Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Non-theistic Moral Realism
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is not what I have argued. What I have argued that if there are not universal moral truths and a universal authority to enforce moral law then we live in an unjust universe where ethics are culturally relative. And even if Matt's objective moral duties and values do exist there is no enforcement mechanism, no mechanism that would differ from what we have without acknowledgment of these objective moral duties. So in the end, a Stalin and a Mao murder millions and die a good old age - they win. Evil wins.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, but how does that stop a Stalin, or curb his behavior? A bullet in the head would do a much better job. Again, nothing really happens if he ignores these objective moral standards. It all seems like a rhetorical exercise with no teeth.
But cultures have generally have considered rape evil without consideration to these objective standards. Of course many cultures did on religious grounds. Then I would have to ask, when did rape suddenly become objectively evil? I mean we find it in the animal kingdom even with higher primates - is it evil for them too? Or it's not because they just can't grasp the concepts?Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 12:37 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIf you reread my post you find I am describing your view requiring an 'objective outside authority' as an enforcement mechanism, unfortunately the enforcement you propose in the after life is an anecdotal claim and does not explain the way the world works in reality as a more meaningful responsibility and judgement in this world that we can objectively compare. What about the consequences of the evil of the Inquisition and the Crusades? It is obvious the threat of condemnation of God in the next world did not deter their evil actions. It is obvious that Stalin and Mao lived to a ripe old age in this world without any consequences of the wrath of God. I do not believe that the threat of damnation in the afterlife has prevent people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao form committing evil acts in this world, nor those that committed evil acts in the Crusades and Inquisition. Evil does not eventually work in the real world, because eventually the evil is eventually defeated.Last edited by seer; 02-13-2017, 01:12 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIt doesn't matter if evil men do not believe in final judgement, they well still be judged. Like your god will judge the Jews in the future. Which means that we do live in a just and moral universe, instead of an unjust and a-moral universe. And men can and do change their behavior IF they come to believe that some day they may face a just God, I doubt that any man would change his behavior if he came to believe in non-theistic objective morality since there are no consequences now or ever for violating that standard.
I will address this more directly as per the subject of the thread to stay on topic as much as possible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes I think it comes back to who subjectively decides what is normative and intrinsically good.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostCooperation and a stable family, and community have evolved as necessary for the survival of the species.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSocieties and cultures collectively have evolved and determined morals and ethics to maintain social order and stability for the survival of the species.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut why is the survival of the species an objective moral good?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou mean like the countries that Adrift listed where wife rape is legal? That should promote the survival of the species.
One correction on the list is in China rape is illegal including marital rape, and recently homosexual rape of males has been added to the list. There are problems with rape in some European countries. I will go into this more in the future.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt depends on how you define good. It need not be an objective 'moral good' in Theist terms to be the reason for morality and ethics in the survival of the species. In terms of the human species perspective it is indeed a good thing to survive.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostCareful, the Bible does not clearly define rape as a sin.
One correction on the list is in China rape is illegal including marital rape, and recently homosexual rape of males has been added to the list. There are problems with rape in some European countries. I will go into this more in the future.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWife rape is legal in many countries, and since it certainly can promote survival of the species it must be an objective moral good by your definition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostHe's mistaken about China too, unless something drastic has changed since last March. Marital rape is still legal there.
How laws are enforced is always a problem worldwide. Do you understand the problem of the enforcement of rape laws in this country concerning US campuses and the failure of the enforcement US laws.
Example of a USA problem:
More to follow concerning this question. There remains a serious problem that the Bible does not define rape as a sin. The Baha'i Faith to specifically consider all rape a sin in all cases without exception..Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 11:00 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattdamore View PostThis response is keeping in mind your qualification "from a human perspective". Thus, your position seems to be that from a human perspective, you do not believe that theistic moral realism can be "distinguished" from non-theistic moral realism. Because it seems to me that we can, perhaps you could unpack that for me. For right now, I'll just say that it seems that we can because all I need to do to distinguish the two is to include or exclude the moniker "theistic". To include it would be to say that God explains and is the ground for objective morality; and to exclude it would be to provide an account of objective morality that does not include God as part of its ontological structure - that it would be sufficient to ground it in something other than God in order to adequately substantiate its objective status.
There is a difference between the human perception of a difference between a (NMN) morality and a Divine objective morality than what would be a logical defense of an 'objective morality' to argue for the existence of God. I believe there is a foundation of Divine Law and the Created nature of humanity in the image of the attributes of God that is Divine ultimate nature of humanity, but arguing that logically on the necessity of a Divine objective Source based on the objective evidence this fails.Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 11:33 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
644 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment