atheism and relativism.

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 322
#31
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Whether you believe abortion is right, or wrong or you are neutral on the subject I think we can agree that unwanted pregnancy is the underlying issue and the numbers show that incidents of unwanted pregnancy go sharply down when people have access the reproductive health care and education about reproductive health. That being the case I would think that you agree that the best thing would be to have well funded and easily accessible family planning centers and yet I find that much of the vocal opponents of abortion also tend to be for the refunding and or shutting down of family planning centers. Is that the case with you? Do you feel that family planning centers like planned parenthood should be refunded and or shut down?
I personally have nothing against contraception although I don't think it is God intended best because He gave the mandate to go out and multiply. A family is a blessing. What I have an objection to is funding Planned Parenthood, for they are the biggest killer of the unborn in the USA (last numbers I heard was about 300,000 per year through that organization). Anyone who condones funding Planned Parenthood is complicit in their evil killing practices (that pretty well tells you what I think of PP, so yes I think they should be defunded or that part of their operation should be shut down, except when the life of the mother is threatened with a tubal pregnancy or breast cancer because the radiation would kill the unborn in many cases, especially at an early stage, to my knowledge).

I think unwanted pregnancy is a BIG, big issue in why women have abortions but the main issue is what the unborn is. If it is a human being I don't see how you can justify abortion unless it will end the life of the mother. On the other side of the womb, where do you see people lawfully and justifiably killing innocent human beings because they have the choice to and because they don't want them? Which brings into the equation the intrinsic value of human beings. Do you believe human beings have intrinsic worth? If you don't there is no reason to declassify and devalue other groups of humans because you don't want them (a slippery slope).

#32
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@janesix
Behavior isn't genetically encoded. 
What a silly assertion. Brain development is unequivocally genetically encoded.

#33
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
No it isn't. Genes encode the manufacture of proteins. 
#34
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
The question isn't whether humans have intrinsic worth, but at what point a collection of cells becomes human.

#35
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

You mentioned the problem of evil. I actually don't generally use the term evil. For me it is the problem of suffering.

Could that be because you don't have a true sense of right and wrong and therefore nothing is morally reprehensible?

Would you say that torturing an innocent, defenseless child for fun was evil or just a problem of plain suffering? If a person decides to do that is it wrong? Would the desire to do it be just as wrong?

Is all suffering a problem because of our ignorance, perhaps, or can it be good because it does teach us something, like for a child not to touch the hot stove who will not listen to your command?

Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Or profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Now let's get personal to push home the point. If someone was to do this kind of suffering to your own kid or someone close to you, would you still feel it is nothing more than the problem of suffering? What if the one doing the act doesn't suffer, but as I said, received fun and excitement for doing this? Still not evil? 

#36
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@janesix
...and those proteins comprise structures in the brain.

Alter specific genes in an embryo, and you can drastically affect brain development.

#37
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
...and those proteins comprise structures in the brain.

Alter specific genes in an embryo, and you can drastically affect brain development.
So? 

Fuck with the makeup of bricks and you can't build a house. It doesn't prove genes have anything to do with brain development. 


#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
They only "prove" anything if our perceptions accurately reflect reality. Otherwise no they do not. If our shared reality is real however then scientific method has the best track record of any yet discovered for decerning truth and improving human quality of life.
#39
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
You are a materialist atheist and you have to believe that. I understand.
#40
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stronn
The question isn't whether humans have intrinsic worth, but at what point a collection of cells becomes human.

Why, but from the moment of conception. Science recognizes this to be the case. I can list dozens of textbooks, whether medical or biological or other that support this claim. When the sperm penetrates the egg a new living being starts to develop. If the egg and sperm are from humans then what other kinds of being can be produced? I know of none. Do you?

So right from conception a unique human being and life has started.

When you use terms like a collection of cells or a biological growth you devalue and degrade the human being to something that is disposable. That is the image such narrative creates. It makes it SEEM justifiable when it is not. This same kind of degrading, devaluing, discriminating language is used in societies like Nazi Germany to exclude people (Jews) from the same rights as other people. The same kind of devaluation was used in South Africa under Apartheid to downgrade people of color. The same kind of devaluation was used in the Southern States to devalue the African American. The same kind of devaluation is used in India via the Caste system to degrade people from one class or promote others to favorable status and distinction. The list goes on and on, but once you start to devalue one class of human beings you open the door to do it with another. Thus, if you don't want others to have equal rights then you don't treat all people as intrinsically valuable. This becomes a problem when others do it to you. If you don't treat others as equal why would you EXPECT them to do so to you (i.e., the Golden Rule)?

#41
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@janesix
Fuck with the makeup of bricks and you can't build a house. It doesn't prove genes have anything to do with brain development.

Huh? Your analogy just proves my point.

If you mess with bricks, and the result is that you cannot build a house, then clearly bricks have something to do with building a house.

If you mess with genes, and the result is altered brain development, then clearly genes have something to do with brain development.
#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I am of the subjective opinion that humans are worthwhile since I have a vested interest in propagating this view as a human but I am hesitant to attribute humanity to any agency which is unable or unwilling to communicate their humanity. 

Still unwanted pregnancies are to my knowledge the primary cause of abortion so I would tend to think that if you object to abortion you would be in favor of any measure meant to mitigate the problem. Since reproductive health care and education have the net effect of reducing incidents of unwanted pregnancy your proposal and since these are precisely the services offered by planned parenthood your proposal is counter productive to your stated goal.
#43
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
Huh? Your analogy just proves my point.
No, it doesn't.

If you mess with bricks, and the result is that you cannot build a house, then clearly bricks have something to do with building a house.
They are necessary, but have nothing to do with the DESIGN PLANS.

If you mess with genes, and the result is altered brain development, then clearly genes have something to do with brain development.
See above.

#44
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Let me be clear. I base my morality on what promotes harm versus well being so by my personal standard the acts you described are immoral. The difference is that I understand that this is simply my own personal moral code (and incidentally tends to be the moral code of most humans in the geographic location I inhabit) torture and cruelty of humans is "wrong" to me but there is no observable reason to think that morality exists absent humans to assign moral values. 

Also for clarity the problem of suffering isn't a problem unless there is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent ruler of the universe and only because in that case we would not expect to observe suffering on the universe. If no force guides events other than cause and effect we would reasonably expect suffering and contentment to be equally probable, which would appear to be the case.

The problem of suffering is a logical problem not an actual problem. I mean it is an actual problem too but in a causal universe with no god(s) it is not logically inconsistent with the reality we observe.
#45
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
I see Godwin's law is alive and well.

The fact that only humans can be produced from an egg and sperm only means that a fertilized egg is a potential human. Only humans can be produced from a sperm cell. Does that mean a sperm is a human being?

As for what science says, I could cite you just as many papers that say the road to being a human being is gradual, and does not occur suddenly at a single point in time.

And if conception is the point at which a unique human being appears, how do you deal with zygote fission? A zygote can split into twins up to nine days after fertilization. Clearly neither twin is the original human being. Has the original human being died, and two new ones come into being? It presents a problem for those who say a unique person begins at conception.
#46
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@PGA2.0
When you use terms like a collection of cells or a biological growth you devalue and degrade the human being to something that is disposable.
It is a fact that humans are a collection of cells and a biological growth, a simple fact of nature.

YOUR religion considers humans inherently evil sinners, nothing could be further from the truth or more degrading than that. Best look to your own backyard when it comes to human degradation and lack of value where it flourishes.

#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
My claim in this case is an either or statement. To wit if our shared reality is real.
#48
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@keithprosser
Christianity teaches that humanity is fallen, but we get Life Alert through a free aarp membership.  
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Let me be clear. I base my morality on what promotes harm versus well being so by my personal standard the acts you described are immoral. The difference is that I understand that this is simply my own personal moral code (and incidentally tends to be the moral code of most humans in the geographic location I inhabit) torture and cruelty of humans is "wrong" to me but there is no observable reason to think that morality exists absent humans to assign moral values. 
That is the problem with personal preference. People can express a variety of OPINIONS and LIKES without being morally right. A preference is a personal taste, such as liking ice-cream (the standard argument). What "harms" also can be a personal preference depending on where you live and what cultures and subcultures you are attached to. 

Being your own personal moral code is a problem. It says nothing about right and wrong, just likes and dislikes. 

Notice you say "it is wrong for you" but you can't make that distinction that hurting/torturing little children is wrong for everyone. That is why I made the comment about locking up loved ones for people who think this way. 

When you say it is wrong for you, but not everyone, then Nazi Germany is justifiable to so many, until/unless you are the class of people they treat as less than human, pure evil. I also provided a list that a moral relativist can't say and you are definitely in character. You contrive a morality that is not moral at all unless it fits with what actually is the case, which can never be known with relativism. You can't identify what the case should be in your moral relativism that always changes because it can't make sense of morals. There is no fixed address which is logically inconsistent, as I have said all along. 


Also for clarity the problem of suffering isn't a problem unless there is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent ruler of the universe and only because in that case we would not expect to observe suffering on the universe. If no force guides events other than cause and effect we would reasonably expect suffering and contentment to be equally probable, which would appear to be the case.
Not true. It is always a problem for those who suffer. With or without a Creator you still have the problem of suffering. Much of suffering is caused by human agency. With the biblical Creator, the problem of suffering is a result of sin. There is also an answer to suffering also. 


The problem of suffering is a logical problem not an actual problem. I mean it is an actual problem too but in a causal universe with no god(s) it is not logically inconsistent with the reality we observe.
Hold on a sec! I believe it is logically inconsistent for the very reason that you are deriving the logic from something devoid of it when you follow the chain back far enough. Logic is not realistic from what we fail to see, a random, chance happenstance origin. Following the chain to the first link there is no intent or purpose, no reason for what we now witness. If you follow the causal chain back to the eternal God there is every reason for consistency in such a worldview. From the mindful come other minds; from a logical reasoning Mind comes other such minds; from intentional self-existing Being comes other intentional beings. Consistent throughout from the Christian worldview.

#50
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@PGA2.0
" If you follow the causal chain back to the eternal God there is every reason for consistency in such a worldview. From the mindful come other minds; from a logical reasoning Mind comes other such minds; from intentional self-existing Being comes other intentional beings. Consistent throughout from the Christian worldview." ...

So God mind's came from......?

Or is 'because God' the proverbial 'out' and the logical chain you created may be broken at the first link it attempted to forge?
#51
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0

What I have an objection to is funding Planned Parenthood, for they are the biggest killer of the unborn in the USA (last numbers I heard was about 300,000 per year through that organization)
I look forward to our debate on abortion!

How about some of you guys volunteer to be judges so PGA and I can get this going?!

#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
We've travelled rather far afield and I'm afraid our original conversation may be list in the shuffle. Let us refocus.

What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion about right and wrong?
#53
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Nazi Germany is justifiable to so many, 
This is rather an awkward reference for a christian to use since Nazi belt buckles read "god with us" and Hitler used Christian rhetoric in his anti Jewish campaign. Really cringeworthy.

#54
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Really cringeworthy.
Indeed.
#55
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FaustianJustice
" If you follow the causal chain back to the eternal God there is every reason for consistency in such a worldview. From the mindful come other minds; from a logical reasoning Mind comes other such minds; from intentional self-existing Being comes other intentional beings. Consistent throughout from the Christian worldview." ...

So God mind's came from......?

Or is 'because God' the proverbial 'out' and the logical chain you created may be broken at the first link it attempted to forge?

A self-existing Being doesn't have a cause. The analogy only goes back to your starting point - God or chance happenstance. If you are self-existing then you rely on nothing for your existence. The natural, it is reasonable and logical to believe, has a cause.
#56
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

We've travelled rather far afield and I'm afraid our original conversation may be lost in the shuffle. Let us refocus.

What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion about right and wrong?
That is always a danger when you start a thread. It may be time to real us back to the topic. 
#57
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Nazi Germany is justifiable to so many, 
This is rather an awkward reference for a christian to use since Nazi belt buckles read "god with us" and Hitler used Christian rhetoric in his anti Jewish campaign. Really cringeworthy.
Many people use religion to push their radical ideas. The real question is whether his views conformed to the biblical teaching and the answer is no, they did not. I think Hitler used it as a propaganda tool. Mein Kampf had more of a social Darwinist flavor to it, IMO.  

True, it is cringeworthy, but if there are no absolute objective moral truths then everything becomes manipulation, charisma, and force to get others to think as you (generic for whoever the leader is) do. Hitler was able to convince many that Jews were not up to the same standard of humanity that he and the greater German population was. Thus, once he was able to legislate it, Jews were hunted down and eradicated. So were between 5-6 million other undesirables such as those with a deformity or mentally challenged. With these classes of people, experiments were conducted on them.

The point is that relativism can't justify why one view is any better than another other than by fostering such a view as the law of the land, provided you have the means to do so. That is why I find what is happening in America right now so fascinating. The Democrats leftist policy hold the positions of power. Their ideology has infiltrated the gatekeepers of that society, such as the media, legislature (up until Kavanaugh), medicine, education, entertainment, and politics. Thus they can spread their ideology along these lines to the average Joe.  

But the point about relativism is it fits the atheistic worldview. I don't know how (when they deny God and the personal) it can lead to anything other than a  relativistic worldview if they want to be consistent. The reason I say this is because they don't have what is necessary for objective universal moral truths. They have no best to compare goodness to. 

#58
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You are the puddle, you are not the hole, accept it and live the only joy you will ever know.
#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
What about a religious world view makes morality more than a subjective opinion?
Topic's author
#60
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
As I understand it, a theist can use scripture to validate their subjective opinion as conforming to objective truth.  An atheist has no way to validate their opinion as anything more than an opinion.