Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Tassman]

That makes no sense Tass, the alpha males who control the weaker primates (often by violent means) do impose social cohesion.

After all most of mankind for most of history have lived under totalitarian rule. And we flourished.

But no man has control over what he thinks, how he acts, or the choices he makes. As you have made clear in the past, so to get upset with the one percent is just silly, you might as well get upset when a bear poops in the woods.

, exactly at what point in the evolutionary chain did humans obtain the ability to override it?

But if mankind went extinct in the next second, it would be no big deal.

It's a "big deal" for those going extinct.

Any more than the other species that went extinct before us.

[Tassman]

I would say that a majority of Christians would hold view #1, with a minority holding view #2 (generally liberal Christians do, such as myself when I was a Christian, and Sam I think). Whereas a majority of atheists would hold view #2, with a minority holding view #3.

and

[Starlight]

Well this atheist would say it’s both #2 and #3, i.e. Morality is about positive vs negative actions towards others and that such behaviour is a product of Evolution. In short we’re predisposed by Natural Selection towards social behaviour based upon altruism, reciprocity and adherence to the rules of the group.

Well obviously anyone who believes in evolution believes that it ultimately caused humans to be the way they are. But, as I mentioned, you can spin that two ways... either just turn it back into #2 and say that's why humans care about human wellbeing, or go down a relativistic route of denying the importance of morality completely, which is what #3 by itself (as separate from #2) was intended to represent (I'll admit I could have been clearer about that).

PS. To expand on that a bit: In view #3 (interpreted in a way that is different to #2) humans who follow moral codes are regarded as irrational, because they are simply giving into their base desires that evolution has put into their minds without sufficiently rationally reflecting on them and realizing that they only have those desires due to evolution. Whereas fully enlightened and rational humans ought to realize that there is no morality / it's just an evolutionary desire, and therefore give it no credence. Personally, I reject such a view, because I think that it doesn't tend to be important where people's values historically come from, only that they have them. Saying that it's "just" an evolutionary desire doesn't successfully undermine the fact that it is a desire. So I will virtually never mention evolution in any defense I ever make of view #2 because I don't see it as relevant. I just observe that pretty much everyone does tend to care about themselves and others, and so that is a valid place to start from and there's no need to go asking questions as to why that is the case (especially since 'evolution' is such an obvious answer to the 'why' question).

[Abigail]

Whatever services you choose to provide they need to be available to all as per the Civil Rights Act.

And they are available to all. No one is prevented from buying a wedding cake with a male/female combo mannequin.

A Klansman could say the same thing by being forced to serve blacks, Jews or Catholics. The only attack is upon your wish to discriminate against those whom you disapprove or dislike.

Nope you are comparing apples and oranges since you are comparing a provider of service (the Klansman) with a customer (the Christian who is forced to buy homosexual combo mannequins) A comparison would be forcing a black person who found the southern flag offensive to buy boxes of biscuits with the flag emblazoned on them

But the services you do

That is how most businesses operate, it is freedom of choice to sell what you wish in your business and will always discriminate against someone or other (just as does the person who opens a salon which offers only African-American style hair weaves or the person who opens a store selling only 'fairtrade' goods). As long as from the time a person enters the door they are not prevented from buying any item on sale because of who or what they are then they have not been discriminated against.

[Tassman]

And they are available to all. No one is prevented from buying a wedding cake with a male/female combo mannequin.

Nope you are comparing apples and oranges since you are comparing a provider of service (the Klansman) with a customer (the Christian who is forced to buy homosexual combo mannequins) A comparison would be forcing a black person who found the southern flag offensive to buy boxes of biscuits with the flag emblazoned on them

The argument is about people with strong personal beliefs claiming the right to refuse full standard service to customers on the basis of those beliefs...whether they are racists, anti-Semitic, Christian or atheist.

That is how most businesses operate, it is freedom of choice to sell what you wish in your business and will always discriminate against someone or other (just as does the person who opens a salon which offers only African-American style hair weaves or the person who opens a store selling only 'fairtrade' goods). As long as from the time a person enters the door they are not prevented from buying any item on sale because of who or what they are then they have not been discriminated against.

This is not about speciality shops such as kosher butchers or your African/American hair stylists.

If you own a cake shop that caters for weddings then you must provide a full service to all people eligible by law to marry, this includes same-sex couples. Do you really think you could get around the Civil Rights Act by operating a cake shop targeted solely to heterosexuals on the basis of your religious beliefs complete with gratuitous Christian testimonials about the abomination of homosexuality? Really! What about divorced couples remarrying, would they pass your stringent "Christian values" test? Would they get a cake or a stern lecture about adulterous relationships and living in sin?

[Abigail]

If you own a cake shop that caters for weddings then you must provide a full service to all people eligible by law to marry, this includes same-sex couples. Do you really think you could get around the Civil Rights Act by operating a cake shop targeted solely to heterosexuals on the basis of your religious beliefs

I am sure we can count on homosexuals to 'test' through the courts whether I will or not.

[seer]

All right seer, enough is enough. I went dozens of pages with you on this subject in a thread in apologetics. I've done multiple pages with you here and you're not any closer to saying sensible things or agreeing.

I'll just leave you to reflect on the fact that huge numbers of progressives (and buddhists) take the view that objective morality does exist and their explanations and defences of it all run along the same lines, and they think that theistic morality fails to be objective. Your own endlessly stubborn personal opinion appears to run counter to that, and you are of course entitled to have your own view.

Nonsense Star, go back to you own link and look at the discussion between your guy and Luke Breuer. Mr. Breuer completely destroys the argument. And no you have not show how moral ideals can be objective in a godless universe - nothing more but assertion.

http://www.atheismandthecity.com/201...objective.html

[Starlight]

Nonsense Star, go back to you own link and look at the discussion between your guy and Luke Breuer.

I can't really make sense of anything Breuer says... it's like philosophy books have been put into a blender and random sentences have come out. The blog author equally appeared to be struggling to understand what Breuer was even talking about. Much like talking to you seer.

[seer]

Correct. For both humans and our fellow primates the dominant males always ruled by force…hence chimpanzees and had their alpha males and humans had their absolute monarchs and theocratic religions. But, thanks to our large brains, humans are moving on from totalitarianism…both secular and religious. At least in the developed world we are; the uneducated masses are still mired in their religion and genocides.

That is just silly Tass. First, if your standard of "social cohesion" is our guide then totalitarian rule is just as effective as anything else. So by your definition, it is a good thing. As a matter of fact Democracy is much more messy and factional. And moving from where? How do you know where mankind will be in a hundred years? Perhaps we all will be under Islamic rule.

Yes he does. Men and chimpanzees et al have the illusion of choice. Making decisions is an integral part of the causal stream that is ‘determinism’. Thus a chimp will choose the best banana on the tree to eat just as a man will choose what to have for breakfast.

The illusion of choice is not choice. So the the 1% are just doing what nature created them to do. And Tass, you don't have any problem with nature - do you?

It's a "big deal" for those going extinct.

Yes, but we are just a meaningless accident of nature - so...

What does “going extinct” have to do with the survival instinct?

That the survival instinct is useless.

[seer]

I can't really make sense of anything Breuer says... it's like philosophy books have been put into a blender and random sentences have come out. The blog author equally appeared to be struggling to understand what Breuer was even talking about. Much like talking to you seer.

If you can't understand Breuer then let's start with your guy, and I quote:

So a very broad definition of morality can be the distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.

That is the ground of his moral belief. So how is that objective?

[Adrift]

It blows up in the face of the theist?
When I was a Christian, I always felt the Euthyphro dilemma was decisive against a divine-command view of morality, and also that the NT's law vs spirit talk was best interpreted as saying a moral code based on the principle of goodwill towards others was better than a moral code based on trying to follow a list of divine commands.

Because we do understand it, and think that it just doesn't work?

It's not really all that complicated. While people of many different cultures might believe different things are moral based on their culture and upbringing, people who reflect hard and philosophically on the matter have by and large come to one of the same three views worldwide:
1. Morality is whatever God commands. (Though which particular God they believe in, and which holy book, will be cultural)
2. Morality is about positive vs negative actions towards others.
3. Morality is a product of evolution.

The first two views both lay claim to be objective, and in the first, God's will is the standard by which all things are measured, and in the second, the wellbeing of humanity is the standard by which all things are measured. In some senses, which one is preferred could come down to the question: Which do you value more, God's will or man's wellbeing?

The third view is not necessarily incompatible with the second view, but can be. It observes that species which care about each other will tend to thrive more and survive evolutionarily. So on the one hand it can provide a historical origin for view 2, but it can also go down quite a different route of saying "well morality isn't really an important concept, and people who feel an urge to 'be moral' are just giving into their evolutionary desires, and the truly rational person would realize that morality doesn't really exist and has no importance."

I would say that a majority of Christians would hold view #1, with a minority holding view #2 (generally liberal Christians do, such as myself when I was a Christian, and Sam I think). Whereas a majority of atheists would hold view #2, with a minority holding view #3.

Euthyphro's Dilemma is easily rebuffed. Was even recently rebuffed by seer. If you thought that was the best argument against objective morality when you were a Christian, then you didn't dig very deep.

[Starlight]

That is the ground of his moral belief. So how is that objective?

He wrote an entire essay answering that question, yet here you are asking it. You just seem to ask that question over and over again pretending people haven't answered it when they have, and that seems to be your entire argument strategy.

[Starlight]

Euthyphro's Dilemma is easily rebuffed.

IMO, it isn't, and it doesn't have a solution. Seer's recent reply on the subject just followed the standard Christian apologetics tactic, which IMO fails.

If you thought that was the best argument against objective morality when you were a Christian, then you didn't dig very deep.

I dug so deep I hit China. Seriously.

[seer]

He wrote an entire essay answering that question, yet here you are asking it. You just seem to ask that question over and over again pretending people haven't answered it when they have, and that seems to be your entire argument strategy.

No Star, he did nothing but assert. You seem to understand his argument so tell us all, how is his belief objective?

[seer]

IMO, it isn't, and it doesn't have a solution. Seer's recent reply on the subject just followed the standard Christian apologetics tactic, which IMO fails.

Really Star? Show me where I was off. Be specific please.