Meh. It's more nuanced than that. I doubt, based on your posts here, you are a hardened nihilist or relativist.I reject your claim that you have to establish truths to have morality. Care to justify that claim?
This isn't about me. You made the claims. I'm trying to understand where they came from. Are you saying morality is subjective then?
you absolutely made a claim that truths have to be established to have morality. That goes beyond questioning my claims. You need to justify that particular position.
yes, morality is subjective.
@JDB, a side line of inquiry: what's the point? All due respect to littlebitchbuckeye, he's not here for a philosophical debate. He gets value and comfort out of his beliefs, and either wants everyone else to experience the same or is following the dictates of his religion to spread the Word (or both).I know that he has a purpose for everything that happens, especially and including the suffering of an infant.
Let's drill in on this. What is the plan? How is the innocent infant, who has done nothing right or wrong, able to partake in divinity or any other form of salvation?
Causing him to doubt will bring about little good in the world, other than to satisfy the itch we atheists get to prove we are right (which I believe we are--suck is @snarlcakes-- and which I tend to scratch too often as well). The most likely outcome in debates like this is that the believers hate the atheists for not believing and the atheists think less of the religious because of their lack of reason in this area. Is it worth it?
Meh. It's more nuanced than that. I doubt, based on your posts here, you are a hardened nihilist or relativist.I reject your claim that you have to establish truths to have morality. Care to justify that claim?
This isn't about me. You made the claims. I'm trying to understand where they came from. Are you saying morality is subjective then?
you absolutely made a claim that truths have to be established to have morality. That goes beyond questioning my claims. You need to justify that particular position.
yes, morality is subjective.
I don’t personally equate subjective with relative. While I believe that my morality is subject to my mind, I don’t believe that another person’s morality is equal in value.
for example, I think the 9/11 terrorists were morally wrong. They thought they were morally right. Each is applying their own subjective morality. From a relativistic framework, both would be correct. I don’t agree with that from my framework and I don’t grant them any benefit of the doubt.
and in defense of @jdb and myself, I think the utility of these discussions is to try and make people think and counter in some small way the cultural status quo that encourages people (even if sincere and well meaning) to implicitly or explicitly tell people that they’re inherently evil and deserve infinite punishment for finite actions that they may or may not have committed.
and I don’t know who needs to hear this, but you are NOT inherently unworthy/evil/bad. Do your best to be good to people and act in a pro-social manner. The less anti-social behavior in a social species there is mean the better for the whole community.
On the edges, human moralities differ. But humans brains have evolved a certain way, and we all have that similar DNA and brain makeup, and so 99.9% of humans have some common moral beliefs. In that sense, I'd argue, there are some core objective moral sentiments and so the core of morality is not subjective.Meh. It's more nuanced than that. I doubt, based on your posts here, you are a hardened nihilist or relativist.I reject your claim that you have to establish truths to have morality. Care to justify that claim?
This isn't about me. You made the claims. I'm trying to understand where they came from. Are you saying morality is subjective then?
you absolutely made a claim that truths have to be established to have morality. That goes beyond questioning my claims. You need to justify that particular position.
yes, morality is subjective.
I don’t personally equate subjective with relative. While I believe that my morality is subject to my mind, I don’t believe that another person’s morality is equal in value.
for example, I think the 9/11 terrorists were morally wrong. They thought they were morally right. Each is applying their own subjective morality. From a relativistic framework, both would be correct. I don’t agree with that from my framework and I don’t grant them any benefit of the doubt.
and in defense of @jdb and myself, I think the utility of these discussions is to try and make people think and counter in some small way the cultural status quo that encourages people (even if sincere and well meaning) to implicitly or explicitly tell people that they’re inherently evil and deserve infinite punishment for finite actions that they may or may not have committed.
and I don’t know who needs to hear this, but you are NOT inherently unworthy/evil/bad. Do your best to be good to people and act in a pro-social manner. The less anti-social behavior in a social species there is mean the better for the whole community.
Further, re truth values, you can evaluate fact situations that cause those sentiments as moral or immoral, and test that hypothesis with surveys, and so there it makes sense to assign truth values to them. In fact, you can't really engage in discussion with someone if you deny them in all instances. You might deny them in the realm of morality (but see above, I think that would be wrong), but then I'm left asking you: how are you defining morality? Because even if it's just "what I think is best," then there are true and false statements about what you think best.
I don't see littlebitchbadger really in the business of eternal damnation with this thread, but maybe I'm off. Some others here who call themselves Christian are into that sort of thing, but I'm not sure what good it does arguing with them.and in defense of @jdb and myself, I think the utility of these discussions is to try and make people think and counter in some small way the cultural status quo that encourages people (even if sincere and well meaning) to implicitly or explicitly tell people that they’re inherently evil and deserve infinite punishment for finite actions that they may or may not have committed.
and I don’t know who needs to hear this, but you are NOT inherently unworthy/evil/bad. Do your best to be good to people and act in a pro-social manner. The less anti-social behavior in a social species there is mean the better for the whole community.
I'd note, though, that Christianity is kinds built on the notion of forgiveness and salvation no matter the finite actions of a person. I'm conflicted on that--I think if you rape, torture, and murder a child, and if there were an afterlife, you should have a worse one than an atheist who does good in the world. But Christians think if the rapist child torturer repents and really believes, they live in eternal paradise. (Note, I think people say that to try to be consistent with the Bible, but I don't believe many actually believe it at all).
I reject your claim that you have to establish truths to have morality. Care to justify that claim?
This isn't about me. You made the claims. I'm trying to understand where they came from. Are you saying morality is subjective then?
you absolutely made a claim that truths have to be established to have morality. That goes beyond questioning my claims. You need to justify that particular position.
yes, morality is subjective.
Thanks for answering. If morality is subjective I don't care about it as a concept then. It's no different than if you like IU or PU. On second thought....maybe there is truth.
You already disagree with my position. God does.
It raises an interesting question though based on the original comment. Using your moral system (objective or subjective), is the unnecessary suffering of innocents justified or moral?
I disagree with the premise. God allows free will and humans are flawed. We're the cause of suffering, not God. Even asking the question should give insights to how self centered we all are. I'm including myself in that as well. I'm no better than anyone else. God will use our suffering for his glory, though.
I always heard that kind of thing growing up but it never made much sense to me.
The hypothetical infant didn’t exercise free will to suffer a consequence.
If they suffer because of someone else’s free choice then it’s not a just result (“just” meaning a fair consequence of one’s actions).
If the suffering is caused by a god’s curse on humanity for some ancient crime, then (1) it is still not just in my opinion to punish people for something they did not do and (2) the curse is a conscious choice freely made by the god. And to the extent that man is the “cause” for committing the crime, the god is the “cause” because it chose the punishment. And if the god could have chosen a punishment that did not require unnecessary suffering but still chose to anyway, then that is not a good look for that god’s goodness.
You claim morality is subjective, but you take issue with suffering because you think it's not just? It's almost like you don't think morality is subjective and you're using your objective morality to claim there is no God. It's why atheism is silly. It's nonsensical.
He smoked you out. What is innocent? What is immoral? Why does the GOD TFMT get to decide those things? Do I have to worship you or can it be Cignetti? For the record I choose Cignetti if you will allow it.
Easy.
innocent: free from wrong, guiltless. I.e., an infant is innocent. You are free to agree or disagree.
immoral: whatever doesn’t comport with one’s moral framework. For me, causing the unnecessary suffering of innocents is immoral.
I didn’t invent these definitions, but I think they’re pretty common. Do you use different definitions?
[/quote
Soooo now God is " causing the unnecessary suffering of infants".
Pitiful!
He smoked you out. What is innocent? What is immoral? Why does the GOD TFMT get to decide those things? Do I have to worship you or can it be Cignetti? For the record I choose Cignetti if you will allow it.
Easy.
innocent: free from wrong, guiltless. I.e., an infant is innocent. You are free to agree or disagree.
immoral: whatever doesn’t comport with one’s moral framework. For me, causing the unnecessary suffering of innocents is immoral.
I didn’t invent these definitions, but I think they’re pretty common. Do you use different definitions?
[/quote
Soooo now God is " causing the unnecessary suffering of infants".
Pitiful!
personally, I think nature is causing the unnecessary suffering of infants.
whoever said that it’s caused by the actions of ancient man resulting in their god cursing mankind to be penalized forever is.
I reject your claim that you have to establish truths to have morality. Care to justify that claim?
This isn't about me. You made the claims. I'm trying to understand where they came from. Are you saying morality is subjective then?
you absolutely made a claim that truths have to be established to have morality. That goes beyond questioning my claims. You need to justify that particular position.
yes, morality is subjective.
Thanks for answering. If morality is subjective I don't care about it as a concept then. It's no different than if you like IU or PU. On second thought....maybe there is truth.
You already disagree with my position. God does.
It raises an interesting question though based on the original comment. Using your moral system (objective or subjective), is the unnecessary suffering of innocents justified or moral?
I disagree with the premise. God allows free will and humans are flawed. We're the cause of suffering, not God. Even asking the question should give insights to how self centered we all are. I'm including myself in that as well. I'm no better than anyone else. God will use our suffering for his glory, though.
I always heard that kind of thing growing up but it never made much sense to me.
The hypothetical infant didn’t exercise free will to suffer a consequence.
If they suffer because of someone else’s free choice then it’s not a just result (“just” meaning a fair consequence of one’s actions).
If the suffering is caused by a god’s curse on humanity for some ancient crime, then (1) it is still not just in my opinion to punish people for something they did not do and (2) the curse is a conscious choice freely made by the god. And to the extent that man is the “cause” for committing the crime, the god is the “cause” because it chose the punishment. And if the god could have chosen a punishment that did not require unnecessary suffering but still chose to anyway, then that is not a good look for that god’s goodness.
You claim morality is subjective, but you take issue with suffering because you think it's not just? It's almost like you don't think morality is subjective and you're using your objective morality to claim there is no God. It's why atheism is silly. It's nonsensical.
close. I’m using my subjective morality, not objective. Subjective means subject to a mind. Objective means it’s the case with or without a mind.
Justice is not really the same concept, although related. Justice is about getting what you deserve. If suffering is somehow a punishment, then it is not just for someone who cannot have done something wrong to be punished.
@JDB, a side line of inquiry: what's the point? All due respect to littlebitchbuckeye, he's not here for a philosophical debate. He gets value and comfort out of his beliefs, and either wants everyone else to experience the same or is following the dictates of his religion to spread the Word (or both).I know that he has a purpose for everything that happens, especially and including the suffering of an infant.
Let's drill in on this. What is the plan? How is the innocent infant, who has done nothing right or wrong, able to partake in divinity or any other form of salvation?
Causing him to doubt will bring about little good in the world, other than to satisfy the itch we atheists get to prove we are right (which I believe we are--suck is @snarlcakes-- and which I tend to scratch too often as well). The most likely outcome in debates like this is that the believers hate the atheists for not believing and the atheists think less of the religious because of their lack of reason in this area. Is it worth it?
You're not right. Atheism is like Socialism and french rolled jeans. It sounds cute (or looks good) when you're in middle school, but as you age you should realize all three are silly.
I do find it funny that we have people here who think they are equipped to solve the Problem of Evil, as though more than two millennia of philosophers and theologians were just amateurs until Random Hoosier Fan With Internet Access came along and saved the day.
Latest Post: NCAA Tournament Thread Our newest member: Kieran Dunn Recent Posts Unread Posts
