iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:10 am
One thing we can conclude is that your own Christian God has yet to provide mere mortals with a Script that leaves no doubt whatsoever as to what constitutes evil behavior. And, given Judgment Day, you would think that might be important to Him.
What? Because they continue to disagree with the "Script" he HAS given them? Why would the obduracy of man count as evidence against there being such a Script."
That doesn't seem to follow at all.
Also, it seems reasonable to conclude that since down through the ages historically, and across the globe culturally, and given all of the uniquely personal experiences any one individual might accumulate in his or her life, moral relativism would be all but inevitable.
It doesn't at all seem obvious. An objective reality is always objective, regardless of the opinions or "personal experiences" people have. One's opinion about the laws of surface tension will not decide whether or not one can walk on water, and one's "personal experiences" do not invalidate the law of gravity.
Objective is objective. No number of opinions change objective reality. Physical reality does not "all but inevitably" turn relative if people don't know about or agree with features it has.
So if morality is objective, opinions are irrelevant to the moral facts. The only question is, "Is morality reflective of an objective moral truth, or is it merely a product of human imagination?" But if it's the latter (a product of human imagination) then it's not merely "relative," but rather "delusional," since it fails (in all its forms) to correspond to any objective facts at all.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm You've said, "People accuse each other." Fine. How do we know what the value of those "accusations" is?
You ask them.
No, that won't do.
Asking them if they personallly believe their own "accusations" is different from being able to show what the value of the accusations actually is. If I accuse you of murder, and believe you did it, that does not mean my allegation is in any way justified -- unless you actually did it, and I have good reasons to know you did.
dasein,
Meaningless word. No definition for the term has been offered.
with determinism we have no consensus of opinion among either scientists or philosophers that free will is in fact the real deal.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm We certainly have a 100% consensus of all, one demonstrated through the way they act -- even among those who, like you, pretend they believe in Determinism, and say so in the most passionate language.
You assuming that people act as though they are free
I don't
assume it. I don't need to. I can
see they do. So can you. It's obvious. And
you're doing it at this very instant.
At least I'm willing to admit that my own take on all of this may well be wrong.
You are, are you? Well, that's something.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 7:04 pm Which way do you want to argue? Are the opinions people express indicative of some truth we have to account for, or are they simply dismissible.
I'm still waiting for an answer to this question: are you going to supply one?
Good and evil are among the word-sounds that English speaking people invented. The rest is history. With or without the Christian God.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 7:04 pm Honestly, I've got to say that that's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard !
It's really funny.
Right, like down through the centuries people have
not invented words to differentiate behaviors they approve of and behaviors they do not. With or without countless Gods.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm That they have "invented words" is the least profound observation you could have made. They also invented "pixie" and "unicorn."
Please. Why did they invent the words?
"Pixie and unicorn"? Because people like to fanatasize. They like pretty stories and legends.
But "people like to fantasize" won't show that the words they invent or fantasize refer to anything real at all.
...flesh and blood human beings often interact such that their behaviors come into conflict because one side sees them as good and the other side as evil.
But that, too, doesn't explain anything. It's "flesh and blood human beings" who created pixies and unicorns. You've failed to show that any of their moral "words" belong in any more dignified category than that.
...back to unicorns and pixies. Words created to describe creatures that do not actually exist...but are only invented for "make-believe" stories. Whereas Good and Evil [and all the many equivalents] were invented in all communities to encompass behaviors that were in fact embodied in any number of contexts in which the consequences were anything but "make-believe".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm You're missing the point...probably trying very hard to miss it, too.
The "behaviours" existed. So do the "words." But that the "words" describe any objective property of the "behaviours" is the question you have to resolve.
A thing does not become "good" or "evil" merely because somebody comes up with the word. That value-claim has to be justified in some way.
That's all you have at your disposal though...
Well, that's what you're assuming, perhaps. It's certainly not something you've proved to be the case. "Words" do not turn fantasies into realities. They don't have that sort of alchemical or magical power.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm There is no chain of logic that ties Atheism as a first premise, to a single moral conclusion. And if you listen to enough Atheists, you'll find that's exactly what they, themselves -- at least the one's who understand their own view -- actually say as well. In fact, they pride themselves on that.
What on earth is that even supposed to mean
to those flesh and blood human beings dealing
with actual conflicts?
It means they are floating like lost spacemen, adrift in an amoral, ethically-meaningless universe. They have no objective basis upon which they can judge anything as good or evil. They're lost.
Out in the real world, people are rewarded or punished every day for behaviors that are entirely grounded in actual flesh and blood human interactions out in particular communities.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm Like the Salem Witch Trials, you mean? Yes, no doubt.
The irony here.
It was intentional. I took from the Atheist stock of stories one that I knew would appeal to an Atheist.
What it shows is this: the
fact that somebody is being punished does not show they
deserved it. They may have, or may not have: but whether they deserved it or not will not be established by the fact of their being abused by somebody. If your argument worked, then the fact that the young women were being punished would be proof they were witches.
Instead, it's my point that in a No God world, Evil is merely that which someone believes exists "in their head".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:52 pm Right. In other words, it's a delusion. Nothing more.
But what isn't a delusion are the conflicting behaviors themselves.
That behaviours "conflict" does not show them to be evil. The most it can show is that they are
incommensurable. But they could both be good, or both evil, or both indifferent.
Example: my desire to buy ice cream for a party and your insistence we should use the money for cake could be incommensurable: but they are in no way evil. They're just incommensurable if there isn't enough money for both.
In fact, an Atheist can't even coherently say that conflict among people
itself is "evil." He could as easily think it's just the evolutionary process doing its usual work of eliminating some and allowing others to thrive at their expense.
