evil accessible to rational
analysis. I don't care how many bodies you count.
Scott
Scott
"W. Syme" <Winston.Syme....@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:640b17a6e527f896...@news.1usenet.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:57:24 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
> >news:G4ednQTAjc0...@adelphia.com...
> >> Evil Bible Quote of the Day for July 14, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
> >>
> >> Foreigners Enslaved to Build Temples (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
> >>
> >> "There were still some people living in the land who were not
> >> Israelites,
> >> including Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.
These
> >> were descendants of the nations that Israel had not completely
destroyed.
> >> So Solomon conscripted them for his labor force, and they serve in the
> >labor
> >> force to this day. But Solomon did not conscript any of the Israelites
> >for
> >> forced labor. Instead, he assigned them to serve as fighting men,
> >> government officials, officers in his army, commanders of his chariots,
> >and
> >> charioteers. He also appointed 550 of them to supervise the various
> >> projects." (1 Kings 9:20-23 NLT)
> >
> >And with that he built a *great* nation for him and *his* people. I think
> >that's just great. How about you Chris?
>
> enslaving people. Xtianity, on the other hand, has a history of
> defending the slavetrade.
I take relatively good care of my slaves.
A world without slavery is not *more* moral than a world with slavery. For
this statement to be false, morality would have to be objective since there
is no truth-values in subjective morality. That you *like* one over the
other is only a matter of personal opinion.
Scott
ChuucklesPf
> How'd you get out of my killfile?
> <plonk>
It's simple, you pathetic pedantic pissant, I dropped a character in my
handle.
William
Is there any other?
William
Phÿltêr
news:e6hJc.2268$u82...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
You're so fucking stoopit you think a dripping faucet is amazing.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
Scott
"Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr...@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9527D6EFD78...@192.189.54.177...
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> astounded us with:
> news:e6hJc.2268$u82...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
>
> >
> > "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:2llk6hF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Scott wrote:
> >>
> >> > I and an atheist already
> >> > have a debate going on in another thread with Chris that is
> >> > not being cross-posted to a.a.
> >>
> >> Given your track record, I'd recommend giving up now rather than
> >> later, and saving everyone the time and bandwidth.
> >>
> >> Just trying to be helpful ;-)
> >
> > Yea well, I happen to think Chris' kooky rationalizations are amazing
;-)
> >
> >
> >
>
> You're so fucking stoopit you think a dripping faucet is amazing.
another cheerleader.
and if you think baba arguments are sound your as dumb as he is.
Scott
Careful. agree with something I say could get you called 'stupid' in this
news group.
...of course I think anyone who agrees with Chris' rationalizations for his
objective morality are lacking.
Scott
Jude & Sandra
Oooooh, that was an insult. I should look it up? Hey, Scott, whatever can
you mean that Chris is an materialistic atheist who believes morals are
OBjective and evil is a fact. Don't you mean SUBjective? Evil as a fact?
Hmmmm, that's an interesting statment. Is it a fact insofar that it exists?
I think Chris uses the word "evil" as an adjective.
Sorry, but I gots all those definitions under my caps already, dude. I
means that I learned them when I was just a kid. Wanna debate the issue but
I'll have to take a vitamin for the brain since I know I'll be debating with
a superior intellect.
>
> Scott
>
>
Scott
"Jude & Sandra" <Jud...@somewhere.usa> wrote in message
Atheist, genereally, don't believe morality is objective. What morally right
or wrong is only a matter of person subjective (individual relativism)
opinions that may be held intersubjectively by more then one person
(cultural relativism). Without an objective standard, no morality is
factually better or worst than anyother. To claim moral progress is to make
a false statment.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
Don't you mean SUBjective? Evil as a fact?
> Hmmmm, that's an interesting statment. Is it a fact insofar that it
exists?
> I think Chris uses the word "evil" as an adjective.
Chris, thinks evil can be determined by objective analysis. Evil to him is
based on factual circumstances. To him it is both subjective and objective
that the bible is evil.
>
> Sorry, but I gots all those definitions under my caps already, dude. I
> means that I learned them when I was just a kid. Wanna debate the issue
but
> I'll have to take a vitamin for the brain since I know I'll be debating
with
> a superior intellect.
Oooooooooh. yourself
Scott
William
>"Jude & Sandra" <Jud...@somewhere.usa> wrote in message
>
>> Oooooh, that was an insult. I should look it up? Hey, Scott,
>> whatever can you mean that Chris is an materialistic atheist
>> who believes morals are OBjective and evil is a fact.
>
>Atheist, genereally, don't believe morality is objective. What morally right
>or wrong is only a matter of person subjective (individual relativism)
>opinions that may be held intersubjectively by more then one person
>(cultural relativism). Without an objective standard, no morality is
>factually better or worst than anyother. To claim moral progress is to make
>a false statment.
In other words, atheists and theists are all in the same position as
far as what is morally right and morally wrong is concerned. The
final arbiter is the person. There seems to be a lot of verbiage to
make a rather simple point.
William
Scott
"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
news:40f6b755...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
Not if you reject materialism.
Scott
Scott
> not so much propagating his own morals, but trying to use christian's
> morals (who DO believe in objective morals) against them.
No your incorrect on both assumptions.
You aren't reading his posts that are not being posted into a.a.
Chris attempts a false analogy to support his belief in moral inequality.
Although he claims he isn't an objectivist, he uses an objective analogy in
an attempt to support his claim.
Here's his latest post to that thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=IrudnZZoZoCYuWvdRVn-hg%40adelphia.com&output=gplain
In his analogy the speed of the car is the objective standard. If he can't
show an objective equivalent standard in any moral proposition, his analogy
fails.
Scott
Scott
> >
> > Objective morality is silly. However, I think the Evilbible editor is
> > not so much propagating his own morals, but trying to use christian's
> > morals (who DO believe in objective morals) against them.
>
> No your incorrect on both assumptions.
I need to clarify: You are incorrect on both assumptions about Chris'
motives, not that you think objective morality is silly.
Scott
William
>
>"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
>
>> In other words, atheists and theists are all in the same position as
>> far as what is morally right and morally wrong is concerned. The
>> final arbiter is the person. There seems to be a lot of verbiage to
>> make a rather simple point.
>
>Not if you reject materialism.
Please explain how rejecting materialism makes any difference. Explain
how a non-materialist decides what moral codes he will accept, and
why.
William
Scott
Materialism is a metaphysic (defined below). It's a philosophical position
that one takes but can't *prove* is true. You can find evidence to support
your belief but you can't prove it.
< yea I know I'm being repetitious but>
Using example:
In WWII Japanese soldiers actually tossed Chinese babies into the air and
speared them with their bayonets.....just for fun. If you were to say this
was a heinous act of evil as though it were some statement of fact, you'd be
endorsing some moral objectivism/realism; the act, you belief, was in fact
evil. Since materialism gives no supportive evidence for objective morals,
you'd be either contradicting materialism or outright rejecting it as a
*true* representation of reality.
If you hold to neither rejecting materialism or contradict it, then you'd
believe that no factual evil was committed by these soldiers. You only find
this act emotionally upsetting and *subjectively* wished they hadn't done
such a thing; you might call this emotional revulsion, "Evil". It is only
your personal emotional (subjective) opinion - what you feel is right for
you.
However, the Japanese soldiers weren't upset by their actions. To them it
wasn't immoral to toss these babies but only having *good* fun. By their own
subjectivity, no evil was committed at all.
Question: Whose opinion is more correct, yours or these soldiers'? Neither
opinion is correct....or incorrect. Since morality is not objectively real,
there is no truth-values to be assessed; There is no ethical true/false
statements to be had about the act itself that would allow you to determine
one as being better than any other. You are each left to your subjective
opinions about what should be right and wrong where neither of your
subjective opinions can be factually better than the other.
That more people will intersubectively share you emotion doesn't make you
opinion *more* correct.....in and factual sense. Without an objective
standard available, you could all be wrong.
Main Entry: 1meta·phys·ic Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: | at META-+|fizik, -k
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English methaphesik, metaphesyk, from Medieval Latin
metaphysica, feminine singular & neuter plural -- more at METAPHYSICS
1 a : METAPHYSICS <the most fantastic speculations of the later German
metaphysic -- Josiah Royce> <metaphysic did not mean much to him -- Times
Literary Supplement> b : a particular system or theory of metaphysics <this
view of nature and man's place in nature is a metaphysic -- W.H.Sheldon>
<the three possible monistic metaphysics: materialism, idealism, and neutral
monism -- J.W.Smith>
2 : the system of first principles or philosophy underlying a particular
study or subject of inquiry <each injustice ... rationalizes the claims it
embodies by sheltering under a half-examined metaphysic of values --
H.J.Laski> <the metaphysic of his love poems -- George Haines>
xmo...@io.com
I think Nietzsche sums it up quite succinctly;
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality
at any point."
While he's at it...
"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity,
the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or
secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish
upon the human race."
Scott
<xmo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:d7udf05es05clk6e7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:02:21 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr...@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9527D6EFD78...@192.189.54.177...
> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> astounded us with:
> >> news:e6hJc.2268$u82...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:2llk6hF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >> Scott wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I and an atheist already
> >> >> > have a debate going on in another thread with Chris that is
> >> >> > not being cross-posted to a.a.
> >> >>
> >> >> Given your track record, I'd recommend giving up now rather than
> >> >> later, and saving everyone the time and bandwidth.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just trying to be helpful ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Yea well, I happen to think Chris' kooky rationalizations are amazing
> >;-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're so fucking stoopit you think a dripping faucet is amazing.
> >
> >another cheerleader.
> >
> >and if you think baba arguments are sound your as dumb as he is.
>
> I think Nietzsche sums it up quite succinctly;
>
> "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality
> at any point."
If materialists are correct that materialism is the true representation of
reality, there is no *real* morality to come into contact with.
>
> While he's at it...
>
> "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic
depravity,
> the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough,
or
> secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish
> upon the human race."
and while he can call it whatever he *likes* this statement his had no
truth-value whatsoever. It was only his subjective opinion....for whatever
that was worth.
Scott
Scott
The *world* is relative to objective standards. In physics everything is
relative to the objective standard the speed of light. So it is possible to
make true/false statements about the world. No objective standard for
morality equals no true/false statements about good and evil.
It follows then that, outside of comic relief, Chris' "What kind of person
would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that
says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" is in fact a
meaningless, pointless question.
Scott
Icarus
> <xmo...@io.com> wrote
<snip>...
>> I think Nietzsche sums it up quite succinctly;
>>
>> "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into
>> contact with reality at any point."
>
> If materialists are correct that materialism is the true
> representation of reality, there is no *real* morality to come
> into contact with.
The depth and persistence of your ignorance is truly breathtaking. No
matter how many times these simple concepts are explained, you fail to
grasp them.
>> While he's at it...
>>
>> "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great
>> intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for
>> which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean
>> and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish upon
>> the human race."
>
> and while he can call it whatever he *likes* this statement
> his had no truth-value whatsoever. It was only his subjective
> opinion....for whatever that was worth.
Just as much as any of yours, of course.
Scott
> Scott wrote:
>
> > <xmo...@io.com> wrote
> <snip>...
> >> I think Nietzsche sums it up quite succinctly;
> >>
> >> "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into
> >> contact with reality at any point."
> >
> > If materialists are correct that materialism is the true
> > representation of reality, there is no *real* morality to come
> > into contact with.
>
> The depth and persistence of your ignorance is truly breathtaking. No
> matter how many times these simple concepts are explained, you fail to
> grasp them.
If I'm so ignorant, why don't you prove it by presenting your objective
moral standard, for real morals.
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
"II. Relativism, Subjectivism and Science: relativists and subjectivists
(both anti-realists) hold that there is no objective right or wrong. They
usually enjoy contrasting morality and science to make their point."
Or prove this quote and the argument following it in the link is wrong.
>
> >> While he's at it...
> >>
> >> "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great
> >> intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for
> >> which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean
> >> and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish upon
> >> the human race."
> >
> > and while he can call it whatever he *likes* this statement
> > his had no truth-value whatsoever. It was only his subjective
> > opinion....for whatever that was worth.
>
> Just as much as any of yours, of course.
Unless I'm accurately describing that the nature of morality is in fact only
subjective. But you're <cough> *more* than welcome to prove moral realism
(objective morals) using materialistic standards - no cheating by claiming
intuition.
Scott
ChuucklePf
> It follows then that, outside of comic relief, Chris' "What kind of person
> would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that
> says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" is in fact a
> meaningless, pointless question.
Try answering the question using common sense instead of your vague
philosophical meanderings.
You can't, can you, because you don't like the answer. Too bad.
Editor of EvilBible.com
>
> "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> news:40f6d60...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:59:15 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> In other words, atheists and theists are all in the same position as
> > >> far as what is morally right and morally wrong is concerned. The
> > >> final arbiter is the person. There seems to be a lot of verbiage to
> > >> make a rather simple point.
> > >
> > >Not if you reject materialism.
> >
> > Please explain how rejecting materialism makes any difference. Explain
> > how a non-materialist decides what moral codes he will accept, and
> > why.
>
Why can't you post a definition of "OBJECTIVE" that you intend to sick to???
You have used the word "objective" at least a thousand times and have not
defined it once, even though I have asked for it nearly every time!!!! ARE
YOU FUCKING RETARDED OR WHAT??? Are you really so stupid that you only have
one logical fallacy up your sleeve???
Editor of EvilBible.com
>
> "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:2lohvlF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > Scott wrote:
> >
> > > <xmo...@io.com> wrote
> > <snip>...
> > >> I think Nietzsche sums it up quite succinctly;
> > >>
> > >> "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into
> > >> contact with reality at any point."
> > >
> > > If materialists are correct that materialism is the true
> > > representation of reality, there is no *real* morality to come
> > > into contact with.
> >
> > The depth and persistence of your ignorance is truly breathtaking. No
> > matter how many times these simple concepts are explained, you fail to
> > grasp them.
>
> If I'm so ignorant, why don't you prove it by presenting your objective
> moral standard, for real morals.
Why don't you define the word "objective" like I have asked you to do a
hundred times???
William
>"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote
>> hughb...@yessiree.ca wrote:
>> > "Jude & Sandra" <Jud...@somewhere.usa> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Scott, if a person told one group of people to go into
>> >> another nation and kill them because of their religious
>> >> beliefs and take them for slaves we would call that
>> >> person EVIL.
>> >
>> >Not necessarily. The official stand would depend on the
>> >interests of the permenant members of the Security
>> >Council, and whoever has the rotating seats that year.
>> >It could vary from 'not worth our time' ie. Sudan, 'bad
>> >for business' ie. Iraq , or '*none* of your damn business' ie.
>> >Tibet.
>> >
>> >What a (relatively) wonderful world.
>>
>> Is there any other?
>
>The *world* is relative to objective standards. In physics everything is
>relative to the objective standard the speed of light. So it is possible to
>make true/false statements about the world. No objective standard for
>morality equals no true/false statements about good and evil.
>
>It follows then that, outside of comic relief, Chris' "What kind of person
>would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and
>magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" is in
>fact a meaningless, pointless question.
The poster was talking about the world we live in. According to him,
official morality depends on the interests of the permanent members of
the Security Council. He then made a jibe about a (relatively)
wonderful world.
Maybe you are slow on the uptake but he was implying that these folk
live in a wonderful world of relative morality.
Maybe you didn't pick this up. Or maybe you did and pretended you
didn't, in which case I take it that you are avoiding the question
once again.
The question is whether there is any other. The poster, like you, will
not answer that question.
Let me ask it once again in simple terms that might get a full and
straight answer from you (but I don't hold out much hope).
Is there ultimately any morality other than that of personal choice?
A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
again, and the implications of it, if you wish.
William
xmo...@io.com
It seems I came into this discussion late. Let me see if I can sum up
your argument with a lower-FOG-level perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but keep it succinct.
Your position is that atheists have lower/less/poorer morals than
christians, because they don't have a bible to keep them in line. Is that it?
Scott
For subjectivists/relativists, NO.
>
> A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
> again, and the implications of it, if you wish.
For subjectivists/relativists, NO. And I've been telling you why that answer
is "No" all along. You have no objective standards that would allow you to
determine that morality is anything but subjective. I even supplied you with
a link (post at least twice to this thread). That you can't seem to
understand the concept in that link is not my fault.
Or since it appears you won't trust anything I explain to you, I have a
suggestion: Ask W. Syme to explain it to you. It would seem he is the only
one in this thread who understands the contrasts, conclusions, and problems
associated with of both objective (real) and subjective (anti-real) ethics.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:JnBJc.15450$Ht3....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > news:40f6d60...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:59:15 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >> In other words, atheists and theists are all in the same position
as
> > > >> far as what is morally right and morally wrong is concerned. The
> > > >> final arbiter is the person. There seems to be a lot of verbiage to
> > > >> make a rather simple point.
> > > >
> > > >Not if you reject materialism.
> > >
> > > Please explain how rejecting materialism makes any difference. Explain
> > > how a non-materialist decides what moral codes he will accept, and
> > > why.
> >
> > Materialism is a metaphysic (defined below). <snip>
>
> Why can't you post a definition of "OBJECTIVE" that you intend to sick
to???
what is wrong with you? How did you get a master's degrees in biochim and
microbiology? I have not changed my definitions of objective and subjective
moralities....AT ALL. I've given you links that defined what those terms
mean.
A moral objectivist believes there are objective standards that *truly*
exist; murder to an objectivist is a real evil irregardless of whether the
killer subjectively believes he committed an immoral act or not. Moral
objectivism/realism doesn't mean that anyone can actually know what that
objective standard actually is.
A moral subjectivist, on the other hand, believes there are no such
objective standards by which an act can be judged good or evil. For a
subjectivist, to say murder is evil is not stating some factual quality
about the act of killing. Rather, the subjectivist is merely stating that he
subjectively disapproves of murder. That's all! If he says murder is evil,
then it is immoral...FOR HIM. It doesn't follow by necessity that it is also
immoral for some one else who may subjectively approve of a murder.
I refer you back to the Japanese soldiers tossing babies example. That you
disapprove of such an act only means it was immoral....for YOU. That the
soldiers approved of this act means it was moral (NOT IMMORAL) for THEM.
Both of your moral statements are equal.
You have no way using materialistic analysis to discover that objective
moral standards actually exist. But in order to falsify my saying your
opinion is morally equivalent to that of the Japanese soldier's, you *must*
have a *true* objective standard to measure/estimate your opinion against.
Going back to your car crash example: the car's actual speed is the true
objective standard. It exists as a real, materialistic fact separate from
observer involvement. The three observers you supplied are giving objective
opinions about an objective fact. It isn't necessary for these observers to
know the factual speed of the car to believe the car's speed has a factual
existence.
Since materialistic analysis has to date offered you no such luxury as an
objective moral standard, your car crash analogy fails. It's a false analogy
>
> You have used the word "objective" at least a thousand times and have not
> defined it once, even though I have asked for it nearly every time!!!!
ARE
> YOU FUCKING RETARDED OR WHAT??? Are you really so stupid that you only
have
> one logical fallacy up your sleeve???
Oh now that's rich....You make one hell of a false analogy, not to mention
you contradicted yourself by saying you aren't a moral objectivist in one
paragraph but in the very next say the approximate correct morality can be
both subjectively and objectively assessed through observation......And you
think I'm illogical. Man, Chris, you are so confused. When it comes to moral
philosophy, you are totally inept.
Scott
Scott
<xmo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:cclff0tus761avpgm...@4ax.com...
wrong. you ain't even in the ball park. If there is no objective morality
there is no lower/less/poorer morality; that is, there is none for moral
subjectivism. For a *materialistic* atheist to say that he is *more* moral
than theists for whatever reason, he is either ignorate of the subjective
morality or is delusional. If his materialism correctly represents Nature,
then the reality of ethics is Subjectivism, theists are either equally
ignorant of morality or equally delusional as he for what every reason they
give. With subjectivism you can invent whatever moral standards you and
others desire....untilitarianism, perscriptivism, whatever and you can try
to get others to share your moral *desire*. Bin Laden and the Islamic
fundamentalists desire that you share their moral sense.
I'm am not advocating any position here. I'm am only attempting to explain
to you guys what morality comes down to if materialism accurately describes
reality. Morality could have no truth-values. It is only expressions of a
person's emotional desires. From person to person, those desires can be
diametrically opposed....as in the Japanese soldiers example.
You don't need to be a theist to reject materialism. Tirebitter is an
atheist who has specifically told me he is not a materialist, although I
doubt he understood what that fully involves; (It's equivalent saying:
"You're an atheist who believes in ghost but thinks belief in gods is silly?
BFD to your atheism) IOW you can be an atheist and still believe in any
non-materialistic reality so long as that belief doesn't involve god(s). You
could believe in any non-materialistic *qualities* about reality.
Dualism believes there is a material reality and a non-material reality (a
spiritual reality). An atheist could be a duelist (although most hold to
materialism) believing in such things as, say,.....ghosts. Gods, ghosts,
free will, and *real* (objective) moral standards are all qualities of a
non-materialistic reality. None of which are assessable through
materialistic means....which is why Syme said objective morality is silly.
He's a materialist and probably the only one in this thread who has the
background to understand what I'm attempting to get across.
You want your materialism and knowing real evil exist? Too bad that isn't
possible without being illogical.
Scott
Editor of EvilBible.com
>
> "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
> news:_YednVbDR5V...@adelphia.com...
> >
> > "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:JnBJc.15450$Ht3....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40f6d60...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:59:15 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >> In other words, atheists and theists are all in the same position
> as
> > > > >> far as what is morally right and morally wrong is concerned. The
> > > > >> final arbiter is the person. There seems to be a lot of verbiage
to
> > > > >> make a rather simple point.
> > > > >
> > > > >Not if you reject materialism.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain how rejecting materialism makes any difference.
Explain
> > > > how a non-materialist decides what moral codes he will accept, and
> > > > why.
> > >
> > > Materialism is a metaphysic (defined below). <snip>
> >
> > Why can't you post a definition of "OBJECTIVE" that you intend to sick
> to???
<snip non-responsive answer>
You don't post a definition of "objective" because your whole argument will
collapse like a house of cards. I've had it with your definition switching
bullshit.
xmo...@io.com
So I guess it's not possible for you to briefly state your feelings on
atheist/theist morals without using the words 'materialism' and
'subjectivism', so let me ask you this - do you feel that theists are more
moral than atheists? It's a simple question that begs a simple answer.
William
>"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
>
>> The question is whether there is any other. The poster, like you, will
>> not answer that question.
>>
>> Let me ask it once again in simple terms that might get a full and
>> straight answer from you (but I don't hold out much hope).
>>
>> Is there ultimately any morality other than that of personal choice?
>
>For subjectivists/relativists, NO.
>
>> A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
>> again, and the implications of it, if you wish.
>
>For subjectivists/relativists, NO. And I've been telling you why that answer
>is "No" all along.
Yes. You and have dodged the question every time. I don't know whether
you are stupid or dishonest. Other posters think you are both.
Let me put in a way that even you cannot dodge.
Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it.
A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
AGAIN, and the implications of it, if you wish.
William
Editor of EvilBible.com
<xmo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:cclff0tus761avpgm...@4ax.com...
Let me clear up Scott's position. He uses two different meanings of the
word "objective" and switches them to make his point. That's why I keep
asking him to define the word "objective" and that's why he keeps refusing
to answer. His argument is very simple and very absurd. It goes like this:
1) Materialist atheists believe there are no objective morals. (In this
case he is using the word "objective" to mean an actual existence.)
2) If there are no objective morals then there is no way to objectively
judge moral codes and so they must be all equally good. (In this case he is
using the word "objective" like above the first time but then he switches
meanings for the second use of the word. The second time he means "based on
observable phenomena: presented factually".)
When he is challenged on this he usually pulls out his backup lie that if
you don't have an absolute standard of morality to measure against you can't
judge any morality. This is the mental midget's equivalent of saying that
speed can't be measured unless you have an absolute speed to compare it to.
Speed is determined by measuring time and distance just like morality is
measured by determining harm and benefits.
Scott can type for a very long time and he tries to sound intelligent, but
this is his entire argument in a nutshell. It's obviously fatally flawed.
Scott
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:51:29 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> The question is whether there is any other. The poster, like you, will
> >> not answer that question.
> >>
> >> Let me ask it once again in simple terms that might get a full and
> >> straight answer from you (but I don't hold out much hope).
> >>
> >> Is there ultimately any morality other than that of personal choice?
> >
> >For subjectivists/relativists, NO.
> >
> >> A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
> >> again, and the implications of it, if you wish.
> >
> >For subjectivists/relativists, NO. And I've been telling you why that
answer
> >is "No" all along.
>
> Yes. You and have dodged the question every time. I don't know whether
> you are stupid or dishonest. Other posters think you are both.
Other posters with the exception of maybe one are are as ethically dumb as
you.
>
> Let me put in a way that even you cannot dodge.
I haven't dodge a damn thing you philosophically inept butt hole.
>
> Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
> materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
> choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it.
Nobody knows that answer with absolute certainty whether morality is
objective or subjective. What can be said is that if materialism is true
then objective morality (moral realism) fucking fails. What part of this
can't you damn well get? Let me put it in a different perspective. Objective
morality = moral realism. Both god and moral realism are non-matericalistic
*things*. Do you know with absolute certainty that no god exists? Do you
know that no moral realism exists? Materialism postulates that both those
things aren't necessary to discribe reality.
If moral objectivism fails and is "silly" then the default from that is
moral relativism where all moral POV become equal. They become only
everyone's subjective POV!!! idiot.
> A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
> AGAIN, and the implications of it, if you wish.
What you seem to be asking here is that you want me to tell you what the
true nature of ethics actually is. No one knows that with any certainty. You
start with a premise that you *believe* is true, not one that you *know*
with absolute certainty is true. No 'ism' is provable. Take for example a
premise that you might blieve is true....oh... say...MATERIALISM. If you
believe materialism is true (if you think you know with certainty that
materialism is true you're dilusional) then it follows that all of morality
must be relative. You can't say this action or that action is in *fact* a
real evil - a moral realism; real evil is a none material quality not
reducible to matter and energy. Go and read the link I gave to this thread.
That link doesn't assert whether subjectivism and relativism is in fact the
*true* nature of ethics. It only points out what ethical conclusions can be
drawn if in fact relativism is true.
man you guys are dumb
Scott
Man, you guys are dumb.
Editor of EvilBible.com
>
> "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> news:40f8078...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
Liar! You have constantly refused to provide a definition of the word
"objective", even though I have asked you at least a dozen times.
<snip>
> If moral objectivism fails and is "silly" then the default from that is
> moral relativism where all moral POV become equal. They become only
> everyone's subjective POV!!! idiot.
It seems that Scott has found a new logical fallacy to use. I wonder how
many times he is going to post this false dilemma fallacy before he figures
it out. I'm willing to bet good money that he will post this at least two
dozen times.
It's a shame how religion can turn people into bumbling incompetent idiots
that will say anything to support their beliefs.
Scott
Here's what I think you want me to do, William. You want me to cut through
all the "if/then" conclusion that are presented in this following example
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/relat.htm and tell you what the true nature
of ethics is.
No one can do that. All anyone can do is start with a premise that they may
or may not believe is true (in this case materialism) then draw conclusions
that must follow. In the case of materialism, morality is made up of
subjective values - morality is anti-realism - and no objective moral
valises exist.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Ln1Kc.15760$7u3....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > news:40f8078...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > I haven't dodge a damn thing you philosophically inept butt hole.
>
> Liar! You have constantly refused to provide a definition of the word
> "objective", even though I have asked you at least a dozen times.
Idiot! Objective moral standards/values exist as REAL facts irregardless of
what anyone believes about them. To use an example: If killing babies is in
fact a universal evil (an objective value) then Japanese soldiers bayoneting
babies were in *fact* committing a *real* evil act irregardless of whatever
they may have subjectively thought about their own actions. That you dumb,
ignorant, confused MF is the objective morality defined. And notice, Chris,
how this example by necessity has BOTH a subjective and objective element to
it since it involves humans and assumes an objective standard. What part of
this can't you fucking get?
Problem: Materialism holds that everything is reducible to matter and energy
and can be expressed in mathematical theorems. Your car crash analogy
contains both a factual objective standard (the actual speed) and subjective
opinions. The objective standard (acceleration/velocity/momentum) can be
expressed in mathematical form to estimate the amount of damage the car
should've sustained a what speed. We can attempt to tease out the objective
from the subjective. Question, Chris, Mr. Materialist, do you assume a
mathematical theorem (could) exists for moral standards/values? If you can't
give such an assumption, then your crash analogy fails as an example. You
attempted a false analogy.
>
> <snip>
> > If moral objectivism fails and is "silly" then the default from that is
> > moral relativism where all moral POV become equal. They become only
> > everyone's subjective POV!!! idiot.
>
> It seems that Scott has found a new logical fallacy to use.
I've been saying this all along and I just posted a link to william saying
that the same thing.
I wonder how
> many times he is going to post this false dilemma fallacy before he
figures
> it out. I'm willing to bet good money that he will post this at least two
> dozen times.
>
> It's a shame how religion can turn people into bumbling incompetent idiots
> that will say anything to support their beliefs.
Were you in a car crash and sustained neurological damage after you got your
master's degree in science?
Scott
Scott
<xmo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:eiuff0d7kokj0n0gn...@4ax.com...
Easy answer, "no". Would you like to have a google where I've said "no" in
the past?
> It's a simple question that begs a simple answer.
Was that "no" easy enough for you?
If you believe there is such a thing as being more moral then your belief in
materialism fails.
For example, this paper *attempts* to "defuse the seeming threat of
naturalistic materialism to morality." The author fails in that he makes at
least two fatal flaws. He assumes things to be true but is unable to
substantiate them. And he also assumes an what is actually is an objective
ethic "We still have a robust sense of what constitutes right and wrong". We
do? Really? If he's a moral subjectivist, to shoot down this author's belief
about a robust sense I only need to point out moral disagreements such as
abortion or that in Iran it is both moral and legal for any citizen to kill
infidels such as atheists.
PS to William. Notice how even in this paper the author *qualifies* his
belief in materialism with "accepted as true": "The conclusion, then, is
that there is nothing essential to a stable moral order that materialism,
accepted as true, would threaten." You can't prove that it is in fact true.
You can only hold/believe it as a premise. But if you do, it follows that
all of morality is subjective, having no objective standards or values and
no truth-values.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
This is just damn interesting! I am giving the very typical response to
morality that most atheists give to theists. Atheist typically argue against
objective morality and for subjective morality. You just can't seem to
accept what moral subjectivism ultimately lintels. You want to believe there
really is a quality of a universal good and evil.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
that a fucking laugh. You can't even clear up your own position.
He uses two different meanings of the
> word "objective" and switches them to make his point. That's why I keep
> asking him to define the word "objective" and that's why he keeps refusing
> to answer. His argument is very simple and very absurd. It goes like
this:
Liar.
>
> 1) Materialist atheists believe there are no objective morals. (In this
> case he is using the word "objective" to mean an actual existence.)
an actual quality would be a better word.
>
> 2) If there are no objective morals then there is no way to objectively
> judge moral codes and so they must be all equally good.
Now that is true. Would you like to have a link from a philosophical dept at
a university saying the same damn thing?
here is one again:
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
(In this case he is
> using the word "objective" like above the first time but then he switches
> meanings for the second use of the word. The second time he means "based
on
> observable phenomena: presented factually".)
No, you shit for brains. Either actions, such as spearing babies, have an
objective moral quality about them that would in fact exist irregardless of
what anyone subjectively believes or these actions do not posses such a
quality. From there we can conclude problems and draw conclusions.
I'm going to beat this off your dumb fucking head. I don't think you will
ever get but there I think there are reads who will. If there is no
objective values in ethics then there is no true false statements that can
be made since no moral statement contains truth-values.
An objectivist would believe that Japanese soldiers tossing babies into the
air and spearing them is universally evil. That the soldiers didn't believe
they were being evil makes no difference. To an objectivist, the act itself
posses the *real* quality of evil; it is in fact an evil act. Like speed in
your crash example is a fact, evil to also a fact to a moral objectivist.
If no such objective moral qualities/standards/valuse exist, this action of
the soldiers is neither good nor evil **in any factual sense**. What's good
and evil is only a subjective point of view.
The better analogy (then your car crash) would be comparing these soldiers'
tossing example to a painting. A painting is only canvas and pigments. The
painting does not contain an objective value of ugly or beautiful **in any
factual sense**. That you think it's ugly and disgusting is only your
personal subjective *imprenting* onto the painting. Somebody else might
subjectively think the painting is beautiful. Question, Chris: which one of
your's subjective opinions is more correct about this painting? If a
painting can't posses an objective value of beautiful or ugly (that is, it
doesn't posses a value/standard independent from your two's subjectivity)
neither one of you is more or less correct. Your opinions are equviolent.
The same arguement holds for the action taken by these Japanese soldiers.
That you think this action is disgusting and evil is only your subjective
*imprenting* onto what materialism considers an amoral act (Nature is
amoral). That the soldiers subjective imprenting was one of simply having
good fun was only their subjective opinion. Question, Chris: which one of
your's opinion is more correct about this amoral act? If the act doesn't
posses an objective value of good pr evil (that is, doesn't posses a
value/standard independent from your two's subjectivity) neither one of you
is more or less correct. Your opinions are equviolent.
> When he is challenged on this he usually pulls out his backup lie that if
> you don't have an absolute standard of morality to measure against you
can't
> judge any morality. This is the mental midget's equivalent of saying that
> speed can't be measured unless you have an absolute speed to compare it
to.
> Speed is determined by measuring time and distance just like morality is
> measured by determining harm and benefits.
and once again you pull out your stupid false analogy for speed. Speed is
the objective value/standard your car was traveling. It is an objective fact
irregardless if anyone knows what that speed was.
>
> Scott can type for a very long time and he tries to sound intelligent, but
> this is his entire argument in a nutshell. It's obviously fatally flawed.
I've given you the same arguments that Matt has and you wouldn't believe him
either. IIRC I think he also said you were confused.
Scott
William
>"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
>
>> Let me put in a way that even you cannot dodge.
>
>I haven't dodge a damn thing you philosophically inept butt hole.
>
>> Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
>> materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
>> choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it.
>
>Nobody knows that answer with absolute certainty
[snipped all the blather confirming that Scott doesn't know the answer
at all]
So that's it! After all your ignorant tirades lecturing everyone on
the dangers of having a morality based on personal choice you have to
admit you don't know of any other. What a time waster!!
William
Editor of EvilBible.com
No you're not. You switching definitions again. That's why you
consistently refuse to post a definition of the word "objective". The
typical response that you get from atheists is that there is no objective
morality given by a god. They are using the word "objective" to mean
"actual existence". When they talk of subjective morals they are most
likely using the meaning of "subjective" that means "existing only in the
mind". (Although there may be some who actually believe in "subjective
morality" in the way you are using it, meaning that all cultures moral codes
are equally good.)
> Atheist typically argue against
> objective morality and for subjective morality.
Of course they do. They are using a different definition of the words than
you are using. That's why you have consistently refused to provide a
definition of the words "objective" and "subjective".
> You just can't seem to accept what moral subjectivism ultimately lintels.
I understand exactly what "moral subjectivism" means. But unlike you I also
understand that words like "objective" and "subjective" have several
different meanings and I understand that you can't switch definitions in the
middle of an argument and still be logical.
> You want to believe there
> really is a quality of a universal good and evil.
You don't post a definition of "objective" because your whole argument will
collapse like a house of cards. I've had it with your definition switching
bullshit. Apparently you know that your argument is a bunch of bullshit
built on dishonesty and stupidity.
I'll ask you again to drive home my point that you are a dishonest little
asshole: POST YOUR DEFINITION OF THE WORD "OBJECTIVE"!!!
Editor of EvilBible.com
All this writing and no fucking definition of "objective"! How many times
do I have to ask you the same question? I'll tell you what I'll make it
very simple for you. Here is the definitions of "objective" from the
American Heritage Dictionary.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having
actual existence or reality. 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair. b. Based on
observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/O0008800.html
Since you have consistently claimed that you are not switching definitions
then you should be able to tell me which numbered meaning you are using. Is
it 1, 2, 3a, 3b, or none of the above?
> Problem: Materialism holds that everything is reducible to matter and
energy
> and can be expressed in mathematical theorems. Your car crash analogy
> contains both a factual objective standard (the actual speed) and
subjective
> opinions. The objective standard (acceleration/velocity/momentum) can be
> expressed in mathematical form to estimate the amount of damage the car
> should've sustained a what speed. We can attempt to tease out the
objective
> from the subjective. Question, Chris, Mr. Materialist, do you assume a
> mathematical theorem (could) exists for moral standards/values? If you
can't
> give such an assumption, then your crash analogy fails as an example. You
> attempted a false analogy.
We can talk about this after you have defined the terms you are using.
> > <snip>
> > > If moral objectivism fails and is "silly" then the default from that
is
> > > moral relativism where all moral POV become equal. They become only
> > > everyone's subjective POV!!! idiot.
> >
> > It seems that Scott has found a new logical fallacy to use.
>
> I've been saying this all along and I just posted a link to william saying
> that the same thing.
I don't like to speak for anyone else, but it appears to me that William is
using a different meaning of the words "objective" and "subjective". He
appears to be using meaning 1 above: "Of or having to do with a material
object" and for the word "subjective" he means "Proceeding from or taking
place in a person's mind rather than the external world". Clearly these are
contradictory. "Moral objectivism" and "moral relativism" are contrary but
not contradictory.
Scott
No, that's not it. and it not a tirade. It is simply an explanation that if
materialism is true then moral relativism is the moral order of the day.
Your personal opinion is no better than bin laden's as to what should be the
proper morality for everyone else. If you think your moral sense leads to
tolerance, "tolerance" becomes the objective moral standard. If you think
liberalism *is* morally better than fundamentalism, you are holding a false
belief. If you think humanity has made moral progress from that of slavery
to liberal freedoms, you are holding a false belief. If you believe that
natural, human rights exist in humans by virtue of being human, you are
holding a false belief. If you believe that pro-choice has the better moral
argument over pro-life, you are holding a false belief. If you believe
humanists have the better moral argument, for whatever reason, you are
holding a false belief. If you disagree with any of these conclusions you
are delusional and fantasizing. Even though you may believe you are a
materialist, you are in *fact* not a materialist by definition of
materialism.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
they are incompatible, idiot. You hold to a belief in a universal moral
standard and at the same time be a moral relativist. But to hold to a belief
in universal morality, even if you qualify that what is right and wrong is
based the circumstances, you are by definition a moral objectivists. Moral
objectivism doesn't equal moral absolutism.
You want more definitions? Here they are. They say the same thing I and the
other links have been saying: http://www.isu.edu/~baerralp/PHIL600/Terms.rtf
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~gmyers/ehe.relat.html
Moral skepticism: The view that there are no valid moral principles at all,
or that we cannot know whether there are any.
Moral subjectivism: Morality is not dependent on society but only on the
individual.
a.. Anything is okay as long as one lives by own principles (hypocrisy,
inconsistency can be embraced).
b.. Makes concept of morality useless - one person's principle vs
another's, no argument possible.
c.. Reduces social coordination to power struggle.
d.. Incoherent. Ethics must be grounded in culture.
Ethical Relativism: The theory that there are no universally valid moral
principles binding on all people at all times, but rather all are valid
relative to culture (or individual choice = subjectivism).
a.. Rests on 2 premises:
1.. Cultural relativism: Empirical observation of that diversity exists
among cultures in moral principle and practice. (A response to
ethnocentrism: Customs of all others seen through lenses of own culture's
beliefs and values.)
2.. Dependency thesis: All moral principles derive their validity from
cultural acceptance.
3.. It follows there are no universal principles valid for all cultures
and peoples.
b.. Consequences:
a.. There is no independent basis for criticizing the morality (n.b.:
including intolerance!) of any culture but one's own.
b.. Any actual morality is as valid as every other, and more valid that
ideal moralities (since they have no adherents).
c.. Reformers are wrong since they oppose cultural standards.
d.. Civil disobedience is morally wrong so long as the society agrees on
the relevant law.
e.. Laws have no basis - particular subcultures may not agree with
certain laws.
f.. Conflicting prescriptions - which of the ethics of the groups to
which one belongs should one follow? How do you choose? How many people make
up a 'culture'?
c.. Problems:
a.. The degree of cultural relativism evident in our species is
enormous, but nonetheless, some argue there are moral universals (concept of
murder, incest, restitution, reciprocity, mutual obligations between parents
and children). But if the dependency thesis is true none of these could be
thus shown to have any objective basis.
b.. The dependency thesis:
1.. In a weak sense, it must at least be true that the application of
principles depends on the setting, the particular cultural situation.
2.. In strong sense, all principles must be held to be cultural
inventions. But just because we find them in place doesn't mean they must be
accepted as true, the best, or morally correct.
3.. Also, there can be no impartial standard from which to judge. But
while we cannot know one culture's beliefs are closer to the truth than
another's, we may be justified in believing they are. We can reason and
think of possible situations to make a case for one system over the other.
It's possible a culture might be wrong, less moral, confused, or ignorant in
its moral perceptions.
Moral Objectivism
1.. Holds that moral principles are valid rules of action that should
generally be adhered to, but may be overridden by other moral principles in
cases of conflict.
2.. Not the same as moral absolutism, the idea that there exists just one
moral principle and it must never be violated.
3.. Proposes that there exist at least one, or a set, of minimal moral
principles that are binding on all rational beings. It it can show this, it
can refute ethical relativism. Candidate principles include:
a.. It is morally wrong to torture people for fun.
b.. Do not kill innocent people.
c.. Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering.
d.. Do not cheat or steal.
e.. Keep your promises and contracts.
f.. Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.
g.. Do justice to others, treating like cases similarly, and different
ones differently.
h.. Tell the truth
i.. Help other people, at least when the cost to oneself is minimal.
j.. Do good wherever feasible, at least when the cost to oneself is
minimal.
4.. In cases where these principles are violated it makes more sense to
look for an explanation (ignorance, perversion, irrationality) than to
suppose that the exception should make us question the principle.
5.. These principles are not arbitrary as the relativist holds, because we
can give reasons why they are necessary to social cohesion and human
flourishing, in the face of diverse human goods.
6.. These may (but need not be) based on a common human nature - a set of
needs and interests.
7.. Those principles that meet essential needs and promote the most
significant interests of humans in optimal ways can be said to be
objectively valid moral principles.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
"May"? Chris they are the majority. You are the minority.
If you keep this up, you could end up next to skeptic on a kook list
http://www.alt-atheism.org/faqs/skeptic.php
>
> > Atheist typically argue against
> > objective morality and for subjective morality.
>
> Of course they do. They are using a different definition of the words
than
> you are using. That's why you have consistently refused to provide a
> definition of the words "objective" and "subjective".
No they don't and neither am I. I noticed Syme also posts to mensa. He must
have an IQ of at least 132 assuming he is also a member. I layed out the
problem the subjective morality is only about one's personal opinion and he
agreed. Irregardless of whether he does have an 132+ IQ, what do you
comprehend that he does not?
>
> > You just can't seem to accept what moral subjectivism ultimately
lintels.
>
> I understand exactly what "moral subjectivism" means. But unlike you I
also
> understand that words like "objective" and "subjective" have several
> different meanings and I understand that you can't switch definitions in
the
> middle of an argument and still be logical.
>
> > You want to believe there
> > really is a quality of a universal good and evil.
>
> You don't post a definition of "objective" because your whole argument
will
> collapse like a house of cards. I've had it with your definition
switching
> bullshit. Apparently you know that your argument is a bunch of bullshit
> built on dishonesty and stupidity.
>
> I'll ask you again to drive home my point that you are a dishonest little
> asshole: POST YOUR DEFINITION OF THE WORD "OBJECTIVE"!!!
I have...again and again.
Maybe you and the others who agree with you need to read it from other
atheists. Below is a google search I did to alt.atheism on morality which
includes references debates using paintings as an analogy. I deleted my name
so to attempt to leave out any biases you goofs have associated with me. You
want someone to focus your attention on? Try following Jim07D4.
Scott
Scott
What say you, Chris??? No rebuttal to this analogy and claiming my painting
analogy is a false association?
Scott
crappenrapper
> "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > So that's it! After all your ignorant tirades lecturing everyone on
> > the dangers of having a morality based on personal choice you have to
> > admit you don't know of any other. What a time waster!!
>
> No, that's not it. and it not a tirade. It is simply an explanation that if
> materialism is true then moral relativism is the moral order of the day.
> Your personal opinion is no better than bin laden's as to what should be the
> proper morality for everyone else.
Yeah right. What a tempest in a teapot!
Scott, you're the most constipated person I've ever seen in these newsgroups.
William
>"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
>> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
>> >> materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
>> >> choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it.
>> >
>> >Nobody knows that answer with absolute certainty
>>
>> So that's it! After all your ignorant tirades lecturing everyone on
>> the dangers of having a morality based on personal choice you have to
>> admit you don't know of any other. What a time waster!!
>
>No, that's not it. and it not a tirade. It is simply an explanation that if
>materialism is true then moral relativism is the moral order of the day.
>Your personal opinion is no better than bin laden's as to what should be the
>proper morality for everyone else.
[snipped attack on (my) basis for moraity]
The question is:
"Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it."
You have consistently failed to identify any morality that is NOT
ultimately based on personal choice. You have evaded the question and
pretty well admitted that you cannot answer it.
In the light of that I shall, by default, make the appropriate
statement on your behalf:
"I, Scott, accept that I have been attacking the moral codes of others
for being based on personal choice. I, Scott, however, have to admit
that the moral codes I subscribe to are ultimately a matter of my
personal choice and I see no other basis. Therefore I have been a
stupid pedant and apologize unreservedly for wasting everybody's time"
William
Scott
"crappenrapper" <crappe...@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:MCeKc.105586$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Instead of attacking me why not prove the statment is false or that your
moral opinion is better.
I used to beleive atheists as general rule had a better understooding of
moral philosophy then most theists. You guys have killed that opinion.
You want to hear it from an atheist?
Here's the argument that I've been making all along:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html
In Defense of Moral Subjectivism: An Argument for the Subjectivity of Moral
Values
by Keith Augustine
Preface
In the Summer 1997 issue of Free Inquiry (Vol. 17, No. 3), Theodore Schick,
Jr. wrote Morality Requires God... or Does It?, which was an excellent and
valid critique of the divine command theory of ethics. The premise of
Schick's original article, in a nutshell, is that even if we assume God
exists (for the sake of argument), God's commandment that some action is
moral doesn't make that action moral, since God could command that any
action is right or wrong indiscriminately--i.e., if God's commandments were
the basis of morality, then what makes an action "moral" would be determined
arbitrarily. If God said genocide was moral, that would make genocide moral;
if God said it was immoral, genocide would be immoral. Thus, there must be
some objective moral standard God must refer to that exists independently of
God's commandment for moral values to be determined non-arbitrarily. This
standard would exist independently of God, and thus the existence of
morality would not depend upon the existence of God.
Although I agree with Schick's conclusion that moral laws commanded by God
would be arbitrary, I disagree that God has an objective standard to refer
to. The implication of this point of view is that human moral codes are just
as arbitrary as those commanded by God, for human beings also have no
objective standard to refer to. I submitted the following letter to the
editor to Free Inquiry responding to Schick's article:
Although I find nothing disagreeable in Theodore Schick's critique of the
divine command theory of ethics, I think there is a certain degree of
plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of
transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral
laws.
Moral laws are maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions are to
be deemed moral or immoral. But how could such laws exist in the absence of
any mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in
the way that laws of nature are? They do not seem to be, for few would argue
that "murder is wrong" existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies
were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign life or
consciousness anywhere in the universe. The use of the word "law" implies an
objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience.
Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called "moral
laws", because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell
sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral
could exist in the absence of sentience.
It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus
there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are
right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to
acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings
are not obligated to follow them. What Schick's article has done is simply
extended this element of arbitrariness to ethical codes made by God. But
there still seems to be this underlying problem that ethical codes cannot be
objective in any real sense of the word, in light of Schick's article, for
either theists or atheists.
This letter to the editor was published in part in the Fall 1997 issue of
Free Inquiry. The last paragraph was cut, but the first two were not and
were sufficient to open up the question of the objectivity of moral values.
Schick's response to that letter follows immediately in the same issue, but
will not be repeated here for copyright reasons. My reply to Schick's
response to my letter to the editor constitutes the following article.
I should note that this article is targeted to an audience that already
accepts philosophical naturalism, the view that everything that exists is
natural (and thus the supernatural does not exist). Since supernaturalism
would be deaf to appeals to explanatory simplicity and it would be
impossible to discover the supernatural origins of anything, one cannot
gauge whether any supernaturalist account is any more or less plausible than
any other supernaturalist account, including an account of the origins of
objective moral laws.
In Defense of Moral Subjectivism: An Argument for the Subjectivity of Moral
Values
In his reply to my letter to the editor, Theodore Schick accused me of
arguing "that morality must must be subjective on the grounds that [I]
cannot see how it could be objective." But this is not what I argued at all.
I said that I thought that the idea that "there can be no objective moral
laws" was plausible to atheists. I think it is perfectly possible that
objective moral laws exist in some Platonic realm of ideas, but I think it
is implausible that such is the case. Since moral laws refer to the actions
of sentient beings, it is difficult to conceive how they could originate by
unconscious natural mechanisms. That laws of nature originated after the Big
Bang is plausible because natural laws govern the physical components
(forces, particles, etc) that arose from it. But ethics does not come into
play in the history of the universe until very recently--when Homo sapiens
appeared. It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang,
but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose.
However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in
the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient
beings "in mind" (in the mind of a Creator?). To accept the existence of
objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to
believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning
(such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a
belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins (such as
evolution by natural selection) which maintain that sentient beings came
into existence due to contingent, accidental circumstances. If objective
moral laws are part of the natural universe (not part of some supernatural
realm), then the universe cannot be unconscious--it must be, in some unknown
sense, sentient. Few naturalists would want to accept such a nonscientific
pantheistic conclusion.
Another reason that moral objectivism is implausible is because all the laws
of nature that we are aware of are descriptive: they describe how certain
configurations of matter or energy will behave under different
circumstances. But moral laws are prescriptive: the describe how certain
sentient beings should behave under different circumstances. This is why a
law of nature like the law of gravity cannot be violated, but a moral law
like "Thou shall not kill" can be. Nothing else in the universe has this
strange prescriptive quality--nothing we know in nature gives any part of
the natural world a "duty" to behave in a certain way.
We do not accuse a lion of immorality for tearing a giraffe to shreds.
Animals are not 'subject' to moral laws because they don't make moral
decisions. Yet, if we all accept a purely naturalistic evolutionary account
of the origin of Homo sapiens, it follows that human beings are merely
another species of animal, and consequently we are not subject to moral
laws. What differentiates humans from the other animals is that we are
animals that make moral decisions. But decisions are mental states which
exist in minds--individual human minds. Decisions will vary between people
with different thoughts on a subject, hence it is reasonable to argue that
moral values are subjective and vary with individual conscience.
In his response to my letter to the editor, Schick claims that most
ethicists reject moral subjectivism not because of the success of various
moral objectivist theories, but because moral subjectivism leads to
contradictions. He then gives the following argument as an example:
Premise 1: What makes something morally right is that a person believes it
is morally right.
P2: Person A believes genocide is morally right.
P3: Person B believes genocide is not morally right.
4: Genocide is morally right (from 1 and 2).
5: Genocide is not morally right (from 1 and 3).
This reductio ad absurdum leads to contradiction; 4 and 5 are opposite
conclusions, thus the argument is invalid. However, I never claimed that I
believed premise 1; Schick assumed it. Premise 1 assumes that there is an
objective fact of the matter over whether genocide is right or wrong.
Ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The argument I am
proposing is that there is no objective fact that genocide is morally wrong
anymore than there is an objective fact that rock and roll is better than
country music. Both statements, no matter how well agreed-upon by most
people, merely express the opinion of the people who state them. They do not
refer to some "state of the world", and that is exactly what an objectivist
theory of ethics requires of ethical statements. Consider the following
argument:
P1: What makes something aesthetically better than some other thing is that
a person believes that that thing is better than some other thing.
P2: Person A believes that rock and roll is better than country music.
P3: Person B believes that rock and roll is not better than country music.
4: Rock and roll is better than country music.
5: Rock and roll is not better than country music.
Now, again we have a contradiction; but does this mean that it is irrational
for me to claim that rock and roll is better than country music? No, it is a
rational claim. But it is a claim about my tastes and preferences.
Similarly, it is perfectly rational for me to claim that genocide is morally
wrong. But that expresses my emotional reaction to the action; it does not
express some objective state of the world. It is rational because here
premise 1 is false, just as it was in the example Schick provided. When I
say that rock and roll is better than country music, it is tacitly assumed
that I am expressing an opinion and not making a claim about the actual
objective nature of rock and roll. Similarly, when I claim that genocide is
wrong, I am not making an objective claim about the morality of an action; I
am expressing an opinion.
In this essay I have set forth to: 1) Show that the existence of objective
moral values is implausible (not impossible) on a purely naturalistic
account of the world; and 2) show that the claim that objective moral values
do not exist does not lead to contradiction (i.e., is logically consistent).
I have not tried to show is that the existence of objective moral values is
impossible, for there is no logical contradiction in assuming the existence
of such laws. But given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable
as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a
scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the
nonexistence of objective moral values. In addition to this, if we are to
accept Ockham's razor[1] as a valid general principle of rigorous scientific
and philosophical inquiry, then the burden of proof falls on the moral
objectivist[2] to show that the introduction of a new kind of nonphysical
entity into our picture of the world--an objective moral law--is necessary
to explain some tangible aspect of human morality that cannot be touched on
by a subjectivist account.
Footnotes:
[1] Ockham's razor is usually stated as: "Do not multiply entities beyond
necessity." It holds that in any explanation of some phenomenon or account
of the world, we should make the fewest number of assumptions necessary to
account for the observed phenomena. In the context of human morality, an
account where the existence of objective moral values is not assumed is
simpler than (thus preferable to) an account which introduces an unverified
new entity--an objective moral law--into our picture of how the universe
works.
[2] A moral objectivist may argue that because most people have a "moral
sense" about what actions are right and wrong, the burden of proof actually
falls on the subjectivist to show that this sense is illusory. However, the
moral subjectivist can simply point out that many people claim to have a
"moral sense", but all these people come to opposite conclusions about
whether or not, for example, abortion or the death penalty is ethically
right. If this "moral sense" can lead to such widely different conclusions,
then it is unreliable. The moral objectivist could argue that objective
moral values still exist, but that only certain people's moral sense is
correct while the others are mislead. However, such an argument appeals to
an arbitrary decision as to who's moral sense is correct. An objectivist
could also argue that our moral sense cannot discern any objective moral
laws although they still exist. But if such were the case, there would be no
reason to postulate the existence of such laws, for it was the existence of
a moral sense in the first place which was appealed to as evidence for the
existence of objective moral laws.
Copyright © 1997 by Keith Augustine.
So long as profit is not your motive and you always include this copyright
notice, please feel free to reproduce and distribute this material in
electronic form as widely as you please.
Any other users who wish to publish this paper in non-electronic form for
any purpose other than personal use (i.e., widespread distribution) may
request permission by writing the author via electronic mail at kaugust @
@@@ nospam infidels.org.
end quote
Note: I added the " @@@ nospam" to cofuse the spammers.
Scott
Scott
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:23:11 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
> >> >> materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
> >> >> choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it.
> >> >
> >> >Nobody knows that answer with absolute certainty
> >>
> >> So that's it! After all your ignorant tirades lecturing everyone on
> >> the dangers of having a morality based on personal choice you have to
> >> admit you don't know of any other. What a time waster!!
> >
> >No, that's not it. and it not a tirade. It is simply an explanation that
if
> >materialism is true then moral relativism is the moral order of the day.
> >Your personal opinion is no better than bin laden's as to what should be
the
> >proper morality for everyone else.
> [snipped attack on (my) basis for moraity]
>
> The question is:
> "Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
> materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
> choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it."
I'll say this real slowly...for you, William.
I.....am.....not.....advocating
(ad-vo-ca-ting)....any.....phil-o-soph-ical....position. I... am.....
NOT..... arguing.....
FOR....nor....Against.....any....particular.....philosophical....ism.
I am not arguing for nor against materialism. You can accept it or reject it
all you want. I don't care. I am only explaining that morality must be only
subjective *if* materialism is true. That is, if you are a materialist then
it follows that your opinions about what should be called good and evil is
no better than anyone else's, including those opinions of Islamic
fundamentalists.
Personally, I am a moral realist. But as I've been saying, there is nothing
in materialism that would allow you/me/anyone to make materialistic
assessment for knowing when one morality is better than another. I,
personally, reject materialism and am a dualist. How do I hold to moral
realism? The way all dualist do, by an *appeal* to reason and a belief in
the supernatural. Although I believe it is, I have no rational justification
for saying bayoneting babies is in fact Evil....irrespective of personal
opinions.
If you, or Chris', believe moral opinions are not equal you by default
(either knowingly or unknowingly) are a dualistic in some form.
If you haven't already read it, this argument is laid out by Keith Augustine
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html
Maybe you'd prefer his explanation to mine even though we both are saying
the same things.
>
> You have consistently failed to identify any morality that is NOT
> ultimately based on personal choice. You have evaded the question and
> pretty well admitted that you cannot answer it.
Since I'm not advocting any position I DON'T NEED TO ADMIT IT.
*IF* I were to say bayoneting babies is factually evil then and only then
can you charitably ask me to prove such a statement. Until then, however, I
can continue to ignore your demands to advocate anything. Get it?
> In the light of that I shall, by default, make the appropriate
> statement on your behalf:
> "I, Scott, accept that I have been attacking the moral codes of others
> for being based on personal choice. I, Scott, however, have to admit
> that the moral codes I subscribe to are ultimately a matter of my
> personal choice and I see no other basis. Therefore I have been a
> stupid pedant and apologize unreservedly for wasting everybody's time"
Oh I should've read this before the last comment. NO, you don't get it.
Scott
Icarus
<snippage>...
> An objectivist would believe that Japanese soldiers tossing
> babies into the air and spearing them is universally evil.
> That the soldiers didn't believe they were being evil makes no
> difference. To an objectivist, the act itself posses the
> *real* quality of evil; it is in fact an evil act. Like speed
> in your crash example is a fact, evil to also a fact to a
> moral objectivist.
Are you anywhere nearer being able to provide a valid argument for
morality being objective? When are you going to provide a way of
quantitatively observing/calculating/measuring the evilness of an act,
so that we can see that evil is truly objective?
Scott
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:23:11 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
OH! and BTW, William, do you remember your claim that most people are born
with "a natural empathy", "a natural morality", "a natural moral code", a
moral sense that presumable would lead people to knowing the best morality
or moral code? And that those who are lacking in this moral sense more
likely fail in moral reasoning.
IIRC I said you were stating an objectivists argument.
Well: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html
Footnotes:
Scott
> Scott wrote:
>
> <snippage>...
> > An objectivist would believe that Japanese soldiers tossing
> > babies into the air and spearing them is universally evil.
> > That the soldiers didn't believe they were being evil makes no
> > difference. To an objectivist, the act itself posses the
> > *real* quality of evil; it is in fact an evil act. Like speed
> > in your crash example is a fact, evil to also a fact to a
> > moral objectivist.
>
> Are you anywhere nearer being able to provide a valid argument for
> morality being objective?
If you can't follow the fucking thread, shut the fuck up.
When are you going to provide a way of
> quantitatively observing/calculating/measuring the evilness of an act,
> so that we can see that evil is truly objective?
You should be asking this question to Chris, aka Editor of Evil Bible. He is
the one saying the morality and immorality is assessable by objective
measurements of harm.
You are so screwed up by you prodigious against me and your prejudicial
support of Chris Baba that you are blinded by what this debate is all about.
He is the one claim morality can be assessed through objective measurements.
And his (false) analogy to support such a claim is using the (objective)
speed of a car crash.
Scott
xmo...@io.com
>> atheist/theist morals without using the words 'materialism' and
>> 'subjectivism', so let me ask you this - do you feel that theists are more
>> moral than atheists?
>
>Easy answer, "no". Would you like to have a google where I've said "no" in
>the past?
Not necessary.
>> It's a simple question that begs a simple answer.
>
>Was that "no" easy enough for you?
<snipped balance irrelevant to question>
Yep. Unlike many other christians, you are at least not claiming to be
more moral than atheists. Works for me, thanks.
Scott
<xmo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:pg4jf055i3rvcvatf...@4ax.com...
You're welcome....I sincerely mean it. Here is something you can throw at
those theist who claim that they are more moral than atheists...assuming
they believe in moral realism/objectivism: If morality to these theists is
objective, meaning that they believe in moral realism (good and evil are
real qualities in some action) then if follows that atheists can and in
general are every bit as moral as theists. If the theists believes this
isn't a true statement and that morality is <cough> *relative* to whether a
person is theistic or atheistic then that theist is not a moral realist but
a relativists. IOW if some action is in fact evil than it is a real quality
that must exist irregardless/irrespective of any person's opinions. It makes
no difference whether those opinions come from a theist or atheist.
Scot
Scott
>
> "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:2ltfirF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > Scott wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>...
> > > An objectivist would believe that Japanese soldiers tossing
> > > babies into the air and spearing them is universally evil.
> > > That the soldiers didn't believe they were being evil makes no
> > > difference. To an objectivist, the act itself posses the
> > > *real* quality of evil; it is in fact an evil act. Like speed
> > > in your crash example is a fact, evil to also a fact to a
> > > moral objectivist.
> >
> > Are you anywhere nearer being able to provide a valid argument for
> > morality being objective?
>
> If you can't follow the fucking thread, shut the fuck up.
>
> When are you going to provide a way of
> > quantitatively observing/calculating/measuring the evilness of an act,
> > so that we can see that evil is truly objective?
>
> You should be asking this question to Chris, aka Editor of Evil Bible. He
is
> the one saying the morality and immorality is assessable by objective
> measurements of harm.
>
> You are so screwed up by you prodigious
"Prodigious"? LOL. Oh well... sorry.....so much for spell checkers and my
dyslexia. Like I told Baba, I read just fine. It's correct writing and
spelling that gives me problems. When I see a common word spelled correctly
or correct punctuation, I most often recognize it as correct. It's when I
try to pull it out of my own memory that gives me problems. I don't concern
myself with it like I did when I was young. It hasn't kept me from getting a
pretty decent college GPA or above average IQ.
against me and your prejudicial
> support of Chris Baba that you are blinded by what this debate is all
about.
> He is the one claim morality can be assessed through objective
measurements.
> And his (false) analogy to support such a claim is using the (objective)
> speed of a car crash.
But again....I find this in-group think interesting and even amusing. For a
group of people who *prides* themselves on *individuality* the vast majority
in a.a. show more inclination to group think than individualism.
Chris Baba, Evil Ed, has maintained that knowing correct morality is
assessable by objective means, by measuring harm; in the other thread he
actually claimed harm and benefit are objectively measurable.
So,..... Icarus, you going to be an in-group thinker or are you going to be
an individualists? Chris, Evil Ed, believes that moral codes are *not*
equivalent and that knowing which is better is assessable by measurements of
harm and benefit. You going to fade into the background by being an
in-grouper not wanting to be seen agreeing with the arguments from a theist,
that you happen to despise, against an atheist who also believes that
correct morality is objectively assessable; or are you going to be an
individual and asks this other atheist, Evil Ed, when he is going to provide
a way of quantitatively observing/ calculating/measuring the evilness of an
act? It's been my experience that there are only a few atheists in a.a. who
are actual individualist....stony, Jim, Matt to name three off the top of my
head...who are willing to engage another atheist in what they see as a
fallacious position.
Scott
William
>
>"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
>
>> The question is:
>> "Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether atheist,
>> materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
>> choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it."
>
>I'll say this real slowly...for you, William.
>I.....am.....not.....advocating
>(ad-vo-ca-ting)....any.....phil-o-soph-ical....position. I... am.....
>NOT..... arguing.....
>FOR....nor....Against.....any....particular.....philosophical....ism.
You are so bloody devious it must be painful. I asked you a question,
and a perfectly relevant one. Let me once again try and spell it out
so that you cannot wriggle out of it. Ignore it, snip it, evade it or
run away again if you like but I will have put it.
You came into this thread telling me that an atheist can only
logically be a relativist/subjectivist materialist and that if I am a
relativist/subjectivist materialist I am not entitled even to ask a
moral question.
You then demonstrate to all and sundry that you think you are NOT a
relativist/subjectivist materialist by not only asking moral questions
but by making moral judgments until they come out of your ears.
You accuse materialists of seeing the moralities of head-hunters in
New Guinea, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as being no better that any
other. In your position as someone who thinks he CAN make moral
judgements you tell me mine is simply my own personal opinion and no
better than Bin Laden's.
Since the charge against me is that my moral position is just my own
personal opinion, and I am not even entitled to ask moral questions, I
decided to ask you (the superior moral being) where you get YOUR
morality from. Whenever I did that you either ignored it, refused to
answer or threw a tantrum. I strongly suspected, therefore, that your
morality is ultimately based on personal choices - the same as
everyone else's.
I therefore asked you the following question: "Is there any morality
[that anyone possesses - whether atheist, materialist, theist, ANYONE]
other than that ultimately of personal choice? If there is one then
please identify it and describe it."
After ignoring and evading this you are pressed again and you throw
another tantrum. I rest my case. You have been pretending you have a
right to make moral judgements and that others don't. That is an
attack on them. In the end, however, you have no more right than
anyone else. Your choice of morality is a personal one like everybody
else's. You are ignorant and dishonest and blind to your own
stupidity. Others have picked this up. I now concur. I leave you with
my (far too lenient) summing up which you left in.
>> "I, Scott, accept that I have been attacking the moral codes of others
>> for being based on personal choice. I, Scott, however, have to admit
>> that the moral codes I subscribe to are ultimately a matter of my
>> personal choice and I see no other basis. Therefore I have been a
>> stupid pedant and apologize unreservedly for wasting everybody's time"
I rest my case.
William
Icarus
>>> Are you anywhere nearer being able to provide a valid
>>> argument for morality being objective?
>>
>> If you can't follow the fucking thread, shut the fuck up.
I follow the thread fine, thanks. I'm talking about *your*
long-standing inability to present a meaningful argument for
'objective morality'. I've already had that discussion with 'Evil
Editor' and of course he can't support the idea either.
Editor of EvilBible.com
And still you post a non-responsive answer rather than post a single fucking
definition of the word "objective"! You obviously have an extremely lame
argument if a simple definition of a word will bring it down. POST THE
DEFINITION!!!
> > > Atheist typically argue against
> > > objective morality and for subjective morality.
> >
> > Of course they do. They are using a different definition of the words
> than
> > you are using. That's why you have consistently refused to provide a
> > definition of the words "objective" and "subjective".
>
> No they don't and neither am I. I noticed Syme also posts to mensa. He
must
> have an IQ of at least 132 assuming he is also a member. I layed out the
> problem the subjective morality is only about one's personal opinion and
he
> agreed. Irregardless of whether he does have an 132+ IQ, what do you
> comprehend that he does not?
And still you post a non-responsive answer rather than post a single fucking
definition of the word "objective"! You obviously have an extremely lame
argument if a simple definition of a word will bring it down. POST THE
DEFINITION!!!
> > > You just can't seem to accept what moral subjectivism ultimately
> lintels.
> >
> > I understand exactly what "moral subjectivism" means. But unlike you I
> also
> > understand that words like "objective" and "subjective" have several
> > different meanings and I understand that you can't switch definitions in
> the
> > middle of an argument and still be logical.
> >
> > > You want to believe there
> > > really is a quality of a universal good and evil.
> >
> > You don't post a definition of "objective" because your whole argument
> will
> > collapse like a house of cards. I've had it with your definition
> switching
> > bullshit. Apparently you know that your argument is a bunch of bullshit
> > built on dishonesty and stupidity.
> >
> > I'll ask you again to drive home my point that you are a dishonest
little
> > asshole: POST YOUR DEFINITION OF THE WORD "OBJECTIVE"!!!
>
> I have...again and again.
No you haven't. And still you post a non-responsive answer rather than post
a single fucking definition of the word "objective"! You obviously have an
extremely lame argument if a simple definition of a word will bring it down.
POST THE DEFINITION!!!
> Maybe you and the others who agree with you need to read it from other
> atheists. Below is a google search I did to alt.atheism on morality which
> includes references debates using paintings as an analogy. I deleted my
name
> so to attempt to leave out any biases you goofs have associated with me.
You
> want someone to focus your attention on? Try following Jim07D4.
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=morality%20is%20subjective%20painting&as_eq=scott&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&hl=en
There is no sense in arguing with you if you continue to refuse to post a
definition of the word "objective". POST THE DEFINITION!!!
Editor of EvilBible.com
<snipped non-responsive answer>
Still no response to this very simple question. Why are you so afraid of
the truth?
Editor of EvilBible.com
>
> "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> news:40f8078...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > >"William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > >
will
> > >> not answer that question.
> > >>
> > >> Let me ask it once again in simple terms that might get a full and
> > >> straight answer from you (but I don't hold out much hope).
> > >>
> > >> Is there ultimately any morality other than that of personal choice?
> > >
> > >For subjectivists/relativists, NO.
> > >
> > >> A yes/no is not sufficient. By all means run away from this question
> > >> again, and the implications of it, if you wish.
> > >
> > >For subjectivists/relativists, NO. And I've been telling you why that
> answer
> > >is "No" all along.
> >
> > Yes. You and have dodged the question every time. I don't know whether
> > you are stupid or dishonest. Other posters think you are both.
> >
> > Let me put in a way that even you cannot dodge.
> >
> > materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that ultimately of personal
> > choice? If there is one then please identify it and describe it.
> >
> > AGAIN, and the implications of it, if you wish.
>
> Here's what I think you want me to do, William. You want me to cut through
> all the "if/then" conclusion that are presented in this following example
> http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/relat.htm and tell you what the true nature
> of ethics is.
>
> No one can do that. All anyone can do is start with a premise that they
may
> or may not believe is true (in this case materialism) then draw
conclusions
> that must follow. In the case of materialism, morality is made up of
> subjective values - morality is anti-realism - and no objective moral
> valises exist.
Why do you always refuse to define the word "objective"? It's not hard to
see through your definition switching bullshit.
Editor of EvilBible.com
There you go using the word "objective" again while still refusing to define
it. Are you really this stupid and dishonest? I think that most grade
school kids can see through your definition switching bullshit.
Editor of EvilBible.com
What the hell are you talking about? I have completely provided a logical
and sound argument that morality can be objectively determined. What part
didn't you understand?
Editor of EvilBible.com
>
> "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
> news:e7CdnXyrGJs...@adelphia.com...
> >
>
> that a fucking laugh. You can't even clear up your own position.
>
> He uses two different meanings of the
> > word "objective" and switches them to make his point. That's why I keep
> > asking him to define the word "objective" and that's why he keeps
refusing
> > to answer. His argument is very simple and very absurd. It goes like
> this:
>
> Liar.
This is absurd. Why do you continue to refuse to post a definition of the
word "objective", and why do you continue to lie about it? It's obvious
that your entire argument is based on a very simple definition switch in mid
argument. You might fool a few people with this stupid trick but you are
not fooling me. POST YOUR DEFINITION!
> > 1) Materialist atheists believe there are no objective morals. (In this
> > case he is using the word "objective" to mean an actual existence.)
>
> an actual quality would be a better word.
And yet "actual quality" is not seen in any definitions of the word
"objective" that I have seen. Stop your bullshitting and POST A DEFINITION!
> > 2) If there are no objective morals then there is no way to objectively
> > judge moral codes and so they must be all equally good.
>
> Now that is true. Would you like to have a link from a philosophical dept
at
> a university saying the same damn thing?
> here is one again:
> http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
No this agrees with me:
"Is it possible for us to make general, objective moral assessments of these
cultural practices? Is there some objective, culturally independent
standpoint from where we can pass unbiased judgment? Moral theories purport
to do just that--to objectively assess the morality of actions and
practices, irrespective of culture."
Why can't you understand simple English? What do you think the last
sentence means?
> (In this case he is
> > using the word "objective" like above the first time but then he
switches
> > meanings for the second use of the word. The second time he means
"based
> on
> > observable phenomena: presented factually".)
>
> No, you shit for brains. Either actions, such as spearing babies, have an
> objective moral quality about them that would in fact exist irregardless
of
> what anyone subjectively believes or these actions do not posses such a
> quality. From there we can conclude problems and draw conclusions.
<snipped non-responsive answer>
Well prove me wrong and post your single definition of the word "objective".
I have only asked you a few dozen times. Why is your argument so damn weak
that it can't survive a simple definition?
> > When he is challenged on this he usually pulls out his backup lie that
if
> > you don't have an absolute standard of morality to measure against you
> can't
> > judge any morality. This is the mental midget's equivalent of saying
that
> > speed can't be measured unless you have an absolute speed to compare it
> to.
> > Speed is determined by measuring time and distance just like morality is
> > measured by determining harm and benefits.
>
> and once again you pull out your stupid false analogy for speed. Speed is
> the objective value/standard your car was traveling. It is an objective
fact
> irregardless if anyone knows what that speed was.
And yet once again you have still used the O-word while always refusing to
define it. This is getting to be absurd. POST YOUR DEFINITION OF THE WORD
"OBJECTIVE!
Icarus
> "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> The question is:
>> "Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether
>> atheist, materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that
>> ultimately of personal choice? If there is one then please
>> identify it and describe it."
>
> I'll say this real slowly...for you, William.
> I.....am.....not.....advocating
> (ad-vo-ca-ting)....any.....phil-o-soph-ical....position. I...
> am..... NOT..... arguing.....
>
FOR....nor....Against.....any....particular.....philosophical....
ism.
You say "I am an objectivist" and "I hold to objective moral
principles" but when pressed you know you can't defend that
position, which is why you always evade and ignore questions like
William's above.
> I am not arguing for nor against materialism. You can accept
> it or reject it all you want. I don't care. I am only
> explaining that morality must be only subjective *if*
> materialism is true. That is, if you are a materialist then it
> follows that your opinions about what should be called good
> and evil is no better than anyone else's, including those
> opinions of Islamic fundamentalists.
>
> Personally, I am a moral realist. But as I've been saying,
> there is nothing in materialism that would allow you/me/anyone
> to make materialistic assessment for knowing when one morality
> is better than another. I, personally, reject materialism and
> am a dualist. How do I hold to moral realism? The way all
> dualist do, by an *appeal* to reason and a belief in the
> supernatural. Although I believe it is, I have no rational
> justification for saying bayoneting babies is in fact
> Evil....irrespective of personal opinions.
Spot the contradiction here. You "hold to moral realism... by an
appeal to reason" and yet you can give no rational justification
for saying that something is evil. You have no grounds for
claiming that your moral viewpoints are anything other than
subjective.
You claim to be an objectivist, but when pressed to support that
position with valid argument or evidence, you know that you
can't. Your position is untenable.
Icarus
I understand perfectly well - You attempt to support the idea by
equivocating on definitions of words like 'objective' and
'subjective' or by basing your "logical and sound argument that
morality can be objectively determined" on subjective judgments,
thus invalidating it.
William
wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>> "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
The guy is hoist on his own petard. He has spent all this time telling
everyone that unless they have HIS philosophy they only have their own
personal opinions and cannot even ask questions on morality, ie the
questions he seems to think he is entitled to ask and answer. When
asked whether his morality is ultimately based on personal choice he
goes into his usual state of blather and denial and then blatantly
evades the question. The conclusion is obvious.
William
Editor of EvilBible.com
> Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
>
> > "Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:2m0ha0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Scott wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Are you anywhere nearer being able to provide a valid
> >>>>> argument for morality being objective?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you can't follow the fucking thread, shut the fuck up.
> >>
> >> I follow the thread fine, thanks. I'm talking about *your*
> >> long-standing inability to present a meaningful argument for
> >> 'objective morality'. I've already had that discussion with
> >> 'Evil Editor' and of course he can't support the idea either.
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? I have completely
> > provided a logical and sound argument that morality can be
> > objectively determined. What part didn't you understand?
>
> I understand perfectly well - You attempt to support the idea by
> equivocating on definitions of words like 'objective' and
> 'subjective'
The words "objective" and "subjective" have several different meanings. I
have always pointed this out and have been very explicit about which meaning
I have been using at which time, often posting the definitions when I used
the words so that there would be no confusion (see example below). Scott is
the one who is using different meanings of the words without explaining
which meaning of the word he is using. If you are unclear about which
meaning I am using please point to a post and let me be even more explicit.
> or by basing your "logical and sound argument that
> morality can be objectively determined" on subjective judgments,
> thus invalidating it.
In another thread I have very explicitly explained that a judgment can be
both subjective (particular to a given person) and objective (based on
observable phenomena: factually presented). The existence of some
subjectiveness in a judgment does not mean that it is not objective. If you
disagree please explain why.
Scott
If I'm supporting objective morality anywhere in this thread, get the quote.
Scott
Scott
Well hell, Icarus, you and I are telling Evil Ed the same thing. And guess
what? He keeps on and on and on and on claiming that I am switching my
definitions of "objective". While I repeatedly tell him that I am not.
Scott
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
I'll explain it to you Chris....again.....since I am as bullheaded as you.
Since if materialism is a true representation of reality (no supernatural
realm), there is no such thing as true morality; that is, morality has no
**truth-values** It follows then that there is no such thing as moral
progress or that one society's moral code is factually better then another.
Example: Western liberalism's ethics can be no better then Islamic Law
ethics in any factual sense. A society without slavery can be factually no
better then one with slavery. You only subjectively *prefer* one to the
other. Liken it to saying you prefer rock music to country. You have no
objective stands that would allow you to say one music is factually better
than any other. Forcing all of us to sit through a Japanese Opera might have
us all grinding our teeth before it's over but that doesn't make our music
factually better in any truth-value sense.
Your car crash analogy fails as an example because it *has* a truth-value,
an objective reality. The speed of the car is the truth-value. That doesn't
mean anyone knows with certainty what that speed was. Any guess the
observers make is still and objective estimate. It is no their subjective
opinion.
I'll try an even simpler example: We have a gallon jar full of jellybeans
and a contest to estimate how many beans are in the jar. The truth-value is
the actual number of beans in the jar. No body knows what that number
actually is. We can get close to the actual **correct** number by using
math. We can take the area of the volume inside the jar and divide it by the
area of a jellybean. Or we can simply guess the number. None of the
guessers/estimators is giving a subjective opinion. They are all giving
their objective opinion.
Ethics has no materialistic equivalent to those analogies, your speed and my
jellybean jar. What mathematical equation do you have for estimating evil?
Which is why my painting example is the better analogy for a materialistic
example of evil. The likes and dislikes of a painting and the likes and
dislikes of human behavior towards other humans are all about aesthetical
preferences. Nothing more....*no* *thing* more is added.
You can quit reading here but this is where Icarus and I may part:
I think he holds that materialism is in fact a true representation of
reality where I say it is not a provable belief. It can only be assumed to
be true. But if he is right, there is no truth (no truth-value) to saying
Japanese soldiers tossing babies and bayoneting is in fact evil. Good and
evil do not *really* exist within materialism. If the soldiers liked doing
so, it was good.....for them. If you don't like their having done so, it was
evil....for you. Neither of your opinions is better. A materialist who
thinks otherwise is either ignorant of the fact of materialism or is
delusional and fantasizing. In either case, he is not a true materialist if
he believes one moral code is actually better than another - that
non-slavery is better than slavery. If materialism is true, his humanism is
every bit as much a mythological fantasy as those of the theists' moral
sense he despises. Materialistic humanism deletes all non-material myths
from reality except two: free moral agencies and true morality.
If materialism is true, moral disagreements are pointless.
It surprises me that more theists don't beat the shit out of more
materialistic atheists like you, Chris, on this issue since it appears that
most atheists argue as though there really is such a thing as Evil.
Scott
Scott
> Scott wrote:
>
> > "William" <tel...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> >> The question is:
> >> "Is there any morality [that anyone possesses - whether
> >> atheist, materialist, theist, ANYONE] other than that
> >> ultimately of personal choice? If there is one then please
> >> identify it and describe it."
> >
> > I'll say this real slowly...for you, William.
> > I.....am.....not.....advocating
> > (ad-vo-ca-ting)....any.....phil-o-soph-ical....position. I...
> > am..... NOT..... arguing.....
> >
> FOR....nor....Against.....any....particular.....philosophical....
> ism.
>
> You say "I am an objectivist" and "I hold to objective moral
> principles" but when pressed you know you can't defend that
> position, which is why you always evade and ignore questions like
> William's above.
Where have I said that? And if I did what was the context?
>
> > I am not arguing for nor against materialism. You can accept
> > it or reject it all you want. I don't care. I am only
> > explaining that morality must be only subjective *if*
> > materialism is true. That is, if you are a materialist then it
> > follows that your opinions about what should be called good
> > and evil is no better than anyone else's, including those
> > opinions of Islamic fundamentalists.
> >
> > Personally, I am a moral realist. But as I've been saying,
> > there is nothing in materialism that would allow you/me/anyone
> > to make materialistic assessment for knowing when one morality
> > is better than another. I, personally, reject materialism and
> > am a dualist. How do I hold to moral realism? The way all
> > dualist do, by an *appeal* to reason and a belief in the
> > supernatural. Although I believe it is, I have no rational
> > justification for saying bayoneting babies is in fact
> > Evil....irrespective of personal opinions.
>
> Spot the contradiction here. You "hold to moral realism... by an
> appeal to reason" and yet you can give no rational justification
> for saying that something is evil. You have no grounds for
> claiming that your moral viewpoints are anything other than
> subjective.
First of all, I'm not CLAIMING. I'm saying I BELIEVE/(hold). Those two are
not the same statements. If I say I believe in God, and you say prove it.
What am I suppose to prove? That there is a God or that I believe in a God.
What difference to you does it make that I believe in a God? If the
difference is ethical, then an argument to that difference is pointless.
But on the last sentence you are correct. I have no *materialistic* "ground"
were I to claim objective morality, that one morality is better than
another? Which is exactly what I've been tell Chris, a materialist, that he
doesn' t have! Are you sure you can read?
> You claim to be an objectivist, but when pressed to support that
> position with valid argument or evidence, you know that you
> can't. Your position is untenable.
True, I claim to be a moral realist/objectivist but I don't claim those
morals have any materialistic reality. I'm a dualist.....and by extension
from that a theist.
A humanistic atheist who argues for better moral principles is also not a
materialistic atheist but a dualistic atheist; He is an atheist who believes
in some supernatural/platonic realm of correct morality. "Human rights are
only convenient fantasy" - stoney.
So what is to you if I *believe* in moral realism? Do (and William) always
go around asking people what they believe and then demanding that they prove
what they believe?
There is a difference in saying, "God exists" and saying "I believe God
exists".
Scott
Scott
Since you are wrong the conclusion is not obvious to you.
Editor of EvilBible.com
Any 'explanation' from you which doesn't include a definition of the words
"objective" and subjective" is useless. POST YOUR DEFINITION OF THESE
WORDS! I don't want examples, I want definitions.
Editor of EvilBible.com
Well we all know that you are a liar. Where the hell is your definition of
the word objective???
Scott
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
Chris, it's exactly like Icarus said: You are equivocating subjective and
objective to what is actually an objective guess made by observers. I
haven't changed my use of those two terms anywhere in these discussions.
That you think I have is only your delusion.......How did you get a mater's
degree in science?
And I've told you and told that if you keep this up you are going to totally
discredit yourself with reading members in a.a. From the tone of the posting
to you by them, I believe that (but I hold I may be wrong) has happened.
Scott