Offered for refutation.
IF: Atheism is one of the following assertions: (a) There is no god; (b) There might be no god, more material evidence is required; (c) I have no god theory or theories,
THEN: Atheism has no explicit or implicit or embedded moral statements attached to it.
IF: Atheism has no explicit or implicit or embedded moral statements attached to it,
THEN: Any moral system which is claimed by an Atheist derives from some other source than Atheism.
IF: Atheism is one of the following assertions: (a) There is no god; (b) There might be no god, more material evidence is required; (c) I have no god theory or theories,
AND, Any moral system which is claimed by an Atheist derives from some other source than Atheism,
THEN: The moral system is a human derivation.
IF: The moral system is a human derivation,
THEN: Any human can derive a moral system.
IF: Any human can derive a moral system,
THEN: Any Atheist could derive his own moral system.
IF: Any Atheist could derive his own moral system,
THEN: There would be a plethora of competing Atheist moral systems.
IF: There would be a plethora of competing Atheist moral systems,
THEN: They cannot all be correct;
AND: Possibly none of the competing Atheist moral systems are correct.
IF: Possibly none of the competing Atheist moral systems are correct,
THEN: Any Atheist moral system assertion must be justified as being correct.
IF: Any Atheist moral system assertion must be justified as being correct,
THEN: Standards for moral system correctness must be in place.
IF: Standards for moral system correctness must be in place in order to judge correctness of the Atheist moral system assertion,
THEN: The Atheist making the assertion must also assert a set of standards for moral system correctness.
IF: The Atheist making the assertion also asserts a set of standards for moral system correctness,
THEN: The Atheist making the assertion of the set of standards must also assert a higher, or Gödel set of Standards by which to determine the correctness of the first set of standards.
IF: Gödel is correct in the derivation of both his theorems,
THEN: A hierarchy has been entered which is an infinite regress, AND which precludes any Atheist moral knowledge being verified for correctness.
NOW:
IF: The Atheist asserts “common sense” as the driver for the Atheist Moral Standards,
THEN: “Common sense” must be validated just as demonstrated above.
IF: More than one Atheist “ethic” asserts “common sense” as its base, then for competing Atheist ethics, not all can actually claim “common sense” without each changing the interpretation to his own advantage,
THEN: Not all, and maybe none of the competing Atheist ethics which claim “common sense” as its base can be valid, based on a single interpretation of “common sense”.
IF: Not all, and maybe none of the competing Atheist ethics which claim “common sense” as its base can be valid, based on a single interpretation of “common sense”,
THEN: The Gödel infinite regress occurs again.
IF: “Common sense” can be interpreted differently so that it can be used in contradictory assertions for Atheist moral statements,
THEN: “Common sense” is not a differentiator for Atheist moral statements and cannot provide the moral basis for Atheist moral statements.
Further,
IF: “Empathy” is the solution to all issues,
THEN: It must be established that Empathy always produces answers which are “Good”.
IF: It must be established that Empathy always produces answers which are “Good”;
THEN: the meaning of “Good” must be established before trusting Empathy as a solution.
Maybe "good" is a relative term with no absolutes.
ReplyDeleteEven pure altruism can have unexpected negative consequences. Does this make altruism "bad"?
Even sadism can result in unexpected positive consequences. Does this make sadism "good"?
Perhaps the world is not black and white, but an infinite amount of colours.
Godless,
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, then there can be no charges of criminality, because what the (un)criminal did was "good" for him at the time he did it.
Adopting that concept of "good" is guaranteed chaos.
If there are infinite "goods", (and consequently no "bads"), then there can be only the conflict of competing "goods", resolved only by the Will To Power.
Let's say that I claim that my Good has more weight than your Good, yet they conflict (e.g. It's your wallet, and I want it). Because there are no Bads in a world of infinite Goods, only power is left to decide conflicts. And that power cannot judicially decide against a Bad which does not exist, either.
In your scenario, sadism, torture, rape, murder, even snuff flicks, all can produce Good (however unintentional) and therefore are Good.
If you choose to define any and every action as a Good existing somewhere on the spectrum of infinite goods, then you cannot define "Bad" at all. So "Good" no longer differentiates anything at all and no longer has any meaning. Thus Good and Bad are not discernably different. This is a major flaw of the thinking of Atheist relativists.
Godless,
ReplyDeleteI need to address your prior question concerning Reciprocal Altruism.
RA is a theoretical concept which was developed as a story in the Evo Devo story book, and has been confirmed to exist in two species.
The theory is that a behavior which is not beneficial to party A is performed by party A to benefit party B in the expectation of reciprocal inverse behavior in the future to benefit party A at the expense of party B.
This does not work for parties who meet only once and never again. It is feasible for environments in which there is an expectation of the parties meeting again, and it becomes much tighter in small clans. In other words, it is very similar to clan selection, favoring one's own clan over others outside the clan.
The GodFather approach.
What's ironic is that moral relativism will lead directly to a totalitarian state when atheists believe it will prevent one. These dangerous people have to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteYou are ignoring the opposing sentiment. If there are an infinite amount of goods, there are also an infinite amount of bads.
ReplyDeleteIn your scenario, sadism, torture, rape, murder, even snuff flicks, all can produce Good (however unintentional) and therefore are Good.
Thus Good and Bad are not discernably different. This is a major flaw of the thinking of Atheist relativists.
9/10 people are for gang rape right?
But seriously. Have you no concept of weighing harm vs benefit? Just because the "good" created by a gang rape exists, doesn't mean it isn't a pittance besides the trauma created nor the chaos which would ensue if it was the norm for society. How can you not discern between the Relative difference?
I don't see an objection to reciprocal altruism in what you've posted. If there is a failing, perhaps it is in our tendency to divide ourselves into nations, religions, etc.
Reciprocal Altruism is also known as the "Golden Rule", called by Jesus of Nazereth the "(Second) Highest Commandment". Of course the concept existed long before Jesus, but I would think his endorsement would carry considerable weight with you.
If we consider the entire globe to be one community, your object is defeated. Surely you've heard the term "Global Village"?
And it's not really that hard. The majority of people in first world countries are not nearly as racist, xenophobic and nationalistic as vocal right wing 'Merica. For a biblical example, consider the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Finally, if good/bad/morality is not subjective and relative, then where exists the objective standard?
A non-physical entity existing outside space and time? Funny how the claim is always it's the word of god, but always people doing the talking.
godless says,
ReplyDelete”You are ignoring the opposing sentiment. If there are an infinite amount of goods, there are also an infinite amount of bads.”
Rationally impossible. If every concept (infinite) or action (infinite) is good, then there are no bads.
”'In your scenario, sadism, torture, rape, murder, even snuff flicks, all can produce Good (however unintentional) and therefore are Good.
Thus Good and Bad are not discernably different. This is a major flaw of the thinking of Atheist relativists'
9/10 people are for gang rape right?”
Under your concept, gang rape might produce another genius Atheist, savior of Atheism for posterity: ergo, Good.
“But seriously. Have you no concept of weighing harm vs benefit? Just because the "good" created by a gang rape exists, doesn't mean it isn't a pittance besides the trauma created nor the chaos which would ensue if it was the norm for society. How can you not discern between the Relative difference?”
It’s not my theory, it’s yours. Under Atheist-Consequentialism for example, the concept of gang-rape in the pursuit of the Good is an acceptable activity, justifiable by the consequence/objective: the means are justified by the end.
Besides, relativistically one man’s harm is another man’s benefit. Who is the moral authority to judge, and based on which moral theory? If one man claims harm under Moral Theory F-Q-83, and another man claims benefit under Moral Theory Z-R-127, under which theory is a judge to be seated? A different Moral Theory altogether?
This already occurs, and it leads to wars.
If you wish to claim an infinite number of Bads, then there will be irresolvable conflicts between Theories. And if all theories are equal, then there is no discernment possible. And therefore, no justice.
“I don't see an objection to reciprocal altruism in what you've posted. If there is a failing, perhaps it is in our tendency to divide ourselves into nations, religions, etc.”
It is not possible to claim Reciprocal Altruism as a universally applicable ethic, or even applying to situations outside the clan. Tribalism is generally decried in Atheist circles; it leads to wars. It is not considered for the Good category. (except maybe under the “infinite goods” which you claim).
(more below)
(from above)
ReplyDelete“Reciprocal Altruism is also known as the "Golden Rule", called by Jesus of Nazereth the "(Second) Highest Commandment". Of course the concept existed long before Jesus, but I would think his endorsement would carry considerable weight with you.”
Of course the Golden Rule is not the same as Reciprocal Altruism, which specifically bases the “altruism” on the expectation of being rewarded in the future by an accompanying return on investment from the benefitted party. Critics of Reciprocal Altruism point out that the act is not altruistic at all, it is selfish. So it is mis-named.
The Golden Rule is one-sided, unilateral and without expectation of the act being an investment to be recompensed by the benefitted party. It is a principle which defines a behavior to be engaged based not on future ROI from the recipient of the behavior, but on behavior described by a metric: how would I like to be treated.
This is shown in the Good Samaritan story you reference: the Samaritan did not expect equal compensation from the person who was benefitted. Totally different moral theory. In fact, the inverse of Reciprocal (Faux) Altruism.
“If we consider the entire globe to be one community, your object is defeated. Surely you've heard the term "Global Village"?”
HAR! You Atheists will have to wipe out most of the population of Earth in order to achieve that. And then you will learn what conflicting moral theories actually lead to.
”And it's not really that hard. The majority of people in first world countries are not nearly as racist, xenophobic and nationalistic as vocal right wing 'Merica. For a biblical example, consider the parable of the Good Samaritan.”
Watch carefully as Europe collapses back into tribes. There will come a time when Germany gets tired of supporting all of the profligate non-producers who want to drown their constituents in benefits-for-votes. The annihilation of Jews was European, not American. Since you hate America so much you will be happy to hate the world-extension of the EU-USA-China-Russia-Mexico-Brazil-Saudi Arabia-Iran-Sudan-Congo-Bulgaria-Chile-Columbia-Cuba-Afghanistan Complex.
“Finally, if good/bad/morality is not subjective and relative, then where exists the objective standard?”
Under Atheism, Good does not exist. Morality is just whatever an Atheists decides it is. So there is no possible objective standard... under Atheism.
”A non-physical entity existing outside space and time? Funny how the claim is always it's the word of god, but always people doing the talking. “
And once again you demand further physical evidence, this time it is the audible voice of God, the same Category Error that brings up the end of most Atheist claims regarding concepts of evidentiary demands.
Rationally impossible. If every concept (infinite) or action (infinite) is good, then there are no bads.
ReplyDeleteDo you even know what relative means?
Under your concept, gang rape might produce another genius Atheist, savior of Atheism for posterity: ergo, Good.
Do you even read what I write, or just look for openings to inject the most preposterous statements you think you can get away with?
It’s not my theory, it’s yours. Under Atheist-Consequentialism for example, the concept of gang-rape in the pursuit of the Good is an acceptable activity, justifiable by the consequence/objective: the means are justified by the end.
If it is MY theory, perhaps you should stop telling me what it is then, hm? You sound like a crack pot. Nowhere did I imply that gang rape is an acceptable activity. You are a fucking loon if you think that.
If you wish to claim an infinite number of Bads, then there will be irresolvable conflicts between Theories.
Of course there will be conflicts between theories. BECAUSE IT IS RELATIVE. No that doesn't mean we have to kill everyone else to resolve the disagreement.
It is not possible to claim Reciprocal Altruism as a universally applicable ethic, or even applying to situations outside the clan.
The whole of humanity is my tribe. Done.
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
Thomas Paine
The Golden Rule is one-sided, unilateral and without expectation of the act being an investment to be recompensed by the benefitted party.
Do unto OTHERS as you would HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
It's the same thing Stan. Treat others how you want them to be treated.
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
SHEESH
This is shown in the Good Samaritan story you reference: the Samaritan did not expect equal compensation from the person who was benefitted.
But I bet he would want someone to do the same for him if he was in that situation. Seriously you don't even understand the theory.
HAR! You Atheists will have to wipe out most of the population of Earth in order to achieve that. And then you will learn what conflicting moral theories actually lead to.
Watch carefully as Europe collapses back into tribes....
Crack pot?
I also never said I hated America. But nice method of argumentation. Why do you hate freedom?
So there is no possible objective standard... under Atheism.
No shit. That's what I'm saying. There are Relative, Subjective standards.
I notice you do not provide an objective moral source yourself.
And once again you demand further physical evidence
Yes. I want evidence of your OBJECTIVE ULTIMATE MORALITY.
Maybe you should try actually understanding a position before you ridicule it. Your responses demonstrate zero understanding of the positions involved.
godless says,
ReplyDelete”Rationally impossible. If every concept (infinite) or action (infinite) is good, then there are no bads.
Do you even know what relative means? “
Presumably you know what infinite means. But maybe not.
If by relative you mean that you can define things anyway you want any time you want, then I understand your issue.
”Under your concept, gang rape might produce another genius Atheist, savior of Atheism for posterity: ergo, Good.
Do you even read what I write, or just look for openings to inject the most preposterous statements you think you can get away with?”
It’s exactly within the preposterous claim you made. Claims have consequences. The consequences of your claim of infinite goods is infinite actions called good. You seem not to have thought this through.
”It’s not my theory, it’s yours. Under Atheist-Consequentialism for example, the concept of gang-rape in the pursuit of the Good is an acceptable activity, justifiable by the consequence/objective: the means are justified by the end.
If it is MY theory, perhaps you should stop telling me what it is then, hm? You sound like a crack pot. Nowhere did I imply that gang rape is an acceptable activity. You are a fucking loon if you think that.”
Then you don’t mean what you said, do you? If you claim infinite goods, then you claim every concept and every action conceivable to be good. If they are not claimed as good, then the list of goods is not infinite. Otherwise, if some actions are not good, then you have put an arbitrary limit on your statement which has no limits. If you put an arbitrary limit on your statement, then you have rescinded your claim to infinity. Internal contradiction: non-coherent proposition.
On the other hand, if you mean that there are an infinite number of possible actions or concepts WITHIN a specific GOOD or a specific Moral Theory, then that’s what you should have said. But that’s not what you said, is it?
Perhaps it is YOU who should read what you said. Or maybe you should write what you mean.
If you wish to claim an infinite number of Bads, then (disregarding the impossibility of this coexisting with infinite goods) there will be irresolvable conflicts between Theories. This is a sure recipe for wars.
(continued)
“Of course there will be conflicts between theories. BECAUSE IT IS RELATIVE. No that doesn't mean we have to kill everyone else to resolve the disagreement.”
ReplyDeleteAnd you didn’t read what I wrote, did you? Under multiple moral theories, there will be no satisfactory resolution. Issues under Moral Theory A cannot be resolved under Moral Theory Q.
You have not and cannot refute that consequence: it is historical.
Empathy cannot always lead to fairness because empathy is an emotion wrenched up for a certain perception of victimhood. You cannot satisfy Sunnis by invoking Shia law. If this is not obvious to you, then you have no business wielding insults such as “crack pot”.
”It is not possible to claim Reciprocal Altruism as a universally applicable ethic, or even applying to situations outside the clan.
The whole of humanity is my tribe. Done. “
You called me a ‘fucking loon’; you do not respect beliefs outside of your own: I reject being Shanghaied into your intolerant tribe and declare war as required to prevent it.
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
Thomas Paine”
(a) As a Paine worshipper, how do you define mankind? Does it include fetal men? No? Then you are not telling the truth.
(b) As a Paineista’, how do you define “Good”?
(c) As an Atheist, how do you define “Good”?
(d) As an Atheist-Paineista, how do you define “Good”?
(e) What if I define “Good”, as taking all your stuff and redistributing it? (Atheist Virtue-Ethics at work). That should be OK, right? It's for the Good of all Mankind!
(f) If “ The whole of humanity is my tribe”, then why do you curse us? Fucking loons are we? Crack pots? If half of ‘Merica is “racist, xenophobic and nationalistic as vocal right wing 'Merica”, then you either love and respect them or you do not. Which is it? Or maybe just call us all another name or two?
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDelete”The Golden Rule is one-sided, unilateral and without expectation of the act being an investment to be recompensed by the benefitted party.
Do unto OTHERS as you would HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
It's the same thing Stan. Treat others how you want them to be treated.
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
SHEESH”
You might want to hold up on your arrogant "Sheeshes", and read actual analyses:
” The evolutionary theories described above, in particular kin selection, go a long way towards reconciling the existence of altruism in nature with Darwinian principles. However, some people have felt these theories in a way devalue altruism, and that the behaviours they explain are not ‘really’ altruistic. The grounds for this view are easy to see. Ordinarily we think of altruistic actions as disinterested, done with the interests of the recipient, rather than our own interests, in mind. But kin selection theory explains altruistic behaviour as a clever strategy devised by selfish genes as a way of increasing their representation in the gene-pool, at the expense of other genes. Surely this means that the behaviours in question are only ‘apparently’ altruistic, for they are ultimately the result of genic self-interest? Reciprocal altruism theory also seems to ‘take the altruism out of altruism’. Behaving nicely to someone in order to procure return benefits from them in the future seems in a way the antithesis of‘real’ altruism — it is just delayed self-interest.”>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#4
Do you read anything outside of wiki? Ever?
”This is shown in the Good Samaritan story you reference: the Samaritan did not expect equal compensation from the person who was benefitted.
But I bet he would want someone to do the same for him if he was in that situation. Seriously you don't even understand the theory.”
You certainly don’t understand the parable. The metanarrative of the parable is to do beneficial actions for others without thought of return for yourself. The purpose of the golden rule is to use the standard given to determine your own behaviors. You appear willfully ignorant of the actual meanings of these things.
(continued)
(from above)
ReplyDelete”HAR! You Atheists will have to wipe out most of the population of Earth in order to achieve that. And then you will learn what conflicting moral theories actually lead to.
Watch carefully as Europe collapses back into tribes....
Crack pot?
I also never said I hated America. But nice method of argumentation. Why do you hate freedom?”
Your hate-filled statements are duly recorded above; your Tu Quoque is rejected.
”So there is no possible objective standard... under Atheism.
No shit. That's what I'm saying. There are Relative, Subjective standards.”
False. They are not standards in any sense of that word. “Relative” and “subjective” are outside of the meaning of the word “standard”.
“I notice you do not provide an objective moral source yourself.”
Of course I have; you have rejected it without either logic or material evidence to support your rejection.
As an Atheist, you reject the entire concept a priori, and without any rational justification.
”And once again you demand further physical evidence
Yes. I want evidence of your OBJECTIVE ULTIMATE MORALITY.”
I do not claim such. Physical evidence of a purely conceptual existence cannot exist; demanding it is irrational.
You have shown only contempt for my counter arguments, not any evidence in favor of your arguments.
”Maybe you should try actually understanding a position before you ridicule it. Your responses demonstrate zero understanding of the positions involved.”
I understand utopianism quite well, thank you. And you’ve been here long enough that I know that I don’t want anything to do with your clan or its contradictory, spurious ethics, and I know that most of the human world feels the same way. You cannot adopt me into your relativist clan any more than Chicago can adopt Los Angeles. I personally reject your clan and its intolerance in pursuit of relentless relativism.
First off, I never said there were an infinite goods.
ReplyDeleteI said that good and bad are both relative. A silver lining in every dark cloud so to speak. Morality is not black and white, it is not objective. There is no standard you can point to for which we all agree. PROVE ME WRONG.
There is a sliding scale of good. Every good likely contains some bad, and vice versa.
You asserted the claim of infinite goods and I only now realize how subtly you place your paradigm to shift the argument.
Under multiple moral theories, there will be no satisfactory resolution.
And under your singular moral theory, surely there will be no wars? Utter demonstrable nonsense. Your rejection of subjective morality because it will lead to wars is a fallacy of by consequence.
You called me a ‘fucking loon’; you do not respect beliefs outside of your own: I reject being Shanghaied into your intolerant tribe and declare war as required to prevent it.
I asked if you were a fucking loon. You declared war in response. LOLOLOL
I'll watch out for a redneck on a tractor. So surprise if there is some contempt in my tone.
Also I think it is fucking hilarious how quick you are to take offense.
Your stanford quote in no way invalidates reciprocital altruism. It provides an evolutionary explanation for its existence. In agreement with the paper, I don't think that pure altruism is reasonably possible.
Do you feel good when you do good? Well then you benefit from it. Then it is not pure altruism. Practical altruism we see every day. Delayed self interest is exactly right. We act the way we hope other will act. We act in a manner we hope catches on so we can deal with civilized people in a civilized way.
You certainly don’t understand the parable.
Right, so the Samaritan wouldn't care if no one else helped him in the same situation. Right.
No. You do nice things because that is the way you would like to be treated. You do nice things because it makes you feel good to help others.
You hope that others feel the same way.
That is reciprocital altruism. That is the golden rule. That is the ethical code repeated a hundred times throughout history. Predating Christ, and surviving long past his death.
“I notice you do not provide an objective moral source yourself.”
Of course I have; you have rejected it without either logic or material evidence to support your rejection.
Confirm or deny: Your source of objective morality is a non-physical agent existing outside of space and time with the ability to enter into space and time but does not result in any tangible, objective evidence of his will or his existence.
Oh yeah, I also love how I use one quote from Paine and am met with this.
ReplyDeleteAs a Paine worshipper
As a Paineista’
Atheist-Paineista
It's like you give zero fucks at all about a reasonable discussion and just want to sling mud.
That's fine, but it's your hands that get covered in shit in the process.
(f) If “ The whole of humanity is my tribe”, then why do you curse us? Fucking loons are we? Crack pots? If half of ‘Merica is “racist, xenophobic and nationalistic as vocal right wing 'Merica”, then you either love and respect them or you do not.
Oh, I don't think it is nearly half. I don't WANT them to act like loons. Did you want an example as to why I considered them crack pots?
Here is one I found today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/louisiana-students-loch-ness-monster-disprove-evolution_n_1624643.html
Loons. Loons and crackpots in charge of the education of children.
Seriously this is so fucking crazy I had to check multiple sources to make sure I wasn't linking to a practical joke. You really can't tell the difference sometimes.
I love them in that I don't want them to be fucking loons. I respect them as human being, but not as competent educators.
Just like I respect you as a human being. I lack respect for you in other areas. Like I think you are intentionally dishonest. See above for an example.
Atheism is not an assertion; it's a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is a rejection of Theism. Any rejection which occurs without reasons given for the rejection has no reason for being believed. Anyone who declares Atheism is making an assertion for which either a justification is made, or there is no reason to believe it is a rational conclusion.
ReplyDelete