Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

Why do we "need" to get to "how it's possible; or why the output of the process is morality"?

Because merely concluding that social dynamics and evolutionary pressure results in morals is begging the questiion!

So is saying that "it's because God wants it that way." What else is new?

OK. So it's a justification you don't like. But it's a justification.

Atheists don't have one.

[Gary Childress]

Because merely concluding that social dynamics and evolutionary pressure results in morals is begging the questiion!

So is saying that "it's because God wants it that way." What else is new?

OK. So it's a justification you don't like. But it's a justification.

Atheists don't have one.

Sure they do, you just stated it above!

[Skepdick]

So is saying that "it's because God wants it that way." What else is new?

OK. So it's a justification you don't like. But it's a justification.

Atheists don't have one.

Sure they do, you just stated it above!

Contradiction. P1.

To be fair, it's not a contradiction of P1 until any actual evidence is show to that effect.

And what would amount to evidence is determining the moral status of any moral hot potato from natural facts.

Show me HOW and WHY murder is wrong. From natural facts.

[Gary Childress]

OK. So it's a justification you don't like. But it's a justification.

Atheists don't have one.

Sure they do, you just stated it above!

Contradiction. P1.

To be fair, it's not a contradiction of P1 until any actual evidence is show to that effect.

And what would amount to evidence is determining the moral status of any moral hot potato from natural facts.

Show me HOW and WHY murder is wrong. From natural facts.

It's not a contradiction of P1 unless you wish to say that EVERYTHING is "nature". If that's the case then P2 contradicts with demonstrable reality. We obviously have morals.

[Lacewing]

I have placed exactly ZERO constraints on you on how you demonstrate the possibility of morality. Just demonstrate it! However you see fitting.

I already responded how I saw fit. You tried to cram that into your categories.

And with that we are back on topic...

As you see fit -- as I pointed out.

[Skepdick]

It's not a contradiction of P1 unless you wish to say that EVERYTHING is "nature". If that's the case then P2 contradicts with demonstrable reality. We obviously have morals.

You are confused, Gary. I am using the Oxford definition of "nature". Which most definitely doesn't claim that "everything is nature". The distinction is perfectly clear.

P1 is a scientific theory which has not been shown to be false.. Thousands of scientists have tried (and failed) to prove it possible.
Therefore they have proven (over and over) that it is NOT possible to derive morals from natural facts.

To believe in the falsity of P1 requires counter-evidence for rejecting P1.
Rejecting P1 without counter-evidence amounts to a contradiction.

This is the very difference between the two principles I was explainig earlier.

Proof OF negation. By counter-example
Proof BY negation. By mere choice/declaration.

[Skepdick]

I have placed exactly ZERO constraints on you on how you demonstrate the possibility of morality. Just demonstrate it! However you see fitting.

I already responded how I saw fit. You tried to cram that into your categories.

And with that we are back on topic...

As you see fit -- as I pointed out.

You seem to have chosen to play the victim card, and you even found me to blame for victimising you. Poor you.

But they really aren't "my" categories any more than it's "my" English language; or "my" law of non-contradiction; or "my" principles for deductive reasoning. I am using standard, widely accepted social norms.

Shame. You are so oppressed by the boundaries and limits other people impose on you.
Those silly oppressive standard for thought.
Those silly oppressive standards for what words mean.
Those silly oppressive standards from distinguishing truth from falsehood.

They are OUR categories. OUR rules. Why doesn't your rejection of social norms amount to anti-social/immoral behaviour?
How would we ever cram your ego into those categories? Those tiny tiny categories of "right" and "wrong".

Now tell me again how you are being oh-so-crammed and oppressed by morality itself.

[Gary Childress]

It's not a contradiction of P1 unless you wish to say that EVERYTHING is "nature". If that's the case then P2 contradicts with demonstrable reality. We obviously have morals.

You are confused, Gary. I am using the Oxford definition of "nature". Which most definitely doesn't claim that "everything is nature". The distinction is perfectly clear.

P1 is a scientific theory which has not been shown to be false.. Thousands of scientists have tried (and failed) to prove it possible.
Therefore they have proven (over and over) that it is NOT possible to derive morals from natural facts.

To believe in the falsity of P1 requires counter-evidence for rejecting P1.
Rejecting P1 without counter-evidence amounts to a contradiction.

This is the very difference between the two principles I was explainig earlier.

Proof OF negation. By counter-example
Proof BY negation. By mere choice/declaration.

If that's what you want to think, then go for it. At this point, I couldn't care less what you think. Bigots are going to be bigots no matter what. Bye.

[Skepdick]

If that's what you want to think, then go for it. At this point, I couldn't care less what you think. Bigots are going to be bigots no matter what. Bye.

That's not even close to the point, Gary.

If both theories have zero explanatory OR justificatory power then it necessarily means that the choice of which theory is best is about something other than those selection criteria.

Scientifically specaking (by parsimony) which theory of morality is more rational and logical?

[Gary Childress]

If that's what you want to think, then go for it. At this point, I couldn't care less what you think. Bigots are going to be bigots no matter what. Bye.

That's not even close to the point, Gary.

If both theories have zero explanatory OR justificatory power then it necessarily means that the choice of which theory is best is about something other than those selection criteria.

Scientifically specaking (by parsimony) which theory of morality is more rational and logical?

What "theory" of morality are you talking about? As far as I know, morality is possible without a God. As far as I know "nature" isn't the same as man-made and if that is the case, then both P1 and P2 are fine.

Figure it out yourself. I'm tired of dealing with people. Being born into this world was my mistake.

[Skepdick]

What "theory" of morality are you talking about?

This one...

As far as I know, morality is possible without a God.

The simplest possible explanation (scientific parsimony): God did it.
The naturalst explanation: Infinite complexity. Quantum theory. Physics. Chemistry. Evolution. Society. Politics.... And we still can't deduce right from wrong using facts.

Which theory is scientifically better? The complex or the simple one?

Figure it out yourself. I'm tired of dealing with people. Being born into this world was my mistake.

I have figured it out.

As a scientist I prefer super-simple junk theories to over-complicated junk theories.

[Gary Childress]

What "theory" of morality are you talking about?

This one...

As far as I know, morality is possible without a God.

What do you want me to say to you to demonstrate that point? Shall I conduct a scientific study? And how would I go about conducting it objectively?

[Skepdick]

What do you want me to say to you to demonstrate that point? Shall I conduct a scientific study? And how would I go about conducting it objectively?

All you have to produce is a single example of determining the moral status of murder, rape, war, genocide, abortion or any other moral hot potato from facts.

A continuous logical process from Nature to morals.

That's precisely what deriving morals from nature means, right?

Because nature is a continuous process.

[henry quirk]

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?

Without a moral arbiter conscience is just opinion; morality is just opinion; libertarian free will is a fiction.

I'm sure you didn't murder anyone, but if you had, and if there was no God, then the only measure of your wrongness would be your community and yourself. In a certain kind of society, where women are lower tier citizens you takin' a woman against her will might be perfectly acceptable. On the other hand: if there is a God, and therefore there is a moral reality, then the murder and rape are wrong even if your community or you approve of murder and rape.

[Gary Childress]

What "theory" of morality are you talking about?

This one...

As far as I know, morality is possible without a God.

The simplest possible explanation (scientific parsimony): God did it.
The naturalst explanation: Infinite complexity. Quantum theory. Physics. Chemistry. Evolution. Society. Politics.... And we still can't deduce right from wrong using facts.

Which theory is scientifically better? The complex or the simple one?

Figure it out yourself. I'm tired of dealing with people. Being born into this world was my mistake.

I have figured it out.

As a scientist I prefer super-simple junk theories to over-complicated junk theories.

Religion doesn't seem to have a sterling record either. Will you be reinventing the wheel in that case?