Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

Actually, having taken an unnecessary detour (and thanks to henry's interjection).

On a strict interpretation this conclusion contradicts P2.

Justify the claim that any of the social norms curently practiced by humankind are "moral".

Try breaking some social norms that are "moral" and I'll demonstrate "justification" to you.

What, like atheists rejecting the social norm of non-contradiction? Nothing happens.

And even if it were to happen. What makes those interactions "moral" or "immoral"?

OK. Some behaviours cause reactions. And then? What's moral or immoral about that when you evacuate judgment from the language?
Certain behaviour will maximise. Certain behaviours will minimize.

What's "moral" or "immoral" about the outcome of any socio-political interaction or negotiation? No mater how complex.

[henry quirk]

Then why is belief necessary?

Did I say it was?

The topic, as it has split from the main one: the subjectivist has only opinion to back his morality.

What has belief got to do with such choices of action?

It doesn't. What the question is: can the subjectivist say there's a difference between killing in self-defense and killing to take another man's property?

Why would we think it 'comes from' anything? Why do ants naturally work together and know what to do? How do birds and fish know how to move and react together as a collective? Why wouldn't humans have this capability, even if they see themselves as separate individuals? Collective awareness is reflected all throughout nature... and humans are nature... yes?

Ants, birds: these are meat machines. What I said about the shark...

Earlier today I watched a clip of concerned Pensacola beach folk as they got a beached shark back into the water.

This particular bio-machine wouldn't think twice (cuz it doesn't think) about eatin' every one of them people. It would feel no remorse (cuz it can't be remorseful) as as it digested any of 'em. It would never question (becuz its incapable of self-examination) the morality of its act (becuz morality is not applicable to it).

It's a friggin' machine. It's, as I say, no different, in function, than a Rhoomba. It does what it does as a matter of programming.

...applies to them.

Man is not like them. We're not meat machines. We're free wills and we're morally responsible. We have an objective measure to judge right and wrong.

[Skepdick]

In context: the atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter.

Because the idea of it seems made-up by humans.

Non-belief in such a thing does not make one inclined to 'choose to rape or slave or murder, or steal or defraud'.

Belief in such a thing does not make one moral.

Don't actions matter more than belief?

It sounds like you accept P2...

P2. It's not impossible to derive morals.

Yes, we have laws against those behaviours, but what makes those behaviours "immoral"?

[Skepdick]

The topic, as it has split from the main one: the subjectivist has only opinion to back his morality.

That's a fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Justify that the product of sociological interactions/politics when subjected to selection pressures from evolution produces "morals"; and not merely social norms and various social mechanisms for enforcing those social norms.

It certainly gives us principles for distinguishing which behaviour will and won't be tolerated by others; behaviour for which we may be rewarded; and. behaviour for which we may be punished; and behaviour towards which others will remain indifferent.

But that's a long stretch from...

morality /məˈralɪti/ noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

[Lacewing]

It sounds like you accept P2...

I don't care about your categories. They are created to serve your ego.

[Gary Childress]

Where does this collective awareness come from.

No one knows. Are you suggesting it's not here? Maybe try doing something immoral to find out? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I'm a deist. Where do you think I believe conscience, morality, free will come from?

I don't know where you think they come from. I'm not sure why you think those things are impossible without a diety. I don't know if there is a God or not, however, I also don't go around murdering people. I used to be an atheist and I didn't murder people then either. Where are you drawing the conclusion from that if there is no God then you can do whatever you want?

[Gary Childress]

Actually, having taken an unnecessary detour (and thanks to henry's interjection).

On a strict interpretation this conclusion contradicts P2.

Justify the claim that any of the social norms curently practiced by humankind are "moral".

Try breaking some social norms that are "moral" and I'll demonstrate "justification" to you.

What, like atheists rejecting the social norm of non-contradiction? Nothing happens.

What rejection of non-contradiction are you talking about? Is logical non-contradiction an unconditional moral imperative? It's like anything else, there are points where some things might be justified and some may not. What were you discussing with someone that they refused to accept non-contradiction?

[Skepdick]

It sounds like you accept P2...

I don't care about your categories. They are created to serve your ego.

That's a rather egotistical comment from you. And an ad hominem at that.

The statement contains nothing other than a claim of possibility for morality.

If morality is possible, then it's on you to justify the categories of "right" and "wrong".

[Lacewing]

I'm a deist. Where do you think I believe conscience, morality, free will come from?

I'm not sure why you think those things are impossible without a diety.

Exactly. Maybe it's because there's such an need (of the ego) to claim to know where something comes from or how it exists.

Where are you drawing the conclusion from that if there is no God then you can do whatever you want?

Or the conclusion that if there is a god, then you won't do whatever you want?

[Skepdick]

Exactly. Maybe it's because there's such an need (of the ego) to claim to know where something comes from or how it exists.

If you accept P2 thajt's exactly what you are claiming.

Such humility!

[Lacewing]

If morality is possible, then it's on you to justify the categories of "right" and "wrong".

And if morality exists in the mind or not, as real or not, at one time or another or not, is it right or wrong?

[Skepdick]

If morality is possible, then it's on you to justify the categories of "right" and "wrong".

And if morality exists in the mind or not, as real or not, at one time or another or not, is it right or wrong?

Ahhh. look. IF morality exists.

Do you accept or reject P2?

Quit with the fence-sitting.

[Gary Childress]

Exactly. Maybe it's because there's such an need (of the ego) to claim to know where something comes from or how it exists.

If you accept P2 thajt's exactly what you are claiming.

Such humility!

Such arrogance over a fallacy of equivocation.

[Skepdick]

I don't know where you think they come from. I'm not sure why you think those things are impossible without a diety.

You are shifting the burden of proof Gary.

If you believe that morality is possible then you accept P2.

That is a separate issue and a separate question to "Why do you believe morality is possible?"

A moral skeptic would simply argue that morality is impossible. Burden of proof's on you....

[Lacewing]

If you accept P2 thajt's exactly what you are claiming.

You keep trying to cram everything into your categories, as if that's the real agenda.