Try and Make Me Believe Atheists Have No Morals - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Try and Make Me Believe Atheists Have No Morals
in Religion

I believe, as an Atheist, that I have morals that were put into me not by a god, but by the evolution of the human brain. I dare you to convince me otherwise
  1. Do Atheists Have Morals?

    26 votes
    1. Yes
      92.31%
    2. No
        7.69%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • @mehbeh1  Of course you have morals, God created atheists too. Doesn't matter what Religion you belong to, or imaginary planet you claim to have evolved on, you are a human created in Gods image, by laws that your body is made up of, so morals were built into you. It takes a lot of work to become an evolving ape, 'cause nature itself', every beautifully and wonderfully designed cell in your body is fighting against that, umm, foolish religious belief system.

    God bless you.
    SilverishGoldNovaHankNonCredentiGhostyMasterofPun
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited November 2017
    There's an issue with the idea that Atheism can be correct and that Atheists can possess Morality.  It's not that they can't possess it, it's just that Morality doesn't fit the evolutionary explanation, we'll use the example of "Selflessness".

    The idea that selflessness is an evolutionary result is preposterous.

    This is proven in the following logical deduction:

    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because it's supportive of the continuation of your Species.

    The problem here is that there is a presupposition.

    Q: Why should I care about the continuation of my Species?
    A: Because it's what's best for your Species.

    Yet another presupposition.

    Q: Why should I care about what's best for my Species?
    A: Because if you don't then your Species could die.

    Yet another presupposition.

    Q: Why should I care about whether or not my Species dies?
    A: Because if your species dies, then you will die.

    Problematic result.

    Q: So then if I understand this correctly, I should strive to be selfless because it's what's best for me?

    This reasoning defies the meaning of selflessness and is illogical.
    DrCerealFascismSilverishGoldNovaEvidenceMissDMeanorNonCredentiGhostyMasterofPun
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • As an atheist, I have values that most people refer to as morals. I believe these came from a combination of upbringing, environment, experience & common sense.
    BaconToesPolaris95
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • mehbeh1 said:
    I believe, as an Atheist, that I have morals that were put into me not by a god, but by the evolution of the human brain. I dare you to convince me otherwise
    I think it could be argued that if morals were attributed to the evolution of the human brain, we would all have the same (or at least very similar) morals.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • @JoePineapples

    I think you're onto something here.  However...Humans do not have the same morals...and Human's don't even have similar morals across this planet.  Vast populations of Humans across the ocean not only maintain Morals that are dissimilar to Western Morals...but they have Morals that are direct contradictions to Western Moral standards.  Morality across the Earth is in no way, shape or form comparable, if it were then I doubt we would have even 5% of the conflict we have today.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    There's an issue with the idea that Atheism can be correct and that Atheists can possess Morality.  It's not that they can't possess it, it's just that Morality doesn't fit the evolutionary explanation, we'll use the example of "Selflessness".

    The idea that selflessness is an evolutionary result is preposterous.

    This is proven in the following logical deduction:

    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because it's supportive of the continuation of your Species.

    The problem here is that there is a presupposition.

    Q: Why should I care about the continuation of my Species?
    A: Because it's what's best for your Species.

    Yet another presupposition.

    Q: Why should I care about what's best for my Species?
    A: Because if you don't then your Species could die.

    Yet another presupposition.

    Q: Why should I care about whether or not my Species dies?
    A: Because if your species dies, then you will die.

    Problematic result.

    Q: So then if I understand this correctly, I should strive to be selfless because it's what's best for me?

    This reasoning defies the meaning of selflessness and is illogical.
    I would like to first mention that this post is a red herring; it is hardly relevant to the proposed resolution.
    (If you wish to argue this without it being a logical fallacy, then you should make a post somewhere else.)

    I would like to point out that your entire post here is based off of the weak premise that selflessness was a direct byproduct of the evolutionary creature's self-preservation instinct. "Selflessness" could be inspired by empathy or reason which easily combats your post.

    E.g.,
    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because, occasionally, it feels good to be selfless.

    E.g. (an interesting illustration of this example would be the character Spock from Star Trek),
    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because, occasionally, it's more logical to be selfless.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @DrCereal
    DrCereal said:

    I would like to first mention that this post is a red herring; it is hardly relevant to the proposed resolution.
    (If you wish to argue this without it being a logical fallacy, then you should make a post somewhere else.)

    I would like to point out that your entire post here is based off of the weak premise that selflessness was a direct byproduct of the evolutionary creature's self-preservation instinct. "Selflessness" could be inspired by empathy or reason which easily combats your post.

    E.g.,
    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because, occasionally, it feels good to be selfless.

    E.g. (an interesting illustration of this example would be the character Spock from Star Trek),
    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because, occasionally, it's more logical to be selfless.
    So then, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the Moral "Selflessness" (The higher concern with the needs and wishes of others than your own) could be the result of being concerned with what feels good to one's self?  Do you see the contradiction here?  Logically, selflessness cannot be a derivative of self-gratification.  Now this doesn't mean that Humans cannot pretend selflessness in hopes of achieving their own agenda...but this is exactly as I said it is...pretend.  Selflessness as an idea is not compatible with underlying motives of self-gratification, and that's what morals are, they are ideas, they have no physical properties and exist beyond the natural realm as there is no standard of measurement for morals within the Human psyche.

    Your second example, while fantasy/scifi based is also likely a contradiction of what it means to be selfless.  If one is behaving in a way that is perceived to be selfless but the intent of the person acting selflessly is to behave in the most logical manner then one of two things is true.  Either the perpetrator is being selfless in accordance to my example of self-preservation or they're being selfless for a number of other reasons that contradict what it means to be selfless.

    The truth is that Selflessness does not fit into the evolutionary explanation.  Popular contention is usually that selflessness doesn't truly exist and it's just an attractive idea that Humans insist is real.  But if we're going to all agree that selflessness is a Moral and that it does exist...then it doesn't fit into an evolutionary explanation.  In order to make it fit, you'd have to attempt to change the meaning of Selflessness, much like you did above by insisting that selflessness is about self-gratification but again that's a contradiction to what it means to be selfless and is illogical.
    Evidence
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 165 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal
    DrCereal said:

    I would like to first mention that this post is a red herring; it is hardly relevant to the proposed resolution.
    (If you wish to argue this without it being a logical fallacy, then you should make a post somewhere else.)

    I would like to point out that your entire post here is based off of the weak premise that selflessness was a direct byproduct of the evolutionary creature's self-preservation instinct. "Selflessness" could be inspired by empathy or reason which easily combats your post.

    E.g.,
    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because, occasionally, it feels good to be selfless.

    E.g. (an interesting illustration of this example would be the character Spock from Star Trek),
    Q: Why should I be selfless?
    A: Because, occasionally, it's more logical to be selfless.
    So then, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the Moral "Selflessness" (The higher concern with the needs and wishes of others than your own) could be the result of being concerned with what feels good to one's self?  Do you see the contradiction here?  Logically, selflessness cannot be a derivative of self-gratification.  Now this doesn't mean that Humans cannot pretend selflessness in hopes of achieving their own agenda...but this is exactly as I said it is...pretend.  Selflessness as an idea is not compatible with underlying motives of self-gratification, and that's what morals are, they are ideas, they have no physical properties and exist beyond the natural realm as there is no standard of measurement for morals within the Human psyche.

    Your second example, while fantasy/scifi based is also likely a contradiction of what it means to be selfless.  If one is behaving in a way that is perceived to be selfless but the intent of the person acting selflessly is to behave in the most logical manner then one of two things is true.  Either the perpetrator is being selfless in accordance to my example of self-preservation or they're being selfless for a number of other reasons that contradict what it means to be selfless.

    The truth is that Selflessness does not fit into the evolutionary explanation.  Popular contention is usually that selflessness doesn't truly exist and it's just an attractive idea that Humans insist is real.  But if we're going to all agree that selflessness is a Moral and that it does exist...then it doesn't fit into an evolutionary explanation.  In order to make it fit, you'd have to attempt to change the meaning of Selflessness, much like you did above by insisting that selflessness is about self-gratification but again that's a contradiction to what it means to be selfless and is illogical.
    If you are unwilling to budge on what "selflessness" means, then sadly there is hardly a discussion here. The fantastical definition you have just provided simply does not exist. People are not "selfless" without personal benefit (unless they are attempting to act "logically" [which even acting logically is arguably beneficial to an individual], as I have said).

    "Either the perpetrator is being selfless in accordance to my example of self-preservation or they're being selfless for a number of other reasons that contradict what it means to be selfless."

    This is a false dichotomy. If I were to sacrifice myself to save 10 others, I would be acting in such a way because it is logical to do so. Ten lives are more valuable than one.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @Vaulk

    I don't buy your arguments.

    For one, no-one had made that argument about evolution either in general of the specific beliefs you rely on to try and illustrate your point.

    For two you appear to not only be concentrating on selflessness rather than morality as a whole, e.g. people would say that being charitable is moral and there is nothing to say you can't feel good about being charitable.

    Lastly your entire point appears to rely on trying to cause cognitive dissonance between the fact that someone is trying to help others and that they receive some kind of satisfaction from helping others. Of course this is semantic as if you google for "selfless" you get the definition of 'concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own; unselfish'. Hence you can receive some satisfaction from doing good and still be selfless as long as your primary concern is others.
  • Religion (or irreligion) doesn't necessarily effect how a person is, morally. That's not how it works
  • @DrCereal

    DrCereal said:
    The fantastical definition you have just provided simply does not exist. 
    I'll take that argument to the bank.  Apologies for not providing the reference.

    Selflessness: Concern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/selflessness

    I contend that your above statement is in fact incorrect.  I contend that the reference from the oxford dictionary proves empirically that the definition not only does exist but serves as direct opposition to your statement and proves emphatically that you are wrong in your assertion.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 165 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    DrCereal said:
    The fantastical definition you have just provided simply does not exist. 
    I'll take that argument to the bank.  Apologies for not providing the reference.

    Selflessness: Concern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/selflessness

    I contend that your above statement is in fact incorrect.  I contend that the reference from the oxford dictionary proves empirically that the definition not only does exist but serves as direct opposition to your statement and proves emphatically that you are wrong in your assertion.
    "Concern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own." That isn't the definition you were talking about. You implied multiple times that selflessness implies the complete lack of personal benefit. The definition you have just provided states nothing of the sort.

    I do not at all deny the existence of this definition of "selflessness".

    Also, I would like to point out that your quotation is slightly misleading.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Is it not said of God's chosen people, and is not said to them by god in the Pentateuch that they can do exactly as they like to other people? They can enslave them, they can take their land, they can take their women, they can destroy all of their young men, they can help themselves to all of their young virgins. They can do what anyone who had no sense of anything but their own rights would be able to do, but in this case with divine permission. Doesn't that make it somewhat more evil? 

    In Iran you're not allowed to sentence a woman who is a virgin to death, even though she may have committed (in the eyes of the mullahs) a capital crime - perhaps by showing her hair or her limbs too often. She can't be sentenced to death, but religious law says she can be raped by the Revolutionary Guards and she's not a virgin anymore - then they can kill her. 

    The mutilation of genitalia of children - who would do that if it wasn't decided that god wanted it?

    The suicide bombing community is entirely faith-based. The genital mutilation community is entirely faith-based. Slavery is mandated by the bible. You keep hearing how many abolitionists were Christians - it's about time that they took a stand against it, having mandated it for so long. So it's not even a tautology to say that there's a relationship between the human impulse to do evil; to be selfish; to be self-centered; to be greedy and a contrast between that and faith.


    Name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer in the name of faith that couldn't have been by an infidel, and name a wicked action that can only be mandated by faith, and then you'll see how silly the idea that religion is the basis of morality really is. 

    Evidence
  • @DrCereal

    I'm afraid I did not ever imply that selflessness implies the complete lack of personal benefit and I would challenge you to show me where I did.  I did in fact state that if the Intent if your behavior is "Personal gratification" then by definition the act itself is not selfless.  There is no one here that will contend that you CANNOT benefit in any way, shape or form from selfless acts, in fact I'd argue that selflessness is rewarding to say the very least.  But if your INTENT is to gain from your act of selflessness then that defies the meaning of selflessness.  In executing an action, one cannot be concerned MORE with the needs and desires of others if one is intent on acting in accordance with what will benefit one's self.  You've misconstrued my statement to imply that I believe selflessness cannot benefit the perpetrator...when I never said or implied that.  

    Intent is the key here.

    DrCereal said:
    The fantastical definition you have just provided simply does not exist. People are not "selfless" without personal benefit (unless they are attempting to act "logically" [which even acting logically is arguably beneficial to an individual], as I have said).

    Now back to your statement.  I never said that Selflessness must specifically exclude personal benefit and I didn't imply it either.  In fact I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.  I stated clearly that "Selflessness cannot be derived from self-gratification".  This means that the act of selflessness cannot be the result of intended self-gratification otherwise it's not selfless.  If you manage to benefit from it, if you're rewarded with a good feeling, if you're appreciated afterwards...then that's great.  People SHOULD praise selflessness (In my opinion), but that cannot be the driving factor for the act of selflessness otherwise the perpetrator was not truly concerned more with the desires and needs of others but was acting instead on what was in his/her best interest.

    I still contend that the definition I provided does exist and below is the exact definition I provided.

    Vaulk said:
    So then, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the Moral "Selflessness" (The higher concern with the needs and wishes of others than your own) could be the result of being concerned with what feels good to one's self?  

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 165 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    I'm afraid I did not ever imply that selflessness implies the complete lack of personal benefit and I would challenge you to show me where I did.  I did in fact state that if the Intent if your behavior is "Personal gratification" then by definition the act itself is not selfless.  There is no one here that will contend that you CANNOT benefit in any way, shape or form from selfless acts, in fact I'd argue that selflessness is rewarding to say the very least.  But if your INTENT is to gain from your act of selflessness then that defies the meaning of selflessness.  In executing an action, one cannot be concerned MORE with the needs and desires of others if one is intent on acting in accordance with what will benefit one's self.  You've misconstrued my statement to imply that I believe selflessness cannot benefit the perpetrator...when I never said or implied that.  

    Intent is the key here.

    DrCereal said:
    The fantastical definition you have just provided simply does not exist. People are not "selfless" without personal benefit (unless they are attempting to act "logically" [which even acting logically is arguably beneficial to an individual], as I have said).

    Now back to your statement.  I never said that Selflessness must specifically exclude personal benefit and I didn't imply it either.  In fact I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.  I stated clearly that "Selflessness cannot be derived from self-gratification".  This means that the act of selflessness cannot be the result of intended self-gratification otherwise it's not selfless.  If you manage to benefit from it, if you're rewarded with a good feeling, if you're appreciated afterwards...then that's great.  People SHOULD praise selflessness (In my opinion), but that cannot be the driving factor for the act of selflessness otherwise the perpetrator was not truly concerned more with the desires and needs of others but was acting instead on what was in his/her best interest.

    I still contend that the definition I provided does exist and below is the exact definition I provided.

    Vaulk said:
    So then, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the Moral "Selflessness" (The higher concern with the needs and wishes of others than your own) could be the result of being concerned with what feels good to one's self?  

    "I'm afraid I did not ever imply that selflessness implies the complete lack of personal benefit and I would challenge you to show me where I did."

    You said, "Logically, selflessness cannot be a derivative of self-gratification."

    I'm sure you didn't mean what I think (and that I didn't mean what you think), and for that reason, I will no longer respond to anything involved with this issue of "selflessness". I'm currently frustrated with the overwhelming amount of arguments that degrade into arguments relating to semantics. (Wittgenstein described this issue long ago, and we still haven't figured out how to avoid it.)
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • The issue is not do atheists have morals, but whether their materialistic worldview can account for them, which is to ask how they can rationally and objectively justify the existence of a moral code and how they know their personal moral code is the right one.
  • @ViceRegent

    Agreed.  Morality has no physical composition, no chemical or biological makeup and has no assigned standard of measurement. Morals are not physical and are part of the supernatural realm...which exists beyond the understanding of science.  This is case in point as to why Morality cannot be rationalized within the evolutionary theory.  Simply put, we don't understand why or how morals came to be, we can guess but no one has the ability to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.  This of course defies the philosophy of naturalism which is a commonly held viewpoint in western Atheist ideology.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    While a materialist is constrained to deny morality exists, it does not follow that the rest of us do not understand why or how morals came to be.   

  • @ViceRegent

    The point I was making, (While I agree that an understanding of morals can be achieved) is that we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt why or how morals came to be.  Speculate, theorize, believe, testify!  In the end it cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Hank said:

    Is it not said of God's chosen people, and is not said to them by god in the Pentateuch that they can do exactly as they like to other people? They can enslave them, they can take their land, they can take their women, they can destroy all of their young men, they can help themselves to all of their young virgins. They can do what anyone who had no sense of anything but their own rights would be able to do, but in this case with divine permission. Doesn't that make it somewhat more evil? 

    In Iran you're not allowed to sentence a woman who is a virgin to death, even though she may have committed (in the eyes of the mullahs) a capital crime - perhaps by showing her hair or her limbs too often. She can't be sentenced to death, but religious law says she can be raped by the Revolutionary Guards and she's not a virgin anymore - then they can kill her. 

    The mutilation of genitalia of children - who would do that if it wasn't decided that god wanted it?

    The suicide bombing community is entirely faith-based. The genital mutilation community is entirely faith-based. Slavery is mandated by the bible. You keep hearing how many abolitionists were Christians - it's about time that they took a stand against it, having mandated it for so long. So it's not even a tautology to say that there's a relationship between the human impulse to do evil; to be selfish; to be self-centered; to be greedy and a contrast between that and faith.


    Name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer in the name of faith that couldn't have been by an infidel, and name a wicked action that can only be mandated by faith, and then you'll see how silly the idea that religion is the basis of morality really is. 


    I agree @Hank to claim that religion is the basis of morality is laughable. But that's Religion and the Religious interpretation of the Bible.

    Yes, the Bible does justify slavery (and those few other things you said, excluding what Islam claims) because of all the sin in the world. Sin brought us all under slavery, and in the OT God wanted to remind men of this by destroying the Gentile pagan god worshipping Religious nations. But remember that even His own Children of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob were doomed to serve (slavery) and death. O.T. was all to keep His Children in line, to be "good slaves/servants" to hold to Godliness (righteous morality), and to remind the wicked (all wicked, including His Children at that time) of their impending doom.

    Besides the pretense, there are far more immoral deeds committed by Religious-theists than by non-Religious atheists. Only the 'theists' cover it up by claiming Allah, or the Trinity-gods, or any god of their Religion asked them to do the evil. (kind of like you said, only you mistakenly included the Bible which the Religious people use to justify their evil actions.)

    If you understood the Bible outside of the 1,700 years of influence of the Religious interpretation of it, you would understand why God gave those commands/orders to His Children in those O.T. days. Remember what God said, that 'every intent of mans heart is evil'! And don't forget that both good and evil suffer the same fate, .. slow death.
    Hank
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts
    edited November 2017
    ViceRegent said:
    The issue is not do atheists have morals, but whether their materialistic worldview can account for them, which is to ask how they can rationally and objectively justify the existence of a moral code and how they know their personal moral code is the right one.
    That would rely on the premise that atheist=materialist
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • Also morality being objective rather than subjective.
  • @Vaulk

    I fully comprehended your point.  And then I disagreed with it.  Now, what you might be saying is that one cannot prove morals beyond a reasonable doubt TO YOU, but this is a trial point as 1) truth is independent of your perception/acceptance of it and 2) you may be the epistemological problem.
  • @JoePineapples

    As atheism provides no justification for the existence of the non-material, all consistent atheists are materialists.  Indeed, one of the ways you know you are dealing with an atheist thinker as opposed to an atheist emoter, is the thinker has fully embraced this aspect of atheist thought.  The super atheist thinker understands that their materialism leads invariably to determinism (i.e., Hawking).
    NonCredenti
  • @Vaulk

    Please tell us how the atheist objectively knows what is moral and what is not?  And why draw the line between theist and non-theist as if they are all the same?  I prefer the line between Christian and pagan.  No question begging.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @JoePineapples

    As atheism provides no justification for the existence of the non-material, all consistent atheists are materialists.  Indeed, one of the ways you know you are dealing with an atheist thinker as opposed to an atheist emoter, is the thinker has fully embraced this aspect of atheist thought.  The super atheist thinker understands that their materialism leads invariably to determinism (i.e., Hawking).
    Atheism isn't a religion or belief system, there are no rules, doctrines or models that govern atheism other than they/we cannot believe in any gods.
    All atheists are different, the same spectrum of worldviews and beliefs can apply to any atheist (as long as that doesn't mean believing in a god), some are science enthusiasts and some are not, some are philosophical and some are not.
    Some are nice and some are not.
    Some are ignorant, some believe in ghosts, some are superstitious, some have the same ridiculous beliefs as many people who are theists (just not the belief in any gods). Some are altruistic and some are not. It goes on.

    You seem to view atheists as a separate species with several little sub-categories that each atheist fits neatly into. I'm afraid that's not how it is and the premise is false.
    Polaris95
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @ViceRegent

    Agreed.  Morality has no physical composition, no chemical or biological makeup and has no assigned standard of measurement. Morals are not physical and are part of the supernatural realm...which exists beyond the understanding of science.  This is case in point as to why Morality cannot be rationalized within the evolutionary theory.  Simply put, we don't understand why or how morals came to be, we can guess but no one has the ability to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.  This of course defies the philosophy of naturalism which is a commonly held viewpoint in western Atheist ideology.
    Morals are part of a supernatural realm?
    How does that work and how do you have that information?
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • @JoePineapples

    it is funny to me when atheists tacitly admit they are ignorant of philosophy, especially the notion that ideas have consequences.
    missmedic
  • @JoePineapples

    It has been explained to you.  Atheism cannot provide the justification for the existence or content of morality.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @JoePineapples

    It has been explained to you.  Atheism cannot provide the justification for the existence or content of morality.

    That's your answer?
    That's how you know morals are part of a supernatural realm?
    (atheism doesn't claim to explain anything, by the way. Atheism is absence of belief in any gods, that's all)
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • @JoePineapples

    Ok, this dude will waste no more of my time, for I cannot educate the willfully ignorant.
    missmedicNonCredentiPolaris95
  • @JoePineapples

    In order to explain how Morality is supernatural we must address what is supernatural.

    Supernatural:  attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural

    Now in order to show that Morality falls within the supernatural realm I'm going to use simple deductive reasoning to show how Morality cannot fall within the natural realm.  

    Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality

    1. Morality cannot be measured.  There is no standard of measurement for morals, we cannot apply standards of size, distance, weight, mass, density, displacement or any other metric of measurement to Morality. 

    2. Morality cannot be physical.  Morality exists as an idea, a thought process, therefor it has no physical composition and no chemical makeup.  It is beyond physical.

    The Scientific Method
    : A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientific_method

    3. One cannot apply the Scientific Method to testing morality.  One cannot observe morality as it exists as an idea within the human mind.  One cannot measure Morality as I've already clarified.  Finally, one cannot experiment upon morality, of course you can experiment with humans but that's another matter.

    4. If something is beyond the scientific method, then any theory regarding the matter will be by definition "Unscientific".  This means that it will simply be a "Theory" instead of a "Scientific Theory".  

    5. If Morality were the result of evolution, then one could easily deduce that a standard of Morals would exist across Humanity...but it doesn't.  Not only do different standards of Morality exist from person to person, but different standards of Morality exist from country to country, ethnicity to ethnicity and just about every other demographic.  Unless someone here truly thinks that Evolution could cause some Humans to develop certain morals and other Humans (Same Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) to develop completely different morals.

    If the above so far hasn't convinced you that Morality is beyond the laws of nature and not of the physical and natural world then I'll leave you with this: Scientific Theories are and will always be subject to change, they are fluid and subsequently never hard facts.  Take that knowledge and now apply a value system to something that cannot ever be a Scientific Theory but merely a theory in which it's impossible to apply the Scientific Method.  

    Let's keep in mind that I haven't suggested in any way, shape or form that Morality comes from God.  Science acknowledges and firmly attests to the existence of the Supernatural...which is why the definition of "Supernatural" comes straight from the Scientific Community.  The etymology of "Supernatural" comes from the word "supernaturalis", meaning beyond nature.  I do believe though (And I could be wrong) that Atheism maintains that everything can be explained by science and that the Supernatural is simply hogwash.
    Evidence
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • 1. Morality cannot be measured.  There is no standard of measurement for morals, we cannot apply standards of size, distance, weight, mass, density, displacement or any other metric of measurement to Morality.  

    False. We make judgements on other people's morality all the time. We are constantly able to assess morality.

    2. Morality cannot be physical.  Morality exists as an idea, a thought process, therefor it has no physical composition and no chemical makeup.  It is beyond physical.

    Agreed, morality is a subjective social construct.

    3. One cannot apply the Scientific Method to testing morality.  One cannot observe morality as it exists as an idea within the human mind.  One cannot measure Morality as I've already clarified.  Finally, one cannot experiment upon morality, of course you can experiment with humans but that's another matter.

    It's entirely possible to apply the scientific method to testing morality. Take the famous Milgram experiment for instance. However it's not really relevant. "Does the scientific method test it" is not a meaningful rationale. See, for example, art.

    4. If something is beyond the scientific method, then any theory regarding the matter will be by definition "Unscientific".  This means that it will simply be a "Theory" instead of a "Scientific Theory".  

    It's not beyond the scientific method though - though large parts of it may be irrelevant.

    5. If Morality were the result of evolution, then one could easily deduce that a standard of Morals would exist across Humanity...but it doesn't.

    Feel free to actually make this deduction then rather than making baseless claiming it can be made.

    Not only do different standards of Morality exist from person to person, but different standards of Morality exist from country to country, ethnicity to ethnicity and just about every other demographic. 

    How can these values possibly be different when just a few points earlier you claimed it was impossible to measure morality? You have contradicted yourself.

    Unless someone here truly thinks that Evolution could cause some Humans to develop certain morals and other Humans (Same Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) to develop completely different morals.

    Or unless human beings could evolve a capacity that could then manifest itself, develop and be used in different ways based on the specifics of the individual and how they are raised.

    Science acknowledges and firmly attests to the existence of the Supernatural...which is why the definition of "Supernatural" comes straight from the Scientific Community. 

    The definition of words is based on everyday usage, not the scientific community.
    Vaulk
  • One of the ways you know you are dealing with a pop atheist as opposed to an scholarly atheist is that they mask their ignorance with arrogance and demonstrate they know nothing about that which they speak.
    missmedicPolaris95
  • One of the ways you know you are dealing with a pop atheist as opposed to an scholarly atheist is that they mask their ignorance with arrogance and demonstrate they know nothing about that which they speak.
    Says a guy making sweeping accusations with no evidence.
    Polaris95
  • As I said....
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @Ampersand

    1. Simply saying "False, we do it all the time" does not justify your premise that my statement was false.  This is an appeal to popularity, one of many logical fallacies.
    Example: "Everyone's doing x, therefor x must be the right thing to do".
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

    2. The Milgram Experiment (As you mentioned yourself) is irrelevant to the argument as the study was focused on experimenting the conflict between obedience to authority.  Morality was not measured during the experiment nor was it recorded as a control or independent variable.

    3. I acknowledge your disagreement that Morality is not beyond the Scientific Method.  I have no clue as to how you're supporting your conclusion but never-the-less I acknowledge your disagreement regardless of your lack of premise.

    4. Premise for differences across the Earth in Morality:
    a. Cannibalism
    b. Child brides
    c. Blood Sports
    d. Public Torture
    e. Genital Infibulation
    f. Foot Binding
    g. Scarrification
    h. Selective Infanticide

    The above is a list of acts that in the United States, and many other Countries, are considered abominations minus Selective Infanticide depending on your outlook on abortions. In other parts of the World like New Guinea, Fiji, India, The Congo, Cambodia, Polynesia, Liberia and Germany...Morality can be viewed as completely different.  This is an example of how some cultures (Even to this day) maintain different morals and values while others either don't anymore or never did.  Again I maintain my conclusion that if Morality truly were the work of evolution...you wouldn't see extreme variations across the Earth among the exact same Species.https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response

    4. In the case of "You contradicted yourself".  I have not.  I have stated clearly that Morality cannot be measured and that there is no standard of measurement for Morality.  I did not say that Morality cannot be identified or differentiated.  Measurement is not required in order to identify something nor is it required to differentiate it.  I'm not sure how else to explain this but I hope this clears up your confusion in the matter.

    5. My argument is that evolution cannot be responsible for Morality.  Your point of personal and cultural manipulation of morality is interesting but without premise.  An interesting idea though.

    6. Lastly I agree that word usage can differentiate with context however, my argument is concerning what Morality objectively is.  In order to get to the objective truth, one cannot allow opinionated meanings to come into play otherwise anyone could be right about anything regardless of how ridiculous it was simply because they're entitled to apply whatever meaning that want in regards to their agenda.  This is why I've cited the oxford dictionary and referenced the etymology of the word "Supernatural".  I'm not particularly interested in debating what someone thinks a word means, I'd rather keep this as factual as possible.

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @JoePineapples

    In order to explain how Morality is supernatural we must address what is supernatural.

    Supernatural:  attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural

    Now in order to show that Morality falls within the supernatural realm I'm going to use simple deductive reasoning to show how Morality cannot fall within the natural realm.  

    Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality

    1. Morality cannot be measured.  There is no standard of measurement for morals, we cannot apply standards of size, distance, weight, mass, density, displacement or any other metric of measurement to Morality. 

    2. Morality cannot be physical.  Morality exists as an idea, a thought process, therefor it has no physical composition and no chemical makeup.  It is beyond physical.

    The Scientific Method
    : A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientific_method

    3. One cannot apply the Scientific Method to testing morality.  One cannot observe morality as it exists as an idea within the human mind.  One cannot measure Morality as I've already clarified.  Finally, one cannot experiment upon morality, of course you can experiment with humans but that's another matter.

    4. If something is beyond the scientific method, then any theory regarding the matter will be by definition "Unscientific".  This means that it will simply be a "Theory" instead of a "Scientific Theory".  

    5. If Morality were the result of evolution, then one could easily deduce that a standard of Morals would exist across Humanity...but it doesn't.  Not only do different standards of Morality exist from person to person, but different standards of Morality exist from country to country, ethnicity to ethnicity and just about every other demographic.  Unless someone here truly thinks that Evolution could cause some Humans to develop certain morals and other Humans (Same Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) to develop completely different morals.

    If the above so far hasn't convinced you that Morality is beyond the laws of nature and not of the physical and natural world then I'll leave you with this: Scientific Theories are and will always be subject to change, they are fluid and subsequently never hard facts.  Take that knowledge and now apply a value system to something that cannot ever be a Scientific Theory but merely a theory in which it's impossible to apply the Scientific Method.  

    Let's keep in mind that I haven't suggested in any way, shape or form that Morality comes from God.  Science acknowledges and firmly attests to the existence of the Supernatural...which is why the definition of "Supernatural" comes straight from the Scientific Community.  The etymology of "Supernatural" comes from the word "supernaturalis", meaning beyond nature.  I do believe though (And I could be wrong) that Atheism maintains that everything can be explained by science and that the Supernatural is simply hogwash.
    I didn't even read past point one, where for some reason you assume morals can't be measured. Psychology makes regular use of morality tests, it's one of the reasons we know people have differing morality.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Then in point 2 you say that morals are a thought process, this plants them squarely within the laws of nature (so, not supernatural)
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • In point 3 you claim morals cannot be observed. In reality we observe morality everyday, expressed through people's speech and behaviour.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @JoePineapples

    I understand your arguments completely, I however don't see any premise for your conclusion that thoughts are squarely within the laws of nature.

    I also don't understand how you can claim that observing a person's actions is the same as observing Morality.  This is like claiming that you have observed oxygen because you saw someone's chest expand and contract.  In reality you saw nothing of the sort, you saw someone's actions that may have been the result of what you're claiming to see but in fact did not observe.  Even indirect observation within the Scientific method would require that you rely on the observations of someone else...not that you saw something that must have been the result of what you cannot observe.  Your premise that observing the actions of human beings is equal to observing morality is incorrect I'm afraid, they are not one and the same.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    As usual, pagans confuse what is done with what ought to be done.  Morals only concerns itself with the latter and cannot be measured. 
    missmedic
  • AmpersandAmpersand 471 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Simply saying "False, we do it all the time" does not justify your premise that my statement was false.  This is an appeal to popularity, one of many logical fallacies. 
    Example: "Everyone's doing x, therefor x must be the right thing to do".
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

    Incorrect, as you have misunderstood the logic involved and the fallacy you quote.

    if someone claims "People never do X"  then even one example of people doing X disproves the claims.

    You have made the claim "Morality cannot be measured". This is false as there are plenty of examples of people measuring morality. Therefore you are wrong.

    2. The Milgram Experiment (As you mentioned yourself) is irrelevant to the argument as the study was focused on experimenting the conflict between obedience to authority.  Morality was not measured during the experiment nor was it recorded as a control or independent variable.

    False.

    From the opening of "BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE" by Stanley Milgram:

    "Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest 1 This research was supported by a grant (NSF G-17916) from the National Science Foundation. Exploratory studies conducted in 1960 were supported by a grant from the Higgins Fund at Yale University. The research assistance of Alan C. Elms and Jon Wayland is gratefully acknowledged. 2 Now at Harvard University. that for many persons obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct"

    From later in the document:

    "The experiment yielded two findings that were surprising. The first finding concerns the sheer strength of obedient tendencies manifested in this situation. Subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects abandon this tenet in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands."

    I acknowledge your disagreement that Morality is not beyond the Scientific Method.  I have no clue as to how you're supporting your conclusion but never-the-less I acknowledge your disagreement regardless of your lack of premise.

    I provided an experimental example of morality begin studied. So far you don't seem to have backed up your position with evidence at all.

    ...Again I maintain my conclusion that if Morality truly were the work of evolution...you wouldn't see extreme variations across the Earth among the exact same 

    A conclusion without evidence to support it is just a baseless claim.

    4. In the case of "You contradicted yourself".  I have not.  I have stated clearly that Morality cannot be measured and that there is no standard of measurement for Morality.  I did not say that Morality cannot be identified or differentiated.  Measurement is not required in order to identify something nor is it required to differentiate it.  I'm not sure how else to explain this but I hope this clears up your confusion in the matter.

    So to follow the logic of your new clarification, you personally can identify that raping someone and giving money to help someone have a life-saving operation are different acts; but would not claim to be able to make any distinction between which act is more moral and which one is less moral as that would be measuring the morality involved?

    Taking you at your work it seems you are either you are making absurd claims which don't stand up to momentary scrutiny or you are a legitimate psychopath.

    5. My argument is that evolution cannot be responsible for Morality.  Your point of personal and cultural manipulation of morality is interesting but without premise.  An interesting idea though.

    I have already explained a few key reasons why your evolution argument makes no sense. You have offered no rebuttal. If you would like to support your ideas you need to back them up.

    6. Lastly I agree that word usage can differentiate with context however, my argument is concerning what Morality objectively is.  In order to get to the objective truth, one cannot allow opinionated meanings to come into play otherwise anyone could be right about anything regardless of how ridiculous it was simply because they're entitled to apply whatever meaning that want in regards to their agenda.  This is why I've cited the oxford dictionary and referenced the etymology of the word "Supernatural".  I'm not particularly interested in debating what someone thinks a word means, I'd rather keep this as factual as possible.

    That morality is is objective is a baseless assumption you have made that flies in the face of evidence - e.g. you have already admitted that people have different morals across the world. unless you are trying to change the definition of the word morality, morality is subjective and not objective.

    The issue which you seem to be missing is that you claimed the basis for the word supernatural comes from the scientific community. it does not and your claim is false.

    Also the etymology isn't really relevant as that refers to past usage, not present usage.
  • @Ampersand

    Please state how morality is measured?
  • @Ampersand

    1. Twice now you've claimed that I'm wrong without providing any citation, reference or justification.  Ampersand said:
    This is false as there are plenty of examples of people measuring morality. Therefore you are wrong.
    I'm not sure how else to explain that this is well outside the debating process.  Simply stating that someone's wrong and that there are examples somewhere out there in the ether which prove it...does nothing to prove or support your statement.  This is not how logic works my friend and we are very quickly closing the window of opportunity to debate this as I'm not willing to go around in circles with you about what is and is not just reasoning.
    Any reasonable and prudent person would have a serious problem accepting a conclusion based on the premise of "There's examples out there".  Also, you stated:

    Ampersand said:
    if someone claims "People never do X"  then even one example of people doing X disproves the claims.
    You haven't provided one singular example of "People doing X".  Do you see now the issue with your argument?  By your very own admission, and your very own logic you would have to provide an example...but you haven't.  You've simply stated that "There are plenty of examples of people measuring morality".  This isn't an example.  I'm honestly confused now as to how we're not getting anywhere with this.

    2. Your statement concerning the Milgram experiment still does not list Morality as a measurement or a control/variable.  Morality is mentioned, not measured nor counted as a variable or control.

    3. By your very own admission, your example of the Milgram experiment is irrelevant.
    Ampersand said:

    It's entirely possible to apply the scientific method to testing morality. Take the famous Milgram experiment for instance. However it's not really relevant. 
    4. In response to the example you've provided I propose a challenge then.  I've stated that there is no standard of measurement for Morality as a matter of fact.  If you contest that there is a standard of measurement then I challenge you to name it.  Simply providing one established standard unit of measurement for morality would completely dissolve and refute my argument completely.  I maintain that such a unit of measurement does not exist due to Morality existing solely as an idea.

     5. This is the first time I've seen that post you referenced, but not the first time someone's replied to me and I didn't know it.  So my most formal apologies for not providing a rebuttal in a timely manner.
    a. I acknowledge that you don't buy my argument, no harm, no foul, I'll live.
    b. I acknowledge that no one on debateisland.com made that specific argument.  Very observant.
    c. Again you're very observant as I did in fact use selflessness as my primary example instead of attempting to make well over 20 examples simultaneously and then explain each, I'm seeing a pattern here with you paying close attention.
    d. I won't argue that you can't receive satisfaction or gratification from being selfless, the argument you're referencing was with someone else who likely was intentional in misrepresenting my position to suggest that I believed that no personal satisfaction could be obtained from being selfless otherwise it was disingenuous.  I don't hold that position and that is entirely different from my clearly stated argument that the driving force behind your act of selflessness cannot be self-gratification...if it is then the act is not selfless.  This is not semantics, this is the difference between appreciating the good feeling that comes from being selfless as opposed to seeking to appear selfless in order to achieve that good feeling.  

    6. So if I understand you correctly, Morality then is fluid in meaning and can be anything.  So then any behavior is considered Moral then?

    The Meaning of Morality is objective.  Different people can have different morals as I've stated before.  Gary may think that being greedy with his finances and being selfish is Moral behavior...and if you ask him what his Morals are he will list off behavioral ideology that he highly values.  Norman on the other hand may think that exercising selflessness and compassion is Moral behavior...and if you ask him what his Morals are he will list off behavioral ideology that he highly values.  Both define what Morals are and what Morality is the same, but what they consider to be in the category of Moral behavior is different.  You and I can agree that the meaning of the word "Sexy" is Sexually attractive or exciting... but what we both think belongs in that category can vary greatly.

    I'm giving this one last shot my friend, I really do respect the debating method greatly but if we cannot operate inside of it then we're just turning wheels here.  Refute my arguments with a justifiable premise, use actual examples instead of insisting that they're out there somewhere.  If you state that something is Irrelevant, don't use it again as a premise.  If you argue that something exists when your opponent states that it does not, provide an example of its existence.  And don't simply state "You're wrong", provide justifiable reasoning and logic to support your conclusions.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • 1. Twice now you've claimed that I'm wrong without providing any citation, reference or justification.  Ampersand said:

    ...

    I'm not sure how else to explain that this is well outside the debating process.  Simply stating that someone's wrong and that there are examples somewhere out there in the ether which prove it...does nothing to prove or support your statement.  This is not how logic works my friend and we are very quickly closing the window of opportunity to debate this as I'm not willing to go around in circles with you about what is and is not just reasoning.
    Any reasonable and prudent person would have a serious problem accepting a conclusion based on the premise of "There's examples out there".

    Incorrect.

    You have misquoted me. If you look just prior to the bit you quoted, you will see I provide a logical sequence for showing your claim is incorrect: "If someone claims "People never do X"  then even one example of people doing X disproves the claims." That is a simplified form of a logical proof. So contrary to your claim I DID provide a justification, you simply disagree with one of the premise on which the justification is based.

    All arguments are based on certain assumptions .For instance my argument assumes that people exist to have morality with the presumption that this is such a basic and mutually accepted assumption that you do not disagree with it. I had presumed that the fact people measure morality was again such a basic assumption that we did not need to talk about it but apparently you disagree. That in itself id fine - although you shouldn't claim I didn't provide justification when I did simply because you disagree with the premise of my justification.

    You will note that I measure morality myself in the very post you reference later on (e.g. rape versus helping someone as a measure of morality), so that premise was also supported even if you disagree with it and the onus is on you.

    You haven't provided one singular example of "People doing X".  Do you see now the issue with your argument?  By your very own admission, and your very own logic you would have to provide an example...but you haven't.  You've simply stated that "There are plenty of examples of people measuring morality".  This isn't an example.  I'm honestly confused now as to how we're not getting anywhere with this.

    "So to follow the logic of your new clarification, you personally can identify that raping someone and giving money to help someone have a life-saving operation are different acts; but would not claim to be able to make any distinction between which act is more moral and which one is less moral as that would be measuring the morality involved?"

    A quote of me providing an example in the very post you claim I didn't provide an example.

    2. Your statement concerning the Milgram experiment still does not list Morality as a measurement or a control/variable.  Morality is mentioned, not measured nor counted as a variable or control.

    Why would it need to?

    3. By your very own admission, your example of the Milgram experiment is irrelevant.

    Actually, you have mistaken the point I was making so perhaps I could have been clearer. You have simply assumed that "Does the scientific method test it" is a meaningful rationale when there is no reason to assume that this is the case, you have provided no argument to support it and basic common logic (e.g. there is no scientific method to directly measure art but art still exists) would tell us there is not.

    So the Milgram experiment isn't relevant because your entire point isn't relevant. If you do prove your premise then the Milgram experiment becomes relevant and disproves your point.

    4. In response to the example you've provided I propose a challenge then.  I've stated that there is no standard of measurement for Morality as a matter of fact.  If you contest that there is a standard of measurement then I challenge you to name it.  Simply providing one established standard unit of measurement for morality would completely dissolve and refute my argument completely.  I maintain that such a unit of measurement does not exist due to Morality existing solely as an idea.

    I'll do you two better. Three methodologies for measuring morality: The Ethical Values Assessment (EVA). The Lakoff Scale. The Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale. Ethical Values Assessment. 

    If you mean an actual SI unit then that is irrelevant as per my previous arguments.

    b. I acknowledge that no one on debateisland.com made that specific argument.  Very observant.

    So you have attempted to disprove a view of evolutionary morality that no-one seems to actually hold and done nothing to disprove the views of evolutionary morality that other people, such as myself, do hold. So why should your argument be deemed relevant before we even start looking at whether it is correct and logical?

    c. Again you're very observant as I did in fact use selflessness as my primary example instead of attempting to make well over 20 examples simultaneously and then explain each, I'm seeing a pattern here with you paying close attention.

    Then this is a clear example of cherrypicking.

    With the argument of selflessness, it is easy to try and use semantics to try and create a cognitive dissonance (but only if you use certain definitions and make certain assumptions).

    However there is nothing that says you can't be charitable and feel good about it. There is nothing that says you can't be brace and risk your life and feel good about it. there is nothign that says you can't be caring and empathic and not feel good about it. Your argument is extremely limited and if it applies - which again it doesn't seem to as you seem to have based it off an irrelevant conception of evolution - then it doesn't apply to morality as a whole. Hence you have not proven your point.

    d. I won't argue that you can't receive satisfaction or gratification from being selfless, the argument you're referencing was with someone else who likely was intentional in misrepresenting my position to suggest that I believed that no personal satisfaction could be obtained from being selfless otherwise it was disingenuous.  I don't hold that position and that is entirely different from my clearly stated argument that the driving force behind your act of selflessness cannot be self-gratification...if it is then the act is not selfless.  This is not semantics, this is the difference between appreciating the good feeling that comes from being selfless as opposed to seeking to appear selfless in order to achieve that good feeling.  

    Then you would actually need to prove that. Putting aside the fact that your argument seems to be attacking a strawman and thus irrelevant and that if you did show how it was relevant I would then object and bring arguments against many of the individual claims and logic - your argument does not meet the conditions you set out above. You try and show that there is a selfish rationale for selflessness. At no point do you either:

    a) Show that there are no selfless reasons for selfless actions.

    b) Show that the amount of selfless reasons for selfless actions are less than the selfish reasons.

    However no part of your logic shows that there cannot be other reasons for selfless behaviour

    You'll also note you once again contradict your own argument. Previously you have claimed you cannot measure morality. Yet here you implicitly accept that there can be multiple moral rationales behind someone's actions but there can be one driving force - which presumes being able to quantify and assess the moral reasoning for people's actions. These are two mutually exclusive claims. You either can measure morality or you can't.


    6. So if I understand you correctly, Morality then is fluid in meaning and can be anything.  So then any behavior is considered Moral then?

    Any behaviour could be considered moral. Whether it is depends on your point of view.

    The Meaning of Morality is objective.  Different people can have different morals as I've stated before.  Gary may think that being greedy with his finances and being selfish is Moral behavior...and if you ask him what his Morals are he will list off behavioral ideology that he highly values.  Norman on the other hand may think that exercising selflessness and compassion is Moral behavior...and if you ask him what his Morals are he will list off behavioral ideology that he highly values.  Both define what Morals are and what Morality is the same, but what they consider to be in the category of Moral behavior is different.  You and I can agree that the meaning of the word "Sexy" is Sexually attractive or exciting... but what we both think belongs in that category can vary greatly.

    The definition of words is subjective, hence multiple meanings and how they change via time and how people can use them in ways that don't meet their definitions. If you look at the etymology of words, you will see them alter over time because  language and the meaning of words is a social construct. There are generally mutually agreed boundaries of what is true, but these are subjective boundaries that can change. Look at how, for instance, "wicked" has come to mean "cool" over time as well as "evil". This is because the definition of ideas, concepts language and words are all subjective.

    If you disagree, please provide evidence as the opinions of invented characters is not a solid argument.

    I'm giving this one last shot my friend, I really do respect the debating method greatly but if we cannot operate inside of it then we're just turning wheels here.  Refute my arguments with a justifiable premise, use actual examples instead of insisting that they're out there somewhere.  If you state that something is Irrelevant, don't use it again as a premise.  If you argue that something exists when your opponent states that it does not, provide an example of its existence.  And don't simply state "You're wrong", provide justifiable reasoning and logic to support your conclusions.

    Your issue seems to be that people provide arguments you don't agree with. There is nothing that can be done about that if you want to engage in a debate. No debater is going to follow the logic of their arguments all the way back to the very first starting assumption of "I think therefore I am". You provide what you think is an argument with assumptions that are mutually agreed on. If your opponent disagrees they can point this out and you can debate it. I can go back to your very first post in this thread and point out unfounded assumptions to your argument that you have not backed up - yet I don't complain that you aren't debating.
    Vaulk
  • @Ampersand

    How funny that you confuse a way to measure if someone holds to an arbitrary morality with a way to measure if something is actually moral. 
  • I assert that to be morally objective a person must use reason, as reason is absolute, reason does not contradict, reason is used to describe the one thing we all share, reality. An objective morality, is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.

    We live in a continuously changing world with new kinds of moral problem being generated all the time and much harmful ignorance still to overcome. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. The worry that, without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. When classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. So often declared -'the territory of religion'- moral development is in fact something to which the scientific approach contributes far more and far more reliably due to its emphasis on reasoned logic and evidence, the tools that help us discern what's true and false and without which one can't even formulate a valid argument. To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion.

    HankMajoMILSdlGMGV
  • missmedic said:

    I assert that to be morally objective a person must use reason, as reason is absolute, reason does not contradict, reason is used to describe the one thing we all share, reality. An objective morality, is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.

    We live in a continuously changing world with new kinds of moral problem being generated all the time and much harmful ignorance still to overcome. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. The worry that, without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. When classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. So often declared -'the territory of religion'- moral development is in fact something to which the scientific approach contributes far more and far more reliably due to its emphasis on reasoned logic and evidence, the tools that help us discern what's true and false and without which one can't even formulate a valid argument. To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion.


    A very interesting thought and very well said I might add.  Tell me, if we truly don't base morality on revelation from authority then how do you feel about "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"?
     
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    @ViceRegent

    Agreed.  Morality has no physical composition, no chemical or biological makeup and has no assigned standard of measurement. Morals are not physical and are part of the supernatural realm...which exists beyond the understanding of science.  
    Physical vs supernatural is a false dichotomy. Things can be non-physical but still part of the natural world, like numbers, emotions, concepts like "justice," and morals.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch