12 Apr 10
Interesting thread, good points on both sides I think. Are there OMFs? Does God exist? To answer either positively or negatively is surely (clearly?) a statement of faith. Can OMFs exist without God? Maybe - it seems not unlikely that moral behaviour could be selected for on an evolutionary basis. It certainly appears that (what I perceive to be) amoral behaviour leads to the propogation of anxiety, unhappiness and suffering in the human animal, whereas (what I perceive to be) moral behaviour leads generally in the opposite direction. Of course this may also be posited as an argument for the theistic position. Is Killing People For Fun morally right? Maybe it is if both parties (killer and killed) accept that it is. Maybe it isn't if either party objects.
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo , that's not what I am saying at all. I'm asking a question. I'm trying to question how one holds on to moral absolutes whilst at the same time holding the universe to be ammoral. I'm asking whether people think morality is real or whether the think it's just a concept.
to easy though. mere level 1 debating practice at best.
when you jump from dismissing god to dismissing what god stands for you tearing the fabric of logic in a brutal way. not only illogical but insulting towards humanity, and even god. he is basically saying that he is only following morals to appease god. if god wouldn't exist, he would be a bastard.
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatCan OMFs exist without God? Maybe - it seems not unlikely that moral behaviour could be selected for on an evolutionary basis.
Interesting thread, good points on both sides I think. Are there OMFs? Does God exist? To answer either positively or negatively is surely (clearly?) a statement of faith. Can OMFs exist without God? Maybe - it seems not unlikely that moral behaviour could be selected for on an evolutionary basis. It certainly appears that (what I perceive to be) am ...[text shortened]... if both parties (killer and killed) accept that it is. Maybe it isn't if either party objects.
------avalanche---------------
But if that is happening what is making it happen? If certain moral principles are being strengthened within us in order to satisfy and evolutionary gain then is it really "moral" - surely it's more functional. For example , one could say that men raping young females is "moral" on the basis that it propogates the species , or that killing people with disabilities is also "moral" on an evolutionary basis? Is a morality that exists purely to further the species or a gene pool (similar to dawkins selfish gene idea) really "moral" ? Hitler thought it was the "right" thing to do to push forward his "superior" master race at the expense of others. Maybe he was morally right?
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloMan, you're like a brick wall. I've already answered the question. Feel free to re-read through the thread again.
Man, you're like a brick wall. I've already answered the question. Feel free to re-read through the thread again.
This is really starting to feel like a waste of my time. Mainly, what I felt was at issue was your claim that, somehow, atheists are logically committed to the idea that "morality is not real". You have not supported this claim of yours ...[text shortened]... t. At this point, I'm not sure how to help you any further, if I have helped you at all.
----------LJ---------------
How can you answer the question if you don't understand it?
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJello"If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of 'external reality'." Now, I know you read this because, in fact, you quoted it back to me later on the same page. So, WTF is your problem?
[b]So - Are OMFs just a concept in men's minds ? Or are they part of external reality?
You still seem to baulk from this question , however , I suspect that you realise how important the answer might be.
I know it's asking of you a lot, but if you look back one whole page in this thread, I very clearly stated "If OMFs exist, then they simply ...[text shortened]... cause, in fact, you quoted it back to me later on the same page. So, WTF is your problem?[/b]
---------------LJ--------------------------------
Ok , so what does "part of external reality" actually mean? Is it a vague throw away statement , or can you say a bit more? Do you mean biological life or some part of the quantum world for example?
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkTheism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality.--- KM
[b]Maybe so , but at the very least the Theist has put his neck on the block about OMFs and definitively claimed OMFs are real and part of an external reality.
If you call alluding to an unfalsifiable implausible supernatural being whose largely indescribable nature has as a brute fact that it is moral in a particular way 'putting your neck on the b ...[text shortened]... description of how OMFs are written in to the universe have more detail? Less I'd say.[/b]
Wait a minute, I thought god's nature was part of god, not the natural world! How did god inscribe morality into the world? Are they Physical forces? Entities? Demi-gods? Biological/genetic forces? Oh wait, you don't know do you --SHARK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do know . God inscribes morality on our natural world through his presence with us via the Holy Spirit. It ios via the prompting of the Spirit that we know if we are in step or out of step with OMFs (ie God).
You may disagree with this idea but at least it is an idea. Unlike Atheists who believe in OMFs but can't seem to come up with even the foggiest idea of what an OMF might actually be.
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think you are probably right in that I (think I) doubt the existence of an Objective Moral Fact. I think morality is probably selected for in a Darwinian sense within a society, rather than within a population. Thus while it might seem that rape would have a selective advantage, this ignores the social response. As for the eugenic proposal, has this issue been settled to your satisfaction? I know it has generally been considered reprehensible post WWII, but this has not always been the case. The theist, however, is obliged to believe in their OMFs as a consequence of their leap of faith. It would seem to follow then that the theist’s morals (which may or may not be fact) are, in their minds, unquestionable. It’s not a huge leap from there to crusades, is it? Does that mean that they are 'moral'?
one could say that men raping young females is "moral" on the basis that it propogates the species , or that killing people with disabilities is also "moral" on an evolutionary basis?
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterHow can you answer the question if you don't understand it?
Man, you're like a brick wall. I've already answered the question. Feel free to re-read through the thread again.
----------LJ---------------
How can you answer the question if you don't understand it?
I did understand your question just fine, and I did answer it. You know, if you're looking for me to continue in this discussion, you need to first demonstrate you're with the program -- 'cause I don't intend to waste any more time here.
13 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterFor Chrissakes.
"If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of 'external reality'." Now, I know you read this because, in fact, you quoted it back to me later on the same page. So, WTF is your problem?
---------------LJ--------------------------------
Ok , so what does "part of external reality" actually mean? Is it a vague throw away statement , or can you say a bit more? Do you mean biological life or some part of the quantum world for example?
You're the one who asked me the following:
"So - Are OMFs just a concept in men's minds ? Or are they part of external reality?
You still seem to baulk from this question , however , I suspect that you realise how important the answer might be."
So, WTF did you mean when you asked me whether they are "part of external reality". Look, if you still just don't get it: my point that I have been pushing is that whatever you want to claim about morality the atheist can simply offer a dialectically symmetric position.
Good grief. You can save your breath on me: I am not going to be responding any more in this thread. You are, quite frankly, a waste of time on this issue. Sorry to have to tell you that.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterTheism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality.
Theism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality.--- KM
Wait a minute, I thought god's nature was part of god, not the natural world! How did god inscribe morality into the world? Are they Physical forces? Entities? Demi-gods? Biological/genetic forces? Oh ...[text shortened]... OMFs but can't seem to come up with even the foggiest idea of what an OMF might actually be.
I disagree. How is invoking 'the holy spirit' any use at all in describing in detail what is going on? How does it work? How is god part of the physical universe? If god isn't part of the physical universe, then in what sense is an OMF within 'the realm of external reality'? If the only access we have to whether something is moral or not is a nudge in our minds from the holy spirit, how is this clearly mind dependent phenomenon, which we know empirically gives divergent results across populations, a good indication that there are OMF's?
I'm afraid this poses more problems than it solves.
You may disagree with this idea but at least it is an idea.
An idea which consists of a narrative connecting labels for the unexplainable. There is no mechanism, no description of structure, nothing doing any explanatory work.
Unlike Atheists who believe in OMFs but can't seem to come up with even the foggiest idea of what an OMF might actually be.
I've told you about one candidate, I think about three times now. Last time you said you missed it I copied and pasted it for you. But now I must conclude that you are incapable of processing the experience in some way.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkAn idea which consists of a narrative connecting labels for the unexplainable. There is no mechanism, no description of structure, nothing doing any explanatory work.
[b]Theism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality.
I disagree. How is invoking 'the holy spirit' any use at all in describing in detail what is going on? How does it work? How is god part of the physical universe? If god isn't part of the physical universe ...[text shortened]... t now I must conclude that you are incapable of processing the experience in some way.[/b]
------lshark------------------------------
There is a huge mass of Christian writing about the workings of the Holy Spirit and the role of a spirit inspired conscience in humans. There's loads of stuff in the Bible. Many Christians would described their shared experiences in detail. You may disagree with it - but it's all out there and it's a firmly and boldly expressed concept of an external OMF.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkI've told you about one candidate, I think about three times now. Last time you said you missed it I copied and pasted it for you. But now I must conclude that you are incapable of processing the experience in some way.
[b]Theism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality.
I disagree. How is invoking 'the holy spirit' any use at all in describing in detail what is going on? How does it work? How is god part of the physical universe? If god isn't part of the physical universe ...[text shortened]... t now I must conclude that you are incapable of processing the experience in some way.[/b]
------------lshark-----------
I think I must have missed it.
You see , to say that there exists in life such a thing as an OMF is to make a very bold statement about the nature of reality. I don't think you have grasped this yet so probably whatever you said didn't register . However , I may have forgotten it , having been away on holiday. Cna't you just repeat it in one or two sentences?