It sounds like you're saying morality is determined by God's will, could I be wrong about this? Most theists would say morality is determined by God's nature, so as to avoid making morality arbitrary. If morality is God's nature, then God being lawgiver, judge, etc. are pretty much irrelevant. All your saying is God has X nature and X is morality. But any atheist can just say the universe is X and cut out the middle man.
The amateurish questions you've raised have already been dealt with in Harris' book. Simply speaking Harris does not argue that morality exists as some Platonic Form of the Good. He recognizes that we can speak objectively about ontologically subjective experiences (this is how sciences of the mind study things like depression). For any individual or a collective to maximize well-being, it will depend on tracking states of the world and of the brain. A celestial consciousness is not needed here.
I find it funny that you think it odd that Hawking believes the universe came from nothing when that is exactly what you believe . You believe god created from nothing .
@OpenAirAtheist There has to be an unmoved mover. Do you believe in eternity as a #? There is no such thing. An eternal past # of events is illogical and there must be an unmoved mover that as beyond space, time and matter and the only logical and REASONABLE explanation is God. God can do all things, there is nothing illogical about that. Now out of the natural world-it is.
@xchampx god is neither an answer or an explanation. see OpenAirAtheist.Blogspot.com . if morality is objective because it come from BlahWeh (god) then my personal morality is objective because it is from my nature . so BlahWeh can force its morality on others because BlawWeh has the power and his name is God? but if Hitler does that he's a dictator? slapping the label god on something doesn't change the equation!
@OpenAirAtheist Who is Hitler subject to? God. God will judge him. Who is God subject to?......Nobody. That pretty much ends the "issue" of the misunderstanding about objective. I am puzzled at some atheists get that confused.
@xchampx That is the whole issue with "right" and "wrong". For every law there is a lawgiver. If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver. Now. If it's not God then who is it? Also, If God creates, he is independent of everyone else, making him objective.
but i mean the origins of morality is a very complex topic. and whether there can be an objective morality. points 2-4 of the info make the most sense to me as an atheist. (trying to make up for the dismissive and condescending tone in my previous comment.)
Consequently, “son of Omri” was a common designation for any male descendant of Omri and would have been used to refer to Jehoram. Assuming that “son” means “descendant,” an interpretation consistent with the common use of language in the ancient Near East, the Mesha Stele and the Bible are consistent. Generally though the designation of "descendant of Omri" at that time was "bît Humri", as confirmed by Assyrian records.
However, as other scholars have pointed out, the inscription need not necessarily refer to Omri’s son Ahab.[12] In modern English, the word “son” typically refers to a male child in relation to his parents. In the ancient Near East, however, the word was commonly used to mean male descendant.[13]
@xchampx- nothing more than these traces. The biblical author contrives a continuous dynasty of David in Judah, but Judah did not even exist, except perhaps as a region, at this time.
@xchampx-Israel has its origins in Canaan as an outcome of the collapsed Canaanite culture. An Israelite "empire" did eventually emerge – but in Samaria not Judah, and by its founder Omri. His dynasty ruled until defeated by Hazael of Aram-Damascus in 842 BC. Samaria then succumbed to territorial erosion to Assyria. Neither David nor Solomon is as much as mentioned in the huge corpus of state records of either Egypt or Assyria. it is not possible for such an extensive kingdom to have left
@xchampx - hmmmm. Don't think I want to make that mistake again. The last time I PM you information you seem to have blew it off. However the information regarding the stele are not hard to find, it's written in the stele themselves. You can find out about the early Canaanite culture dating in the late bronze age, destruction of Israel (seen as an ethnic group) in Canaan by Egypt in Iron age l, a kingdom established in Samaria with house of Omri in beginning of Iron age ll
@rooio3 Nevermind! I found them in the box. I watched a few videos so far, some interesting things I noted with Baal and YHWY, but anyway I will continue researching. Thanks!!
@xchampx- Realize that those are not specifically about these topics of the stele and House of Omri or Samaria, but rather of the ancient Mesopotamian mythology I spoke of when you first asked me to send that info.
@rooio3 Being a glutton for punishment, I have returned to the discussion and went over your previous comments. Although, I agree with most of what you say, I still contend that it says nothing about morality. The definition of morality is acting in accordance with what is right and wrong. Now your examples of human and animal behaviour do not show what is moral - just how social animals learn what the rules of their society are (your dog for example is not moral, he just knows when his.....
@InitiumNovum ...behaviour is unsociable and likely to cause offence). Each of the scenarios I gave you have been parried away by you changing the question. What I am creating is theoretical examples. So again, if it were definitely the case that the Earth and everything on it would die unless the human race were destroyed, would the moral choice be for us to wipe ourselves out? What I am trying to establish here is whether you believe in right and wrong beyond what aids our own survivial?
@InitiumNovum- the concepts or tools of what establishes right and wrong will always be around whether we are alive or not. The only difference is how much we are able to comprehend it with the aid of intelligence. Not lying doesn't necessarily aid in our survival as many people continually lie everyday without any threat to their survival. The same for stealing, cheating, and so on. Everything happens in context and are based off facts of reality. Our minds absorb and interpret this.
@InitiumNovum - Yet we see lying can present a set of outcomes that effect another as oppose to not lying. We can make the cognitive distinction. Moral norms achieve their ends in humans in part by their ability to comprehend. We can grasp the importance of fostering trust and cooperation and we can drill into our children’s heads rules such as “don’t lie” because we understand the connections such an act produce within a hierarchy.
@InitiumNovum - The definition of morality concern the DISTINCTION between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Animals have pre-morals. Human morality is more complex because our intelligence is more advanced. Morality among social animals show they are the PRECURSORS of human morality. As neurological studies show, the more developed the brain, the more developed the understanding of "morality". What we learn of right and wrong are based on what we learn from reality and how our
@rooio3 "The definition of morality concern the DISTINCTION between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." But you don't define what "right and wrong" are and you appear to relate the two concepts purely in terms of well-being, survival, health, society, etc. Everything you describe can be viewed in terms of our survival, generally we don't lie because if everyone did then the fabric of society would erode and without society we are individually more vulvnerable so we innately understand...
@InitiumNovum that to preserve our own survival we must act in a way which doesn't negatively impact on our fellow group members. Imagine living in a society which permitted random acts of murder on a whim - we would all be unsafe and anxious as a result. What most people understand by morality is the idea of "right" completely outside of what is good for us. It may even be harmful to us but objectively it is "right" or "good". Your model does not deal with that at all and that's the problem.
@InitiumNovum - Murder obviously deal directly with survival because it causes the cessation of life. Lying is much more complex. In some cases, not lying can threaten survival. "What most people understand by morality is the idea of "right" completely outside of what is good for us"- Morality come about from from casual objective facts, observed regardless of our own subjective views. So we make rules based on these factual observations. That is what make it objectively universal.
@InitiumNovum -As said before, the basis of ethics is causality- everything has consequences. How we determine what is right is through the context of our actions and what is being effected using factual objectivity. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist. Objectivisim is not the same as absolutism. That is why there are many forms of universal morals among cultures, it is determined by the nature of reality to be discovered by one's mind through the process of logic and
@InitiumNovum -reasoning. Now, people can form their own subjective morals, yes. That does not mean morals cannot be rationally defensible objectively. Reason based on observed facts of reality is the determining factor of "right" outside what is good for us". Everyone can form their own reasoning, but not if it's based on objective reality.
@InitiumNovum - brains absorb and understand what reality present. So it's more than simply what aids our survival. Morality can be consciously and subconsciously base on real world facts. Our minds interact with this because it has no choice. That's how we develop, learn, grow. We obviously have to be alive in order for that to happen. Yet complex morality come from complex intelligence. We are the only species that display this.
@xchampx - later to be conquered by the Assyrian empire with no unification of Israel, then after the collapse of Assyria, the Babylonian period. Some clues to point you in. They're not hard to find, it's documented history. Just not the type of history the bible project.
@rooio3 I honestly do not know too much about your claims, so I am not going to blindly argue against you. This stuff takes time to research and I have not. send me the links and ill try my best and review these sources. I didn't read the ones you sent. You are right, but that is because i forgot. Just send them again and ill try and make the time to watch them/read them all. Specifically reading them would be nice.
@xchampx- Shalmaneser, and the battle of Karkar. These ancient inscriptions show that Israel and Judah are not fictitious names, just not what the bible says. The scriptural tales were more likely invented for a non-historical purpose, to validate true and false prophecy & preserve tradition. And of course none of these validate any of the bible's magical mythical claims.
@xchampx- Assyrian texts refer to Israel either as “the house of Omri” or simply as Samaria. Israel was virtually identical to the Canaanite tribes. It wasn't until the Egyptian Merneptah Stele that identified semitic tribes as "Israel" who were already known in Canaan by the reign of Merneptah, throwing off the timelines of the claimed biblical exodus. Omri is almost ignored by the biblical authors who prefer to dwell on his son, Ahab. The bible is silent about the wars against
@xchampx- as Omri son, yet the bible does not and instead identify him as an anointed assassin. The bible avoids mentioning Aram's 9th century conquest of much of "Israel". Archaeology testifies, in the 10th century BC in the valleys of Palestine Canaanite culture continued uninterrupted, contradicting the bibilcal carnage and conquest depicted during David's building empire. Extensive archaeology reveals Jerusalem was a village in the 10th century BC. From the eighth century BC, a few
@xchampx- Take the Mesha stele. It gives inconsistency with the timing of Mesha’s revolt compared with the bibilcal. The identification of David does not prove the events regarding the character David in the old testament as "historical". The phrase "house of David" does not contain vowels and could have different meanings either as "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle", or "House of David". The interpretation is uncertain according to scholars. The black Obelisk claims Jehu
Here's another question; if the planet and all the animals on it was being destroyed by the human race (our destruction of habitat, war, chemicals, etc), would the moral thing be for our race to purposely destroy itself in order to save the planet? If not, why? Is our well-being the only thing that really matters.
@InitiumNovum - just because our morality evolved doesn't mean we can't reason out what is the right moral course and why from unbiased real life evidence. Hence the need for intelligence, which is exactly what happened in evolutionary man. That is why our brains are the most complex. You cannot subjectively say rape does not cause psychological and physical harm on its victim. It is an objective causal fact from evidence. Morality can be grounded on facts.
"Intelligence" in and of itself is not a lawgiver. It is not an objective ENTITY. It is not a BEING that gives objectivbity in right and wrong. Once again, it cannot answer for any moral questions such as lying, stealing, pornography, adultery, greed, stealing, hate and murder.All the assertions of your subjective views are all babble.End of discussion.
@xchampx - "You are truly delusional"- says the guy who believes in bible magic. "Intelligence" in and of itself is not a lawgiver"- didn't say it was a lawgiver, in fact never said anything was a lawgiver. Moral rules do not need a god to give it objectivity. Get that through your skull. How can something grounded in fantasy make morals objective? Religious absolutism cannot answer for any of those also, without any reason or context. Your assertions are thus expected.
@rooio3 "didn't say it was a lawgiver" Then its subjective. lol. If there are objective moral values that means there has to be some LAW GIVER that is above all else. The evolutionary process' and simple "intelligence", as you may, cannot be objective. It is purely subjective. I have told you SOOOOOOOO many times before. I do not think you care to listen to me. I have said OVER AND OVER if the universe was created for a purpose, meaning and value and a God has a plan - THEN IT IS OBJECTIVE.
@xchampx - "If there are objective moral values that means there has to be some LAW GIVER that is above all else"- says the christian, hence why you continue such ridiculous beliefs. Reality is objective. The evolutionary process allowed us to understand it. I have told you that SOOOOOOOO many times. A god is NOT the requirement to make reality objective. Especially when it is NON-EXISTENT! Reality has evidence. You have no place to stand, with NO evidence to back up such idiotic claims.
@xchampx Actually, I have to say, that intelligence certainly does answer questions of why not steal, lie, kill, etc - it's simply that we are social animals and we can deduce that we will be far more secure in a society which looks dimly upon such actions. By not perpetrating these "crimes" we maintain the social structure which ensures that they will not be inflicted upon us. My argument is that that is the only reason we don't commit them and as a result we have evolved to be repulsed by them
@InitiumNovum The same intelligence and awareness that we have developed as a result of evolution is the cause of our knowledge of the world around us and also of our own death. We are now in a second phase of realising we will die, but not being able to accept it (due to moving from a basic animal mindset of being the only thing we are aware of, to one where we realise we are not special in at all). Presently, we cannot face reality and hence religion and Gods are made to hide behind.
@InitiumNovum "We are now in a second phase of realizing we will die," The funny thing is that both you are are all going under pure guessing. You are playing a movie in your head thinking that this is what that is,etc.
@xchampx - "The funny thing is that both you are are all going under pure guessing"- not really. I know where the myths of genesis originated. Kind of shatters the rest of the mythical claims of the bible like a domino effect. So funny you would make such a statement. And please stop using "IF", thinking it will add any relevance to the matter. There is so much evidence to dismiss claims of the bible- in history, archeology, biology, genetics, on & on. Enough!
@rooio3 That's where you are all wrong and are hoping that what you think is evidence is against it, really isn't. Just because there may be some type of archaeological difference, doesn't disprove anything. Besides there are many ancient archaological findings that support the bible directly like the Meshe Stele, The Schoyen Collection,Taylor Prism, The Black obelisk or Shalmaneser,The Cyrus Cylinder and others. Oh, and the Schoyen Collection is pre-flood.
@xchampx- None of those support any of the mythical claims of the bible. The Mesopotamian artifacts are older than all those, being the first civilization to arise in the middle east. Even among those you listed, some contradict biblical timelines as well as biblical narratives. The only thing they prove is that the bible has created its own version of historic narrative apart from documented history and merged with myths. Real history tell a different story.
@InitiumNovum "Actually, I have to say, that intelligence certainly does answer questions of why not steal, lie, kill, etc -" Of course an intelligence is used. I am talking about an OBJECTIVE law giver because with morals there has to be a law giver why? Look at the syllogism. If we all use our intellignece we can all come up with different things, right? That is being subjective.
@InitiumNovum - So us evolving our conscience still allows for the possibility of an ‘objective morality’, just one that evolution allowed us to understand. If morality is based on objective reality of a materialistic universe, then rationalization cannot be subjective, which would show why there is a uniformity of moral rules. Humans can rationalize immoral behavior, yet would have no basis to justify it on reasonable objective evidence.
...this comes from having evolved into social creatures. We are safer and stronger together and if we are live together we must treat each other in a considerate and empathetic way. As for the commandments, the first three are God telling us how jealous and petulant he is...not a great example for the creator of all things to set his followers.
@InitiumNovum "God telling us how jealous and petulant he is." Is it wrong for God for his creation to long for him? Let me rephrase it this way: Is it wrong for you to want your wife to love you? That is what the bible is referring to. God wants us to love him. As far as him being petulant, why don't you look at the acts, deeds and times it took for God to endure the Canaanites and others to repent (Amos 1-2). He waited hundreds of years for them to repent and they worshiped their immoral Gods.
@InitiumNovum and what I mean by immoral is this: The Canaanite Gods Anath was a bloodthirsty and violent god who bathed itself in human gore. I bet that would be a great influence on our society, eh?
@xchampx No, that would be a bad example - except that by your rationale, Anath was right to do what he did because "he has his reasons". Regarding the Caananites, don't you think it's more likely that the people writing the bible had to explain why people has worshipped other Gods for so long, and so they created the idea of God being tolerant? Regarding God wanting love - I did not create my wife, but even if I did I would still know that love cannot be forced or demanded (as God believes).
The whole flaw is based on this. Intelligence isn't a "law giver". It cannot apply simply because anyone could try and make any law. This makes it not objective. Everyone and anyone can make their own "law" in the atheistic worldview.
@xchampx 1. Every law has a law giver (the definition of a law being a man-made rule of society - natural law, the law of gravity, etc are not actually laws) 2. Moral law is a concept that has been invented by human beings and does not exist in reality (like metaphysics or timetravel) 3. Therefore there is no Moral Law Giver. If you look at history, everyone CAN and DO make their own laws. This is exactly what civilisations have always done (often with some God(s) as scapegoats for doing so.
In western culture we are brought up from day 1 believing in santa clause, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. but there comes a time when we stop believing in them. so why do we keep believing in god and jesus and their "superpowers", when its just as fantastical a concept. is it because the bible is "legitimate" and the modern day santa clause is just an invention of coca cola? the catholic church no longer believes satan exists. if that's true then why should we believe god exists?
@InitiumNovum- "Well people observe things very differently and often come to different conclusions"- then you are not talking about what is objective, but merely subjective. An objective claim can be evaluated and tested independently of the person making the claim. "anyone not intelligent or rational enough to see the truth is also now immoral."- I said morals can be objective based on reason from reality. There would be a basis to justify it. "But it is simply your view that a person
@xchampx - an objective fact is a true statement without bias or personal opinion. If you kill an organism, it will die. "The earth travels round the sun" is not a matter of opinion but an objective statement of fact.
@xchampx -"What is an objective fact? and better yet, how do they determine a LAW of morality because morals have LAWS and there are no laws."- obviously objective facts are coined by humans from observation, observing cause and effect that happen in the real world. Intelligence was needed in order for them to understand this. If morality is based on objective facts, we have evidence to justify one's position. Theism has none, based on a deity with no evidence of its existence.
@rooio3 - consider this example if you will; I have observed that I am the strongest and cleverest member of my community, I have the best genes and of course want to survive and reproduce. I rationalise that by killing the other male members of the tribe and making all the women my slaves, my genes will be the only ones that propagate. The tribe will be stronger as a result. I will have no threat and therefore survive longer. So I murder all the males while they sleep. Is this moral and why?
@InitiumNovum-who dies on hunger strike is being irrational"- irrational on the basis that reality show humans evolved to survive, not kill themselves, otherwise we would be extinct. "I imagine you must think that anyone who rescues children from a fire but in doing so dies themselves is therefore irrational and as a result immoral?"- you still leave out context. The firefighters actions were based on goals of the survival of the children, not to wander around blissfully in the flames.
@InitiumNovum- Their actions are based on goals to diminish dangers. Fires cause causal physical effects from smoke, heat, so on. "consider this example if you will; I have observed that I am..." your starting from a subjective opinion. None of those are objective facts. You still approach this from subjectivism. That killing act has universal social effects, psychological effects, physical effects. You rationalized from your own opinion, not from facts independent of yourself.
@InitiumNovum- To subject a group as slaves in a dictator rule we know from evidence will not lead to "a stronger tribe". Even dictators show a similar pattern of economic and social failings. The social effects of distrust, paranoia, threats, insecurity. The contextualism of the killing act don't strive to project group survival. A structured society to ensure individual freedom provide the context by which our lower values can be effected. The men killed were prevented from this.
@InitiumNovum- Those men could have specific contributions that affect the group and needed in order for the community to function properly or even survive. Therefore, reason has not been adequately applied in context FROM objective reality. Subjectivism is not even sufficient for any justification, based on mere opinions, therefore you would not be able to say whether it is immoral or not.
@rooio3 Thanks for the responses but I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I can't find any logic in your position. Whereas a religious person takes a position based on belief and then has to warp all the evidence to fit in with this, you seem to have decided that although an atheist, you are still moral, and you've constructed a way of achieving that regardless of its nonsensical nature.
@InitiumNovum- You certainly can't defend your position and think it's not nonsensical. As said before, there are objective facts that are part of reality that can't be denied regardless of subjective views. These have natural cause and effects necessary for humans to exist. Even social animals have pre-moral behaviors discovered through sociobiology, to be the precursors of human morality, just not as complex. Morals are a natural byproduct of this process.
@rooio3 Your position is nonsense.All of your ideas are wishful thinking adopted by theism.Objective morality is supported in Theism(in particular Christianity) due to the fact that the universe and life were created for a purpose,value and meaning. God creates (a law) and we have broken this.Due to our moral depravity as taught in the bible and evidence throughout the world,God gives us over to our sin (Romans 1:24, 2:15).In atheism once again,this cannot be established.Check out my syllogism.
@xchampx What is God's law then? How have any of us broken it? Why did he create us with the capacity to break his own laws (this seems odd and also places the blame firmly on him and not us). If God created morality then it is His subjective law and not objective and therefore not moral. In the bible God acts in a far more immoral way than any man. The evidence of the world is that, throughout history, men have used religion to commit and excuse the most unspeakable acts imaginable.
@InitiumNovum It's written in our hearts. The bible talks more about this. Priceless the 10 commandments, as well as other laws. For example, although many cheat on their wives/husbands they KNOW that lying is bad, they know that adultery is wrong but they do it anyway and they know that murder is wrong, etc. There are many 'laws' but God says these are written in in our hearts. And the people the become numb to them suppress the truth and God gives them over to it. (Romans 1:18, 2:15).
@InitiumNovum "If God created morality then it is His subjective law and not objective and therefore not moral. In the bible God acts in a far more immoral way than any man." Woah! woah! woah! did you just catch what you said? You said God is immoral? on what standard? your own? Your subjective opinion? You see, if God is the objective law giver (like my premise's state, then he has nobody to answer. Oh, and these "immoral" things God did are done for reasons, not simply unjustified. He is God.
@InitiumNovum "The evidence of the world is that, throughout history, men have used religion to commit and excuse the most unspeakable acts imaginable." Whatever buddy. I could say the same for atheism. Look at communist China and how they terminate every baby after every family has 1 (the value of life eh?) and Marxism, communist countries such as Stalin and Russia. I could go on and on. This "you did this in the name of your _____ ) is nonsense, it can be used against you too.
@xchampx The problem with citing Russia and China as examples is that the "immoral" actions there were not done in the name of Atheism. The actions were political and economical in nature. This is different to acts done by the Catholic Church (who surely must be acting in God's will) in God's name, such as Inquisition, Crusades, teaching children they are sinners, torturing scientists such as Gallilleo, taking billions of dollars to build palaces. Can you separate the Church from the religion?
@InitiumNovum continued..Also, you can't base what individuals did for Christianity (crusades,etc.) agains the actual belief system itself because that isn't what the bible teaches.The bible teaches to love and to pray for your enemy not to kill them.Oh and the old testament laws you want to quote are prescribed to a certain people for a certain time. It is not commanded for Christians to do any of those.I am sure you wouldn't like a Christian boxing all atheists are evil Satan worshipers right?
@xchampx Sure, but saying an Atheist is a Satan worshipper would be nonsensical because if a person doesn't believe in God then he's not going to believe in Satan is he? However, you can't deny that the bible (which you love to cite) does have many passages which talk of punishing, murdering, enslaving, etc. Why not follow a peaceful religion such as Buddhism? As for God's law, yes we instinctively know how we should act, that's why we had societies before we had the bible. I would posit that..
@InitiumNovum In regards to what you said about satan. I am looking from a biblical perspective. Atheists have the same characteristics of Satan in the sense that they want God to be destroyed and want things for themselves. Now, I do say there can be nice atheists, but to who's standard? As for those objections about God punishing, i suggest you read the book "Is God a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan. I am currently reading it and it sheds a lot of light on this subject. and historical context.
@xchampx "Atheists have the same characteristics of Satan" No they don't because Satan isn't real and actually Atheists do not want to destroy God - I personally am not against the idea of a God, I can't imagine what it would be like if there were one tbh. But the truth is that there is no God (in the religious sense) and that's just the way it is - might as well see the world as it really is, rather than living in a fairy tale which merely stultifies our understanding of the world around us.
@InitiumNovum- the definition of morality is to differentiate intentions or decisions or actions between right and wrong conduct. In social animals, those that habitually cheat don't get played with. Capuchin monkeys refuse to co-operate when the rewards for the same behavior are unequal. Their behaviors are in response to wrong actions, being unfairly treated. Even they have a basic sense, at least, of right and wrong in terms of behavior. When wolves play with each other within groups,
@InitiumNovum- savage biting is forbidden. The animals have an etiquette, and will “apologize” when they bite too hard. Pack animals like these also have manners, an order of precedent when feeding, by which the higher ranked animals get the first choice, but all get fed. All this studied and research within the field of sociobiology. So yes, there is a natural reaction to real world facts to which morality can emerge out of.
@xchampx- Justin, you should be the last to talk. Perhaps you should FIRST focus on how your claim of a deity is anymore provable than that of a Muslim or any other religious entity. Regurgitating biblical scripture to prove your delusional point is meaningless. "Your position is nonsense"- yea, and it is already known where the mythology of the biblical claims originated. Shattered from the very beginning. So Please, spare us the babble!
@rooio3 My position is that right and wrong don't exist because the value of something is always subjective (what is good for one person could be bad for another). I don't think that's nonesense because it's the position that we observe on a daily basis - one man's martyr is another man's terrorist, etc. I gave you objective examples but you didn't really engage with them.
@rooio3 You say, "there are objective facts that are part of reality that can't be denied regardless of subjective views. These have natural cause and effects necessary for humans to exist." I totally agree with this, this is undoubtedly true, unfortunately, though it it is not in any way related to morality. I can't even see how you link the two concepts. Just because something is good for our survival does not mean it is necessarily moral. Otherwise any selfish action would be moral.
@InitiumNovum - "I gave you objective examples"- I failed to see how objective example can come out of subjectivism. "Just because something is good for our survival does not mean it is necessarily moral" - You still have not understood. None of what I stated where merely for "survival". There's context, reason, rational. You cannot have morality without them. Your position can excuse any behavior because you have no basis to say it is right or wrong.
@rooio3 "There's context, reason, rational" all of which are subjective. In my tribesman example he had observed empirically that he was the strongest and so "reasoned" that if all offspring came from him then the tribe would be stronger (so he kills all the other tribesman) - now his reasoning may be flawed but how does he know? In your model, we can only know if something is the moral choice after the event - perhaps years later after studies confirm it.
@rooio3 "Your position can excuse any behavior because you have no basis to say it is right or wrong." Excused by who? I am saying that actions cannot be "right" or "wrong" but that simply they have repercussions. If you go around hurting people then those you share society with will have to prevent you from being able to continue doing so. If you could break down your idea into very simple, cogent, consistent rules then it might help but I don't think that would be possible.
@InitiumNovum- "In my tribesman example he had observed empirically that he was the strongest and so "reasoned" that if all offspring came from him then the tribe would be stronger"- that is not an objective example. Nor did his reasoning have any context, the same mistake religious absolutism make. According to sociobiology, morality is a trait that has evolved. The levels of morality in social animals help us understand the emergence of morality in humans. Studies showed the larger the
@InitiumNovum- Social group an animal is in, the larger the size of the individual's neocortex. Social living promotes higher intelligence.The need to keep track of one’s companions in the group, handling them socially and knowing how to treat them and trust them pushes for the growth of the brain and of intelligence. The components of morality are sociality, intelligence and emotion. Animals who break moral code often behave as if they are guilty, and expect to be punished.
@InitiumNovum - Another example of this is my dog, who would sometimes run out when the door is open and roam the neighborhood for a while. The minute he sees an opening, he dashes. He always returns, but when he does he slowly tip toes with his head down and his tail tuck between his legs as I stand at the door. He somehow knew his actions were "wrong" without anyone telling him. So even I have observed this.
@rooio3 What you are describing is how animals interact within a society. Every society has its rules and its members must learn to adapt in order to survive and thrive. Hence the behaviour and decisions that you describe. So really you are, as Sam Harris does, substituting well-being for morality. You define morality as a choice between right and wrong, so what do we mean by right and wrong? Is "right" simply what enhances our survival, health, happiness, etc?
@InitiumNovum - I refer to social animals. Humans are a social species, or course. The studies point out it isn't merely about adaption for survival or well-being. As I pointed out earlier, intelligence is key. Morality is not simply a 'choice' of right and wrong, but the ability to interpret between right and wrong. To understand why something is right and wrong. Society and morality are connected for social species, so you can really separate them from the basis of evolution.
@InitiumNovum -"would the moral thing be for our race to purposely destroy itself in order to save the planet?"- again, there's no rationale in committing suicide if we were evolved for survival. Especially if such an act may not save the planet. It would have been more rational to cease destructive behavior. It is estimated within the lifetime of the planet 90 percent of species have already gone extinct without the aid of humans. Of course survival is key due to evolution. However,
@InitiumNovum - morality is not simply what enhances evolutionary survival. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but that doesn't make it good due to the causal effects such an act causes. Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival, but that doesn't make it right for the same reasons. Some humans are trying to help save the planet and species, why kill them? Remember there are objective facts to life. Morality is based on those.
I will bring up more quotes for you from atheist PHILOSOPHERS: Friedrich Nietzsche: “Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities….There are altogether no moral facts.” Indeed, morality “has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”
Also: Jean-Paul Sartre: “It [is] very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him.”
@InitiumNovum -The naturalistic fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs when we assume that something ought to be the case just because it is the case, where "ought" is derived in evolution morality. It describes WHY moral behavior exists, but doesn’t itself explain why behavior IS really moral. Morality is irrational without using reason. Naturally intrinsic values from causality in context explain how morality can be objective and rational.
@rooio3 - No they don't. We can of course observe causes and effects, actions and outcomes and determine which is better for our individual and collective well-being, but this has nothing to do with morality.
@InitiumNovum - The act of killing follow the physical natural law that it produces death. When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place in a given context. This context informs the values effected by the action, needed in order to evaluate the consequences. The act of killing affect different values involving killing intentionally, by accident, in self-defense, so on. Needs indicate the value (goals) that our actions seek to accomplish. It is irrational without reason
Well as an atheist, I think the truth is that morality does not exist in any objective sense, there is no God and our lives really have no greater meaning. Sam Harris's book troubled me too in the sense that well-being is not the same as morality. It's actually far superior in my view to be concerned about another person's well-being, rather than your own determination of what is right. But that doesn't change the fact that they are not the same and Harris should not swap one term for another
@InitiumNovum-Objective morality can stand against both religious absolutism and subjectivism, relativism. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area, especially things like science. We rightly blame many Christians for holding Creationist positions on faith and subjective appreciation, because their position is not based on reality. But we must put the same blame on the shoulders of the subjectivist position in morality. To argue that morality is not knowledge and
@InitiumNovum - that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default. To claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism is unacceptable.The standard atheist, and humanist, answer to morality is evolutionary adaptation. But evolution only explains why people hold the moral positions they do, not what reality actually indicates. It uses
@InitiumNovum - objective facts. To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality- natural, psychological and social laws that continue apart from subjective beliefs, desires, whims. Which make it universal, causes have effects. Because rationality is grounded in reality, we can then analyze these objective causal facts to determine what is moral. Objective morality can come about through natural objective causality using reason.
@rooio3 I think you're defining morality incorrectly. Morality is the concept that there is a right and wrong way to act (despite any observable causes or effects). I never stated that morality is subjective, I argued that it doesn't exist. If morality were objective then how are these rules set? If morality is subjective then by definition it is not morality (just opinion).
@InitiumNovum - Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions. The actions themselves come about from the causes and effects, the product of natural principle, natural causal observable facts. Actions happen in context. The ability to evaluate the values of the actions with rationality is what make it moral. Those values in context using reason decide what is wrong or right.
@rooio3 Morals: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
How does "intelligence" become an absolute authority to to conduct what is "right" and "wrong"? It is not a being, or entity. There are different "intelligent" conclusions that are to the well-being of self and just as valid as any other idea you can conjure up. "High Well Being" doesn't deal with "right" and "wrong". Its so vague too.
@xchampx - there does not need to be a being or entity to say to people what is right or wrong. If you have no intelligence, you cannot decipher the question of morality in the first place. That is why humans are superior to primates in mental capacity. I said nothing about "high well being". Morality is the ability to evaluate, differentiate between actions, behavior. You need intelligence, rationality to do that.
@rooio3 "Those values in context using reason decide what is wrong or right." which is purely subjective. and once again there are no real values anyways in your worldview. You can have subjective values, but ultimately when you take out the original premises (the universe has no meaning, value or purpose) then you take out the rest, which includes morality.
@xchampx- "Those values in context using reason decide what is wrong or right." which is purely subjective"- actions take place in context. That isn't subjective. I refer to universal values, values that have reason. Objectively, eating is much more important than, say, gaining status. In context, eating is necessary for energy and survival. Reason show us this from reality. It is a physical casual objective fact. That is why eating is highly universally valued for surviving.
@InitiumNovum- hunger strikes cannot last too long because......it can lead to impaired health or death, a physical effect. All humans have to eat to live. But all humans don't go on hunger strikes to achieve a specific goal. A hunger strike cannot be effective if the fact that it is being undertaken is not publicized, then it would be irrational. Reason is still needed to evaluate values.
@rooio3 Yes but the fact that some people do (and would rather) die due to a hunger strike than give up their point of principle shows that the valuation of eating is subjective. Of course, objectively, eating is essential physical condition and health - but how important that is, is a value judgment and therefore (once again subkective).
@InitiumNovum - "I really do think you are incorrect"- isn't that itself subjective? "Who is going to say whether a person is rational, or what the rational choice might be?"- rationality from reality, real life causality, which is objective. Consequences of actions arise because of universal natural laws, psychological laws, and social laws that occur regardless of our own views. These can be observed outside subjectivism. "must morality be "Universal values" and what are they?" I should
@rooio3 "rationality from reality, real life causality, which is objective." Well people observe things very differently and often come to different conclusions - who is to say what it the right conclusion? Also, by your definition, anyone not intelligent or rational enough to see the truth is also now immoral. "Consequences of actions arise because of universal natural laws, psychological laws, and social laws that occur regardless of our own views." What are these laws then?
@InitiumNovum-should clarify, when I say value, I mean the goal of an action. Objective values have a one-to-one correspondence with objective needs, because needs indicate the goals that need to be fulfilled. We have a hierarchy of values for the same reason than we have a hierarchy of needs – because some values need to be reasonably fulfilled (such as nutrition or sleep) before some others can come under the purview of our actions (such as love or excellence).
@InitiumNovum- "shows that the valuation of eating is subjective."- it is also an objective fact. Their death demonstrate its point. It will happen regardless of subjective views as a natural cause-effect relationship. So one could say they were irrational based on facts of reality, reason from real facts. A self-contained, material universe means that things cannot be changed on the subjective whim, neither from ones own view or a transcendent being. You can find knowledge
@rooio3 - But it is simply your view that a person who dies on hunger strike is being irrational. What proves that they are? The fact that they would rather die for a principle than live and abandon it. They have reasoned and made a choice. I imagine you must think that anyone who rescues children from a fire but in doing so dies themselves is therefore irrational and as a result immoral?
@InitiumNovum- because you can observe an objective reality and align your reasoning with its nature, based on logic and induction. If you suggest that moral statements are detached from any reality, then moral statements cannot exist. Subjective evidence is insufficient to establish objective facts. But to any reasonable person, such lack of evidence demonstrates an incapacity to justify one’s position. Values equate objective causality applied to actions. Without reason,
@InitiumNovum- how will you understand morality? You need intelligence. Animals lack intellect capacity as humans have, thus are not able to understand the concept of morality. We can verify moral statements empirically. Moral standards come from the existence of universal values, which are derived from facts of nature such as biology and psychology, and contextualism, the fact that actions do not exist in a vacuum. Moral objectivism is the position that morality is based on objective facts.
@rooio3 "how will you understand morality? You need intelligence. " Over and over and over you repeat the same babble. Just because you have intelligence doesn't mean those choices are OBJECTIVE. Every human being makes their own moral choice, right? They used rationality, whether you like it or not. Oh, and that is subjective!!!!
@xchampx- "Just because you have intelligence doesn't mean those choices are OBJECTIVE."- I explained how it is objective. You either misunderstood or overlooked what I wrote. I didn't simply say just rationality.
@rooio3 "Animals lack intellect capacity as humans have, thus are not able to understand the concept of morality." but is it wrong? who says its wrong? they kill to survive. we kill to survive. we took a life (whether its a plant, animal or human being) we all made the rational choice to kill it. It brings up bigger problems because of us killing animals and we don't care. We need to survive.
@xchampx - "Animals lack intellect capacity as humans have, thus are not able to understand the concept of morality." but is it wrong? who says its wrong?"- wrong to ....who? Animals? Humans? How should an animal know if it can't understand? "It brings up bigger problems because of us killing animals and we don't care. We need to survive"- again, the same problem with religious absolutism. Killing has context, as all actions do.
@rooio3 "That is why eating is highly universally valued for surviving." So if hypothetically if the dahmer party had to kill and eat their family members for survival in the wilderness, is that wrong? They have to survive!
@xchampx- "Even if you evaluate ITS STILL YOUR DECISION"- not if it's reason based on reality. Reality give objective facts. And causal facts are universal. "As a result they have to kill each other for that ration of food-TO SURVIVE"- for how long? It's still irrational if that one serving is gone. How will the man then continue to survive afterward? He still would have perished with no reason to kill the other. It would not aid in his survival.
@rooio3 "not if it's reason based on reality." You are talking nonsense. What is reality? reality is the fact that you are here for no other reason, but to perish. WE ALL DIE. Why is life valued? Its not objectively. We are a mere accident. What is an objective fact? and better yet, how do they determine a LAW of morality because morals have LAWS and there are no laws. proof is in the life of other mammals that kill for the heck of it and for survival.
@xchampx- uh, Justin, you cannot deny natural laws exist. "What is reality"- a materialistic universe. "reality is the fact that you are here for no other reason, but to perish."- yet reality show organism live for survival. So that statement proved false. "proof is in the life of other mammals that kill for the heck of it and for survival"- doesn't take a genius to figure that out justin, It was already been explained.
@xchampx- You ask such questions on cannibalism that are illogical. Dahmer was mentally ill. Cannibalism does not lead to survival. Humans live in groups to survive remember? That cannot happen if they are eating each other. What will the last survivor do for food? There was no reason for it in the first place. They would have been better off working together to find food. And cannibalism can lead to the spread of disease, so it won't help them survive, rather kill them more quickly.
@rooio3 "You ask such questions on cannibalism that are illogical. Dahmer was mentally ill. Cannibalism does not lead to survival. Humans live in groups to survive remember? " That is merely subjective opinion. Every single person will disagree with you on that one. You cannot prove this to be objectively wrong or right in terms of atheism. You ignore everything I have said.
@xchampx - "That is merely subjective opinion. Every single person will disagree with you on that one."- which is also a subjective opinion. "You cannot prove this to be objectively wrong or right in terms of atheism. You ignore everything I have said"- haven't ignored it, you just don't want to deny what I'm saying. "To what? Perish. You live a meaningless life so there are no objective moral facts."- It's an observable fact, dude. You, as a professing christian, will still die in this world.
@rooio3 "Humans live in groups to survive remember?" To what? Perish. You live a meaningless life so there are no objective moral facts. This STILL DOESNT PROVE ITS MORAL OR NOT. You are just trying to reason and even though you try to reason IT DOESN'T PROVE IF ITS MORAL RIGHT OR WRONG.
@xchampx - Believing in a god has not prevented that. It is an observable natural law. "This STILL DOESNT PROVE ITS MORAL OR NOT."- I refer to InitiumNovum on the case of subjectivism. "You are just trying to reason and even though you try to reason IT DOESN'T PROVE IF ITS MORAL RIGHT OR WRONG."- read back and try to understand what I just said. I repeat, a god is not REQUIRED for something to be moral. It isn't based on reality and there is no evidence any more than a unicorn.
@xchampx- It causes physical causal effects of infections, sickness, death. It causes psychological causal effects in mental health, stability of emotion, empathy, relationship, & cognitive thinking. It causes social causal effects in interaction with others, communication. The act of cannibalism can impact all of these universal effects.
@rooio3 "It causes physical causal effects of infections, sickness, death. It causes psychological causal effects in mental health, stability of emotion, empathy, relationship, & cognitive thinking." These are all outside of morality. Once again, this shows nothing of "right" and "wrong".
@xchampx - these are all outside of morality. Once again, this shows nothing of "right" and "wrong". Those are causality. Effects of actions. I didn't say that was morality. It has to be used in deciding morality.
"Who is going to say whether a person is rational, or what the rational choice might be?"- rationality from reality, real life causality, which is objective" hahaha ALL CHOICES ARE RATIONAL!!! lol you think and ACT! Whether it may be a more intelligent one or not its still rational!
@rooio3 - "Universal values" and what are they? If these do not come from God, then they must come from a consensus in society. But we know, each society throughout histroy has a completely different set of values. So whereas the Mayans thought that sacrificing children was moral, and the Spartans thought that putting babies out on the mountainside to be left to die was moral, and the Egyptians thought that slavery was moral - should we? Or is morality in fact either God-made or subjective?
@rooio3 Even if your view of reality were true (which its not), you still cannot answer questions whether rape is wrong, murder, adultery, greed, lying, stealing,etc. or anything of that sense.
@rooio3 I would like to respond more to some of the things you've posted here because I really do think you are incorrect and I find the discussion an interesting one. I do not believe that "morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions." That is a person's subjective conscience or their own personal morality, if you will. And that, would make the idea of right and wrong purely a personal valuation (and by definition transcient).
@rooio3 "The ability to evaluate the values of the actions with rationality is what make it moral." I find this totally illogical. Here you place the emphasis on the individual's ability to be rational and make value judgments. Therefore you make morality a subjective and effectively meaningless concept. Who is going to say whether a person is rational, or what the rational choice might be? Values themselves are subjective and changeable and so - by your definition then - must morality be
@InitiumNovum Also, another thing is that morality doesn't exist because in our nature (in the naturalistic world), we are not concerned much with others but rather for OUR survival. So, i could intelligently come up with an idea to kill you/murder you "intelligently" (i.e. steal what i believe is my property) and therefore take your life. My intelligence made decision to make that act for my survival. This is neither right nor wrong in your worldview.
@xchampx - "My intelligence made decision to make that act for my survival."- you left out context displaying the goals of your actions and reason to evaluate them. It is irrational to kill simply because your goal is to take back what you believe is your property, their was no reason to take a life for that. Evolution is survival- for social species that mean GROUPS. We, as a social species, we live in groups to survive. In order to do that we have to co-exist.
@rooio3 "you left out context displaying the goals of your actions and reason to evaluate them." You see, you are still missing the whole point! Even if you evaluate ITS STILL YOUR DECISION. Your decision isn't objective! That is merely a subjective evaluation of making a choice. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. People come to different conclusions and it still wont deem them "right" or "wrong."
@rooio3 "It is irrational to kill simply because your goal is to take back what you believe is your property, their was no reason to take a life for that. " What if there are two men who are starving and only one ration of food is available to survive, which is worth 1 serving for 1 man. As a result they have to kill each other for that ration of food-TO SURVIVE. One kills the other to survive to eat that food. Is this immoral? Remember, they are trying to survive.
@xchampx Although I would say that murder is not "wrong", because there is no wrong or right. Actually, if we are concerned primarily with our own survival we would not tolerate murder in our society. A society in which everyone looks after the physical and mental well-being of each other is a safer society and one in which we and our families will be happier. There are no right or wrong actions, just ones that have different effects. When a cat kills a mouse is it moral?
@InitiumNovum You see, I am agreeing with you here on your worldview, that if there is no God, there cannot be a right and wrong. You can give your opinion, but that ultimately means no more than anyone elses. It is neither right nor wrong. And there is nothing wrong with a cat killing a mouse in the atheistic worldview.
@xchampx Yes, I know. At least we can agree on the alternatives. Now the really interesting part is why you believe that (a) there is a God and (b) the existence of a God would necessarily create morality? I obviously take the view that there is no evidence for God and that all we know about him is clearly man-made. But let's say there is a God, how do you know that he isn't an evil God? Also, if God decides what is moral isn't that itself a subjective view (his). What does God's God think?
I realise that I don't know anything and never will. But, for the record, I believe that society should forget about what is right and wrong and should be constructed around preventing all physical, emotional and mental harm of all people. I also think that the reason we instinctively know "right" from "wrong" comes down to the fact that we recognise ourselves in others and that our well-being and reproduction is reliant on the well-being of others. By helping everyone else we help ourselves.
sin lightly"- first of all, none of the biblical stories are supported historically or archeologically up to the book of Ezra after the Babylonian exile. The legend mythic use of the stories prove the lack of logic and reason. Contradicting historical, archeological evidence reinforces this. Second, "that everyone hates God (you obviously)"- I don't hate something that is nonexistent. What I do hate is the concept of god that was created from man as a source of belief.
even have any basis to make such a statement. Since rationality does not exist with god, how can you know sin opposes his nature? What ever god says is all you agree with, along with no basis in reality to objectively point to because god is outside material existence and can change it at will. Surely you realized I made those statement in sarcasm meant to show no use of rationality. I clearly know what scripture says of sin and god's wrath. "This goes to show that God doesn't take
Punishment is carried out through people, cultures. If punishment is only given in the afterlife, this law does not prove god made it or that he exist. "intelligence" doesn't mean anything in a meaningless world"- the world does not have to have meaning for objective moral truths to exist or for intelligence to function. As shown before, there was no meaning for extinct animals to exist in the first place, yet they have. "Sin is what opposes the very nature of who God is"- you don't
who has a gun trained on you, killing an innocent person walking down the street, killing an animal for food on a hunting trip, killing an animal about to or in the act of attacking you, or killing a spider that entered the house. The act of killing produce consequences. Contextuality give us the values to evaluate because of this killing act, and reason conclude to us whether this act is moral. Obviously god has not personally appeared to prevent or stop killing in the world.
It sounds like you're saying morality is determined by God's will, could I be wrong about this? Most theists would say morality is determined by God's nature, so as to avoid making morality arbitrary. If morality is God's nature, then God being lawgiver, judge, etc. are pretty much irrelevant. All your saying is God has X nature and X is morality. But any atheist can just say the universe is X and cut out the middle man.
GoyaDePainter 6 days ago
@xchampx
Here is a new moral argument for you
user/CMrace?feature=mhee#p/c/B6DE2222DD7421C3/4/v1Q5Uef5rNs
CMrace 6 months ago
@xchampx you have only proven that you believe might makes right . Thanks for proving my point.
OpenAirAtheist 7 months ago
The amateurish questions you've raised have already been dealt with in Harris' book. Simply speaking Harris does not argue that morality exists as some Platonic Form of the Good. He recognizes that we can speak objectively about ontologically subjective experiences (this is how sciences of the mind study things like depression). For any individual or a collective to maximize well-being, it will depend on tracking states of the world and of the brain. A celestial consciousness is not needed here.
poolerboy0077 7 months ago
I find it funny that you think it odd that Hawking believes the universe came from nothing when that is exactly what you believe . You believe god created from nothing .
OpenAirAtheist 7 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist There has to be an unmoved mover. Do you believe in eternity as a #? There is no such thing. An eternal past # of events is illogical and there must be an unmoved mover that as beyond space, time and matter and the only logical and REASONABLE explanation is God. God can do all things, there is nothing illogical about that. Now out of the natural world-it is.
xchampx 7 months ago
@xchampx god is neither an answer or an explanation. see OpenAirAtheist.Blogspot.com . if morality is objective because it come from BlahWeh (god) then my personal morality is objective because it is from my nature . so BlahWeh can force its morality on others because BlawWeh has the power and his name is God? but if Hitler does that he's a dictator? slapping the label god on something doesn't change the equation!
OpenAirAtheist 7 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist Who is Hitler subject to? God. God will judge him. Who is God subject to?......Nobody. That pretty much ends the "issue" of the misunderstanding about objective. I am puzzled at some atheists get that confused.
xchampx 7 months ago
@xchampx That is the whole issue with "right" and "wrong". For every law there is a lawgiver. If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver. Now. If it's not God then who is it? Also, If God creates, he is independent of everyone else, making him objective.
xchampx 7 months ago
but i mean the origins of morality is a very complex topic. and whether there can be an objective morality. points 2-4 of the info make the most sense to me as an atheist. (trying to make up for the dismissive and condescending tone in my previous comment.)
budddees 8 months ago
christians trying to give logic a go are so cute. and this sexy little bunny of a guy! i'll believe in your god-- but for a price.
budddees 8 months ago
I got that from a response to what you said on wikipedia. I don't trust wikipedia all the time much for sources so, i'll just leave it at that.
xchampx 8 months ago
Consequently, “son of Omri” was a common designation for any male descendant of Omri and would have been used to refer to Jehoram. Assuming that “son” means “descendant,” an interpretation consistent with the common use of language in the ancient Near East, the Mesha Stele and the Bible are consistent. Generally though the designation of "descendant of Omri" at that time was "bît Humri", as confirmed by Assyrian records.
xchampx 8 months ago
However, as other scholars have pointed out, the inscription need not necessarily refer to Omri’s son Ahab.[12] In modern English, the word “son” typically refers to a male child in relation to his parents. In the ancient Near East, however, the word was commonly used to mean male descendant.[13]
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- nothing more than these traces. The biblical author contrives a continuous dynasty of David in Judah, but Judah did not even exist, except perhaps as a region, at this time.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx-Israel has its origins in Canaan as an outcome of the collapsed Canaanite culture. An Israelite "empire" did eventually emerge – but in Samaria not Judah, and by its founder Omri. His dynasty ruled until defeated by Hazael of Aram-Damascus in 842 BC. Samaria then succumbed to territorial erosion to Assyria. Neither David nor Solomon is as much as mentioned in the huge corpus of state records of either Egypt or Assyria. it is not possible for such an extensive kingdom to have left
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Okay, can you send me these articles/sources? You can PM them to me.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - hmmmm. Don't think I want to make that mistake again. The last time I PM you information you seem to have blew it off. However the information regarding the stele are not hard to find, it's written in the stele themselves. You can find out about the early Canaanite culture dating in the late bronze age, destruction of Israel (seen as an ethnic group) in Canaan by Egypt in Iron age l, a kingdom established in Samaria with house of Omri in beginning of Iron age ll
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Nevermind! I found them in the box. I watched a few videos so far, some interesting things I noted with Baal and YHWY, but anyway I will continue researching. Thanks!!
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- Realize that those are not specifically about these topics of the stele and House of Omri or Samaria, but rather of the ancient Mesopotamian mythology I spoke of when you first asked me to send that info.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Being a glutton for punishment, I have returned to the discussion and went over your previous comments. Although, I agree with most of what you say, I still contend that it says nothing about morality. The definition of morality is acting in accordance with what is right and wrong. Now your examples of human and animal behaviour do not show what is moral - just how social animals learn what the rules of their society are (your dog for example is not moral, he just knows when his.....
InitiumNovum 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum ...behaviour is unsociable and likely to cause offence). Each of the scenarios I gave you have been parried away by you changing the question. What I am creating is theoretical examples. So again, if it were definitely the case that the Earth and everything on it would die unless the human race were destroyed, would the moral choice be for us to wipe ourselves out? What I am trying to establish here is whether you believe in right and wrong beyond what aids our own survivial?
InitiumNovum 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum- the concepts or tools of what establishes right and wrong will always be around whether we are alive or not. The only difference is how much we are able to comprehend it with the aid of intelligence. Not lying doesn't necessarily aid in our survival as many people continually lie everyday without any threat to their survival. The same for stealing, cheating, and so on. Everything happens in context and are based off facts of reality. Our minds absorb and interpret this.
rooio3 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum - Yet we see lying can present a set of outcomes that effect another as oppose to not lying. We can make the cognitive distinction. Moral norms achieve their ends in humans in part by their ability to comprehend. We can grasp the importance of fostering trust and cooperation and we can drill into our children’s heads rules such as “don’t lie” because we understand the connections such an act produce within a hierarchy.
rooio3 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum - The definition of morality concern the DISTINCTION between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Animals have pre-morals. Human morality is more complex because our intelligence is more advanced. Morality among social animals show they are the PRECURSORS of human morality. As neurological studies show, the more developed the brain, the more developed the understanding of "morality". What we learn of right and wrong are based on what we learn from reality and how our
rooio3 7 months ago
@rooio3 "The definition of morality concern the DISTINCTION between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." But you don't define what "right and wrong" are and you appear to relate the two concepts purely in terms of well-being, survival, health, society, etc. Everything you describe can be viewed in terms of our survival, generally we don't lie because if everyone did then the fabric of society would erode and without society we are individually more vulvnerable so we innately understand...
InitiumNovum 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum that to preserve our own survival we must act in a way which doesn't negatively impact on our fellow group members. Imagine living in a society which permitted random acts of murder on a whim - we would all be unsafe and anxious as a result. What most people understand by morality is the idea of "right" completely outside of what is good for us. It may even be harmful to us but objectively it is "right" or "good". Your model does not deal with that at all and that's the problem.
InitiumNovum 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum - Murder obviously deal directly with survival because it causes the cessation of life. Lying is much more complex. In some cases, not lying can threaten survival. "What most people understand by morality is the idea of "right" completely outside of what is good for us"- Morality come about from from casual objective facts, observed regardless of our own subjective views. So we make rules based on these factual observations. That is what make it objectively universal.
rooio3 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum -As said before, the basis of ethics is causality- everything has consequences. How we determine what is right is through the context of our actions and what is being effected using factual objectivity. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist. Objectivisim is not the same as absolutism. That is why there are many forms of universal morals among cultures, it is determined by the nature of reality to be discovered by one's mind through the process of logic and
rooio3 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum -reasoning. Now, people can form their own subjective morals, yes. That does not mean morals cannot be rationally defensible objectively. Reason based on observed facts of reality is the determining factor of "right" outside what is good for us". Everyone can form their own reasoning, but not if it's based on objective reality.
rooio3 7 months ago
@InitiumNovum - brains absorb and understand what reality present. So it's more than simply what aids our survival. Morality can be consciously and subconsciously base on real world facts. Our minds interact with this because it has no choice. That's how we develop, learn, grow. We obviously have to be alive in order for that to happen. Yet complex morality come from complex intelligence. We are the only species that display this.
rooio3 7 months ago
@xchampx - later to be conquered by the Assyrian empire with no unification of Israel, then after the collapse of Assyria, the Babylonian period. Some clues to point you in. They're not hard to find, it's documented history. Just not the type of history the bible project.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 I honestly do not know too much about your claims, so I am not going to blindly argue against you. This stuff takes time to research and I have not. send me the links and ill try my best and review these sources. I didn't read the ones you sent. You are right, but that is because i forgot. Just send them again and ill try and make the time to watch them/read them all. Specifically reading them would be nice.
xchampx 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xchampx- Shalmaneser, and the battle of Karkar. These ancient inscriptions show that Israel and Judah are not fictitious names, just not what the bible says. The scriptural tales were more likely invented for a non-historical purpose, to validate true and false prophecy & preserve tradition. And of course none of these validate any of the bible's magical mythical claims.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx- Assyrian texts refer to Israel either as “the house of Omri” or simply as Samaria. Israel was virtually identical to the Canaanite tribes. It wasn't until the Egyptian Merneptah Stele that identified semitic tribes as "Israel" who were already known in Canaan by the reign of Merneptah, throwing off the timelines of the claimed biblical exodus. Omri is almost ignored by the biblical authors who prefer to dwell on his son, Ahab. The bible is silent about the wars against
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx- as Omri son, yet the bible does not and instead identify him as an anointed assassin. The bible avoids mentioning Aram's 9th century conquest of much of "Israel". Archaeology testifies, in the 10th century BC in the valleys of Palestine Canaanite culture continued uninterrupted, contradicting the bibilcal carnage and conquest depicted during David's building empire. Extensive archaeology reveals Jerusalem was a village in the 10th century BC. From the eighth century BC, a few
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx- Take the Mesha stele. It gives inconsistency with the timing of Mesha’s revolt compared with the bibilcal. The identification of David does not prove the events regarding the character David in the old testament as "historical". The phrase "house of David" does not contain vowels and could have different meanings either as "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle", or "House of David". The interpretation is uncertain according to scholars. The black Obelisk claims Jehu
rooio3 8 months ago
Here's another question; if the planet and all the animals on it was being destroyed by the human race (our destruction of habitat, war, chemicals, etc), would the moral thing be for our race to purposely destroy itself in order to save the planet? If not, why? Is our well-being the only thing that really matters.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - just because our morality evolved doesn't mean we can't reason out what is the right moral course and why from unbiased real life evidence. Hence the need for intelligence, which is exactly what happened in evolutionary man. That is why our brains are the most complex. You cannot subjectively say rape does not cause psychological and physical harm on its victim. It is an objective causal fact from evidence. Morality can be grounded on facts.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 You are truly delusional.
Moral Law
1. Every law has a law giver
2. There is a Moral Law
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
"Intelligence" in and of itself is not a lawgiver. It is not an objective ENTITY. It is not a BEING that gives objectivbity in right and wrong. Once again, it cannot answer for any moral questions such as lying, stealing, pornography, adultery, greed, stealing, hate and murder.All the assertions of your subjective views are all babble.End of discussion.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - "You are truly delusional"- says the guy who believes in bible magic. "Intelligence" in and of itself is not a lawgiver"- didn't say it was a lawgiver, in fact never said anything was a lawgiver. Moral rules do not need a god to give it objectivity. Get that through your skull. How can something grounded in fantasy make morals objective? Religious absolutism cannot answer for any of those also, without any reason or context. Your assertions are thus expected.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "didn't say it was a lawgiver" Then its subjective. lol. If there are objective moral values that means there has to be some LAW GIVER that is above all else. The evolutionary process' and simple "intelligence", as you may, cannot be objective. It is purely subjective. I have told you SOOOOOOOO many times before. I do not think you care to listen to me. I have said OVER AND OVER if the universe was created for a purpose, meaning and value and a God has a plan - THEN IT IS OBJECTIVE.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - "If there are objective moral values that means there has to be some LAW GIVER that is above all else"- says the christian, hence why you continue such ridiculous beliefs. Reality is objective. The evolutionary process allowed us to understand it. I have told you that SOOOOOOOO many times. A god is NOT the requirement to make reality objective. Especially when it is NON-EXISTENT! Reality has evidence. You have no place to stand, with NO evidence to back up such idiotic claims.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx Actually, I have to say, that intelligence certainly does answer questions of why not steal, lie, kill, etc - it's simply that we are social animals and we can deduce that we will be far more secure in a society which looks dimly upon such actions. By not perpetrating these "crimes" we maintain the social structure which ensures that they will not be inflicted upon us. My argument is that that is the only reason we don't commit them and as a result we have evolved to be repulsed by them
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum The same intelligence and awareness that we have developed as a result of evolution is the cause of our knowledge of the world around us and also of our own death. We are now in a second phase of realising we will die, but not being able to accept it (due to moving from a basic animal mindset of being the only thing we are aware of, to one where we realise we are not special in at all). Presently, we cannot face reality and hence religion and Gods are made to hide behind.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum "We are now in a second phase of realizing we will die," The funny thing is that both you are are all going under pure guessing. You are playing a movie in your head thinking that this is what that is,etc.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - "The funny thing is that both you are are all going under pure guessing"- not really. I know where the myths of genesis originated. Kind of shatters the rest of the mythical claims of the bible like a domino effect. So funny you would make such a statement. And please stop using "IF", thinking it will add any relevance to the matter. There is so much evidence to dismiss claims of the bible- in history, archeology, biology, genetics, on & on. Enough!
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 That's where you are all wrong and are hoping that what you think is evidence is against it, really isn't. Just because there may be some type of archaeological difference, doesn't disprove anything. Besides there are many ancient archaological findings that support the bible directly like the Meshe Stele, The Schoyen Collection,Taylor Prism, The Black obelisk or Shalmaneser,The Cyrus Cylinder and others. Oh, and the Schoyen Collection is pre-flood.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- None of those support any of the mythical claims of the bible. The Mesopotamian artifacts are older than all those, being the first civilization to arise in the middle east. Even among those you listed, some contradict biblical timelines as well as biblical narratives. The only thing they prove is that the bible has created its own version of historic narrative apart from documented history and merged with myths. Real history tell a different story.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Can you be more specific on how these disprove the ancient bible stories and why?
xchampx 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum "Actually, I have to say, that intelligence certainly does answer questions of why not steal, lie, kill, etc -" Of course an intelligence is used. I am talking about an OBJECTIVE law giver because with morals there has to be a law giver why? Look at the syllogism. If we all use our intellignece we can all come up with different things, right? That is being subjective.
xchampx 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - So us evolving our conscience still allows for the possibility of an ‘objective morality’, just one that evolution allowed us to understand. If morality is based on objective reality of a materialistic universe, then rationalization cannot be subjective, which would show why there is a uniformity of moral rules. Humans can rationalize immoral behavior, yet would have no basis to justify it on reasonable objective evidence.
rooio3 8 months ago
...this comes from having evolved into social creatures. We are safer and stronger together and if we are live together we must treat each other in a considerate and empathetic way. As for the commandments, the first three are God telling us how jealous and petulant he is...not a great example for the creator of all things to set his followers.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum "God telling us how jealous and petulant he is." Is it wrong for God for his creation to long for him? Let me rephrase it this way: Is it wrong for you to want your wife to love you? That is what the bible is referring to. God wants us to love him. As far as him being petulant, why don't you look at the acts, deeds and times it took for God to endure the Canaanites and others to repent (Amos 1-2). He waited hundreds of years for them to repent and they worshiped their immoral Gods.
xchampx 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum and what I mean by immoral is this: The Canaanite Gods Anath was a bloodthirsty and violent god who bathed itself in human gore. I bet that would be a great influence on our society, eh?
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx No, that would be a bad example - except that by your rationale, Anath was right to do what he did because "he has his reasons". Regarding the Caananites, don't you think it's more likely that the people writing the bible had to explain why people has worshipped other Gods for so long, and so they created the idea of God being tolerant? Regarding God wanting love - I did not create my wife, but even if I did I would still know that love cannot be forced or demanded (as God believes).
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
Moral Law
1. Every law has a law giver
2. There is a Moral Law
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
The whole flaw is based on this. Intelligence isn't a "law giver". It cannot apply simply because anyone could try and make any law. This makes it not objective. Everyone and anyone can make their own "law" in the atheistic worldview.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx 1. Every law has a law giver (the definition of a law being a man-made rule of society - natural law, the law of gravity, etc are not actually laws) 2. Moral law is a concept that has been invented by human beings and does not exist in reality (like metaphysics or timetravel) 3. Therefore there is no Moral Law Giver. If you look at history, everyone CAN and DO make their own laws. This is exactly what civilisations have always done (often with some God(s) as scapegoats for doing so.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
In western culture we are brought up from day 1 believing in santa clause, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. but there comes a time when we stop believing in them. so why do we keep believing in god and jesus and their "superpowers", when its just as fantastical a concept. is it because the bible is "legitimate" and the modern day santa clause is just an invention of coca cola? the catholic church no longer believes satan exists. if that's true then why should we believe god exists?
briney1973 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- "Well people observe things very differently and often come to different conclusions"- then you are not talking about what is objective, but merely subjective. An objective claim can be evaluated and tested independently of the person making the claim. "anyone not intelligent or rational enough to see the truth is also now immoral."- I said morals can be objective based on reason from reality. There would be a basis to justify it. "But it is simply your view that a person
rooio3 8 months ago
Comment removed
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 8 months ago
@xchampx - an objective fact is a true statement without bias or personal opinion. If you kill an organism, it will die. "The earth travels round the sun" is not a matter of opinion but an objective statement of fact.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx -"What is an objective fact? and better yet, how do they determine a LAW of morality because morals have LAWS and there are no laws."- obviously objective facts are coined by humans from observation, observing cause and effect that happen in the real world. Intelligence was needed in order for them to understand this. If morality is based on objective facts, we have evidence to justify one's position. Theism has none, based on a deity with no evidence of its existence.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 - consider this example if you will; I have observed that I am the strongest and cleverest member of my community, I have the best genes and of course want to survive and reproduce. I rationalise that by killing the other male members of the tribe and making all the women my slaves, my genes will be the only ones that propagate. The tribe will be stronger as a result. I will have no threat and therefore survive longer. So I murder all the males while they sleep. Is this moral and why?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum-who dies on hunger strike is being irrational"- irrational on the basis that reality show humans evolved to survive, not kill themselves, otherwise we would be extinct. "I imagine you must think that anyone who rescues children from a fire but in doing so dies themselves is therefore irrational and as a result immoral?"- you still leave out context. The firefighters actions were based on goals of the survival of the children, not to wander around blissfully in the flames.
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- Their actions are based on goals to diminish dangers. Fires cause causal physical effects from smoke, heat, so on. "consider this example if you will; I have observed that I am..." your starting from a subjective opinion. None of those are objective facts. You still approach this from subjectivism. That killing act has universal social effects, psychological effects, physical effects. You rationalized from your own opinion, not from facts independent of yourself.
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- To subject a group as slaves in a dictator rule we know from evidence will not lead to "a stronger tribe". Even dictators show a similar pattern of economic and social failings. The social effects of distrust, paranoia, threats, insecurity. The contextualism of the killing act don't strive to project group survival. A structured society to ensure individual freedom provide the context by which our lower values can be effected. The men killed were prevented from this.
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- Those men could have specific contributions that affect the group and needed in order for the community to function properly or even survive. Therefore, reason has not been adequately applied in context FROM objective reality. Subjectivism is not even sufficient for any justification, based on mere opinions, therefore you would not be able to say whether it is immoral or not.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Thanks for the responses but I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I can't find any logic in your position. Whereas a religious person takes a position based on belief and then has to warp all the evidence to fit in with this, you seem to have decided that although an atheist, you are still moral, and you've constructed a way of achieving that regardless of its nonsensical nature.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- You certainly can't defend your position and think it's not nonsensical. As said before, there are objective facts that are part of reality that can't be denied regardless of subjective views. These have natural cause and effects necessary for humans to exist. Even social animals have pre-moral behaviors discovered through sociobiology, to be the precursors of human morality, just not as complex. Morals are a natural byproduct of this process.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Your position is nonsense.All of your ideas are wishful thinking adopted by theism.Objective morality is supported in Theism(in particular Christianity) due to the fact that the universe and life were created for a purpose,value and meaning. God creates (a law) and we have broken this.Due to our moral depravity as taught in the bible and evidence throughout the world,God gives us over to our sin (Romans 1:24, 2:15).In atheism once again,this cannot be established.Check out my syllogism.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx What is God's law then? How have any of us broken it? Why did he create us with the capacity to break his own laws (this seems odd and also places the blame firmly on him and not us). If God created morality then it is His subjective law and not objective and therefore not moral. In the bible God acts in a far more immoral way than any man. The evidence of the world is that, throughout history, men have used religion to commit and excuse the most unspeakable acts imaginable.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum It's written in our hearts. The bible talks more about this. Priceless the 10 commandments, as well as other laws. For example, although many cheat on their wives/husbands they KNOW that lying is bad, they know that adultery is wrong but they do it anyway and they know that murder is wrong, etc. There are many 'laws' but God says these are written in in our hearts. And the people the become numb to them suppress the truth and God gives them over to it. (Romans 1:18, 2:15).
xchampx 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum "If God created morality then it is His subjective law and not objective and therefore not moral. In the bible God acts in a far more immoral way than any man." Woah! woah! woah! did you just catch what you said? You said God is immoral? on what standard? your own? Your subjective opinion? You see, if God is the objective law giver (like my premise's state, then he has nobody to answer. Oh, and these "immoral" things God did are done for reasons, not simply unjustified. He is God.
xchampx 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum "The evidence of the world is that, throughout history, men have used religion to commit and excuse the most unspeakable acts imaginable." Whatever buddy. I could say the same for atheism. Look at communist China and how they terminate every baby after every family has 1 (the value of life eh?) and Marxism, communist countries such as Stalin and Russia. I could go on and on. This "you did this in the name of your _____ ) is nonsense, it can be used against you too.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx The problem with citing Russia and China as examples is that the "immoral" actions there were not done in the name of Atheism. The actions were political and economical in nature. This is different to acts done by the Catholic Church (who surely must be acting in God's will) in God's name, such as Inquisition, Crusades, teaching children they are sinners, torturing scientists such as Gallilleo, taking billions of dollars to build palaces. Can you separate the Church from the religion?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum continued..Also, you can't base what individuals did for Christianity (crusades,etc.) agains the actual belief system itself because that isn't what the bible teaches.The bible teaches to love and to pray for your enemy not to kill them.Oh and the old testament laws you want to quote are prescribed to a certain people for a certain time. It is not commanded for Christians to do any of those.I am sure you wouldn't like a Christian boxing all atheists are evil Satan worshipers right?
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx Sure, but saying an Atheist is a Satan worshipper would be nonsensical because if a person doesn't believe in God then he's not going to believe in Satan is he? However, you can't deny that the bible (which you love to cite) does have many passages which talk of punishing, murdering, enslaving, etc. Why not follow a peaceful religion such as Buddhism? As for God's law, yes we instinctively know how we should act, that's why we had societies before we had the bible. I would posit that..
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum In regards to what you said about satan. I am looking from a biblical perspective. Atheists have the same characteristics of Satan in the sense that they want God to be destroyed and want things for themselves. Now, I do say there can be nice atheists, but to who's standard? As for those objections about God punishing, i suggest you read the book "Is God a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan. I am currently reading it and it sheds a lot of light on this subject. and historical context.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx "Atheists have the same characteristics of Satan" No they don't because Satan isn't real and actually Atheists do not want to destroy God - I personally am not against the idea of a God, I can't imagine what it would be like if there were one tbh. But the truth is that there is no God (in the religious sense) and that's just the way it is - might as well see the world as it really is, rather than living in a fairy tale which merely stultifies our understanding of the world around us.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- the definition of morality is to differentiate intentions or decisions or actions between right and wrong conduct. In social animals, those that habitually cheat don't get played with. Capuchin monkeys refuse to co-operate when the rewards for the same behavior are unequal. Their behaviors are in response to wrong actions, being unfairly treated. Even they have a basic sense, at least, of right and wrong in terms of behavior. When wolves play with each other within groups,
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- savage biting is forbidden. The animals have an etiquette, and will “apologize” when they bite too hard. Pack animals like these also have manners, an order of precedent when feeding, by which the higher ranked animals get the first choice, but all get fed. All this studied and research within the field of sociobiology. So yes, there is a natural reaction to real world facts to which morality can emerge out of.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx- Justin, you should be the last to talk. Perhaps you should FIRST focus on how your claim of a deity is anymore provable than that of a Muslim or any other religious entity. Regurgitating biblical scripture to prove your delusional point is meaningless. "Your position is nonsense"- yea, and it is already known where the mythology of the biblical claims originated. Shattered from the very beginning. So Please, spare us the babble!
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Oh, and just becuase you try and rationalize for your position - doesn't make your idea objective, it makes is purely subjective.
xchampx 8 months ago
@rooio3 My position is that right and wrong don't exist because the value of something is always subjective (what is good for one person could be bad for another). I don't think that's nonesense because it's the position that we observe on a daily basis - one man's martyr is another man's terrorist, etc. I gave you objective examples but you didn't really engage with them.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@rooio3 You say, "there are objective facts that are part of reality that can't be denied regardless of subjective views. These have natural cause and effects necessary for humans to exist." I totally agree with this, this is undoubtedly true, unfortunately, though it it is not in any way related to morality. I can't even see how you link the two concepts. Just because something is good for our survival does not mean it is necessarily moral. Otherwise any selfish action would be moral.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - "I gave you objective examples"- I failed to see how objective example can come out of subjectivism. "Just because something is good for our survival does not mean it is necessarily moral" - You still have not understood. None of what I stated where merely for "survival". There's context, reason, rational. You cannot have morality without them. Your position can excuse any behavior because you have no basis to say it is right or wrong.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "There's context, reason, rational" all of which are subjective. In my tribesman example he had observed empirically that he was the strongest and so "reasoned" that if all offspring came from him then the tribe would be stronger (so he kills all the other tribesman) - now his reasoning may be flawed but how does he know? In your model, we can only know if something is the moral choice after the event - perhaps years later after studies confirm it.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@rooio3 "Your position can excuse any behavior because you have no basis to say it is right or wrong." Excused by who? I am saying that actions cannot be "right" or "wrong" but that simply they have repercussions. If you go around hurting people then those you share society with will have to prevent you from being able to continue doing so. If you could break down your idea into very simple, cogent, consistent rules then it might help but I don't think that would be possible.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- "In my tribesman example he had observed empirically that he was the strongest and so "reasoned" that if all offspring came from him then the tribe would be stronger"- that is not an objective example. Nor did his reasoning have any context, the same mistake religious absolutism make. According to sociobiology, morality is a trait that has evolved. The levels of morality in social animals help us understand the emergence of morality in humans. Studies showed the larger the
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- Social group an animal is in, the larger the size of the individual's neocortex. Social living promotes higher intelligence.The need to keep track of one’s companions in the group, handling them socially and knowing how to treat them and trust them pushes for the growth of the brain and of intelligence. The components of morality are sociality, intelligence and emotion. Animals who break moral code often behave as if they are guilty, and expect to be punished.
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - Another example of this is my dog, who would sometimes run out when the door is open and roam the neighborhood for a while. The minute he sees an opening, he dashes. He always returns, but when he does he slowly tip toes with his head down and his tail tuck between his legs as I stand at the door. He somehow knew his actions were "wrong" without anyone telling him. So even I have observed this.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 What you are describing is how animals interact within a society. Every society has its rules and its members must learn to adapt in order to survive and thrive. Hence the behaviour and decisions that you describe. So really you are, as Sam Harris does, substituting well-being for morality. You define morality as a choice between right and wrong, so what do we mean by right and wrong? Is "right" simply what enhances our survival, health, happiness, etc?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - I refer to social animals. Humans are a social species, or course. The studies point out it isn't merely about adaption for survival or well-being. As I pointed out earlier, intelligence is key. Morality is not simply a 'choice' of right and wrong, but the ability to interpret between right and wrong. To understand why something is right and wrong. Society and morality are connected for social species, so you can really separate them from the basis of evolution.
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum -"would the moral thing be for our race to purposely destroy itself in order to save the planet?"- again, there's no rationale in committing suicide if we were evolved for survival. Especially if such an act may not save the planet. It would have been more rational to cease destructive behavior. It is estimated within the lifetime of the planet 90 percent of species have already gone extinct without the aid of humans. Of course survival is key due to evolution. However,
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - morality is not simply what enhances evolutionary survival. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but that doesn't make it good due to the causal effects such an act causes. Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival, but that doesn't make it right for the same reasons. Some humans are trying to help save the planet and species, why kill them? Remember there are objective facts to life. Morality is based on those.
rooio3 8 months ago
Here are more: Bertrand Russell believed that “the whole subject of ethics arises from the pressure of the community on the individual.”
E. O. Wilson locates moral feeling in “the hypothalamus and the limbic system”; it is a “device of survival in social organisms.”
Jonathan Glover considers morality a “human creation” and calls on humans to “re-create ethics.”
The list goes on and on. They realize the truth.
xchampx 8 months ago
I will bring up more quotes for you from atheist PHILOSOPHERS: Friedrich Nietzsche: “Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities….There are altogether no moral facts.” Indeed, morality “has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”
Also: Jean-Paul Sartre: “It [is] very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him.”
xchampx 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum -The naturalistic fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs when we assume that something ought to be the case just because it is the case, where "ought" is derived in evolution morality. It describes WHY moral behavior exists, but doesn’t itself explain why behavior IS really moral. Morality is irrational without using reason. Naturally intrinsic values from causality in context explain how morality can be objective and rational.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 - No they don't. We can of course observe causes and effects, actions and outcomes and determine which is better for our individual and collective well-being, but this has nothing to do with morality.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - The act of killing follow the physical natural law that it produces death. When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place in a given context. This context informs the values effected by the action, needed in order to evaluate the consequences. The act of killing affect different values involving killing intentionally, by accident, in self-defense, so on. Needs indicate the value (goals) that our actions seek to accomplish. It is irrational without reason
rooio3 8 months ago
Well as an atheist, I think the truth is that morality does not exist in any objective sense, there is no God and our lives really have no greater meaning. Sam Harris's book troubled me too in the sense that well-being is not the same as morality. It's actually far superior in my view to be concerned about another person's well-being, rather than your own determination of what is right. But that doesn't change the fact that they are not the same and Harris should not swap one term for another
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum-Objective morality can stand against both religious absolutism and subjectivism, relativism. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area, especially things like science. We rightly blame many Christians for holding Creationist positions on faith and subjective appreciation, because their position is not based on reality. But we must put the same blame on the shoulders of the subjectivist position in morality. To argue that morality is not knowledge and
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default. To claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism is unacceptable.The standard atheist, and humanist, answer to morality is evolutionary adaptation. But evolution only explains why people hold the moral positions they do, not what reality actually indicates. It uses
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - objective facts. To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality- natural, psychological and social laws that continue apart from subjective beliefs, desires, whims. Which make it universal, causes have effects. Because rationality is grounded in reality, we can then analyze these objective causal facts to determine what is moral. Objective morality can come about through natural objective causality using reason.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 I think you're defining morality incorrectly. Morality is the concept that there is a right and wrong way to act (despite any observable causes or effects). I never stated that morality is subjective, I argued that it doesn't exist. If morality were objective then how are these rules set? If morality is subjective then by definition it is not morality (just opinion).
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions. The actions themselves come about from the causes and effects, the product of natural principle, natural causal observable facts. Actions happen in context. The ability to evaluate the values of the actions with rationality is what make it moral. Those values in context using reason decide what is wrong or right.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Morals: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
How does "intelligence" become an absolute authority to to conduct what is "right" and "wrong"? It is not a being, or entity. There are different "intelligent" conclusions that are to the well-being of self and just as valid as any other idea you can conjure up. "High Well Being" doesn't deal with "right" and "wrong". Its so vague too.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - there does not need to be a being or entity to say to people what is right or wrong. If you have no intelligence, you cannot decipher the question of morality in the first place. That is why humans are superior to primates in mental capacity. I said nothing about "high well being". Morality is the ability to evaluate, differentiate between actions, behavior. You need intelligence, rationality to do that.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "Those values in context using reason decide what is wrong or right." which is purely subjective. and once again there are no real values anyways in your worldview. You can have subjective values, but ultimately when you take out the original premises (the universe has no meaning, value or purpose) then you take out the rest, which includes morality.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- "Those values in context using reason decide what is wrong or right." which is purely subjective"- actions take place in context. That isn't subjective. I refer to universal values, values that have reason. Objectively, eating is much more important than, say, gaining status. In context, eating is necessary for energy and survival. Reason show us this from reality. It is a physical casual objective fact. That is why eating is highly universally valued for surviving.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Is that why people go on hunger strike as a point of principle?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- hunger strikes cannot last too long because......it can lead to impaired health or death, a physical effect. All humans have to eat to live. But all humans don't go on hunger strikes to achieve a specific goal. A hunger strike cannot be effective if the fact that it is being undertaken is not publicized, then it would be irrational. Reason is still needed to evaluate values.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 Yes but the fact that some people do (and would rather) die due to a hunger strike than give up their point of principle shows that the valuation of eating is subjective. Of course, objectively, eating is essential physical condition and health - but how important that is, is a value judgment and therefore (once again subkective).
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum - "I really do think you are incorrect"- isn't that itself subjective? "Who is going to say whether a person is rational, or what the rational choice might be?"- rationality from reality, real life causality, which is objective. Consequences of actions arise because of universal natural laws, psychological laws, and social laws that occur regardless of our own views. These can be observed outside subjectivism. "must morality be "Universal values" and what are they?" I should
rooio3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 "rationality from reality, real life causality, which is objective." Well people observe things very differently and often come to different conclusions - who is to say what it the right conclusion? Also, by your definition, anyone not intelligent or rational enough to see the truth is also now immoral. "Consequences of actions arise because of universal natural laws, psychological laws, and social laws that occur regardless of our own views." What are these laws then?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum-should clarify, when I say value, I mean the goal of an action. Objective values have a one-to-one correspondence with objective needs, because needs indicate the goals that need to be fulfilled. We have a hierarchy of values for the same reason than we have a hierarchy of needs – because some values need to be reasonably fulfilled (such as nutrition or sleep) before some others can come under the purview of our actions (such as love or excellence).
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- "shows that the valuation of eating is subjective."- it is also an objective fact. Their death demonstrate its point. It will happen regardless of subjective views as a natural cause-effect relationship. So one could say they were irrational based on facts of reality, reason from real facts. A self-contained, material universe means that things cannot be changed on the subjective whim, neither from ones own view or a transcendent being. You can find knowledge
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 - But it is simply your view that a person who dies on hunger strike is being irrational. What proves that they are? The fact that they would rather die for a principle than live and abandon it. They have reasoned and made a choice. I imagine you must think that anyone who rescues children from a fire but in doing so dies themselves is therefore irrational and as a result immoral?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- because you can observe an objective reality and align your reasoning with its nature, based on logic and induction. If you suggest that moral statements are detached from any reality, then moral statements cannot exist. Subjective evidence is insufficient to establish objective facts. But to any reasonable person, such lack of evidence demonstrates an incapacity to justify one’s position. Values equate objective causality applied to actions. Without reason,
rooio3 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum- how will you understand morality? You need intelligence. Animals lack intellect capacity as humans have, thus are not able to understand the concept of morality. We can verify moral statements empirically. Moral standards come from the existence of universal values, which are derived from facts of nature such as biology and psychology, and contextualism, the fact that actions do not exist in a vacuum. Moral objectivism is the position that morality is based on objective facts.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "how will you understand morality? You need intelligence. " Over and over and over you repeat the same babble. Just because you have intelligence doesn't mean those choices are OBJECTIVE. Every human being makes their own moral choice, right? They used rationality, whether you like it or not. Oh, and that is subjective!!!!
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- "Just because you have intelligence doesn't mean those choices are OBJECTIVE."- I explained how it is objective. You either misunderstood or overlooked what I wrote. I didn't simply say just rationality.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "Animals lack intellect capacity as humans have, thus are not able to understand the concept of morality." but is it wrong? who says its wrong? they kill to survive. we kill to survive. we took a life (whether its a plant, animal or human being) we all made the rational choice to kill it. It brings up bigger problems because of us killing animals and we don't care. We need to survive.
xchampx 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xchampx - "Animals lack intellect capacity as humans have, thus are not able to understand the concept of morality." but is it wrong? who says its wrong?"- wrong to ....who? Animals? Humans? How should an animal know if it can't understand? "It brings up bigger problems because of us killing animals and we don't care. We need to survive"- again, the same problem with religious absolutism. Killing has context, as all actions do.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "That is why eating is highly universally valued for surviving." So if hypothetically if the dahmer party had to kill and eat their family members for survival in the wilderness, is that wrong? They have to survive!
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- "Even if you evaluate ITS STILL YOUR DECISION"- not if it's reason based on reality. Reality give objective facts. And causal facts are universal. "As a result they have to kill each other for that ration of food-TO SURVIVE"- for how long? It's still irrational if that one serving is gone. How will the man then continue to survive afterward? He still would have perished with no reason to kill the other. It would not aid in his survival.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "not if it's reason based on reality." You are talking nonsense. What is reality? reality is the fact that you are here for no other reason, but to perish. WE ALL DIE. Why is life valued? Its not objectively. We are a mere accident. What is an objective fact? and better yet, how do they determine a LAW of morality because morals have LAWS and there are no laws. proof is in the life of other mammals that kill for the heck of it and for survival.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- uh, Justin, you cannot deny natural laws exist. "What is reality"- a materialistic universe. "reality is the fact that you are here for no other reason, but to perish."- yet reality show organism live for survival. So that statement proved false. "proof is in the life of other mammals that kill for the heck of it and for survival"- doesn't take a genius to figure that out justin, It was already been explained.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx- You ask such questions on cannibalism that are illogical. Dahmer was mentally ill. Cannibalism does not lead to survival. Humans live in groups to survive remember? That cannot happen if they are eating each other. What will the last survivor do for food? There was no reason for it in the first place. They would have been better off working together to find food. And cannibalism can lead to the spread of disease, so it won't help them survive, rather kill them more quickly.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "You ask such questions on cannibalism that are illogical. Dahmer was mentally ill. Cannibalism does not lead to survival. Humans live in groups to survive remember? " That is merely subjective opinion. Every single person will disagree with you on that one. You cannot prove this to be objectively wrong or right in terms of atheism. You ignore everything I have said.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - "That is merely subjective opinion. Every single person will disagree with you on that one."- which is also a subjective opinion. "You cannot prove this to be objectively wrong or right in terms of atheism. You ignore everything I have said"- haven't ignored it, you just don't want to deny what I'm saying. "To what? Perish. You live a meaningless life so there are no objective moral facts."- It's an observable fact, dude. You, as a professing christian, will still die in this world.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "Humans live in groups to survive remember?" To what? Perish. You live a meaningless life so there are no objective moral facts. This STILL DOESNT PROVE ITS MORAL OR NOT. You are just trying to reason and even though you try to reason IT DOESN'T PROVE IF ITS MORAL RIGHT OR WRONG.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - Believing in a god has not prevented that. It is an observable natural law. "This STILL DOESNT PROVE ITS MORAL OR NOT."- I refer to InitiumNovum on the case of subjectivism. "You are just trying to reason and even though you try to reason IT DOESN'T PROVE IF ITS MORAL RIGHT OR WRONG."- read back and try to understand what I just said. I repeat, a god is not REQUIRED for something to be moral. It isn't based on reality and there is no evidence any more than a unicorn.
rooio3 8 months ago
@xchampx- It causes physical causal effects of infections, sickness, death. It causes psychological causal effects in mental health, stability of emotion, empathy, relationship, & cognitive thinking. It causes social causal effects in interaction with others, communication. The act of cannibalism can impact all of these universal effects.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "It causes physical causal effects of infections, sickness, death. It causes psychological causal effects in mental health, stability of emotion, empathy, relationship, & cognitive thinking." These are all outside of morality. Once again, this shows nothing of "right" and "wrong".
xchampx 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xchampx - these are all outside of morality. Once again, this shows nothing of "right" and "wrong". Those are causality. Effects of actions. I didn't say that was morality. It has to be used in deciding morality.
rooio3 8 months ago
"Who is going to say whether a person is rational, or what the rational choice might be?"- rationality from reality, real life causality, which is objective" hahaha ALL CHOICES ARE RATIONAL!!! lol you think and ACT! Whether it may be a more intelligent one or not its still rational!
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx- " ALL CHOICES ARE RATIONAL"- re-read the statement because you haven't understood. The answer is there, you simply overlooked it.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 - "Universal values" and what are they? If these do not come from God, then they must come from a consensus in society. But we know, each society throughout histroy has a completely different set of values. So whereas the Mayans thought that sacrificing children was moral, and the Spartans thought that putting babies out on the mountainside to be left to die was moral, and the Egyptians thought that slavery was moral - should we? Or is morality in fact either God-made or subjective?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@rooio3 Even if your view of reality were true (which its not), you still cannot answer questions whether rape is wrong, murder, adultery, greed, lying, stealing,etc. or anything of that sense.
xchampx 8 months ago
@rooio3 I would like to respond more to some of the things you've posted here because I really do think you are incorrect and I find the discussion an interesting one. I do not believe that "morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions." That is a person's subjective conscience or their own personal morality, if you will. And that, would make the idea of right and wrong purely a personal valuation (and by definition transcient).
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@rooio3 "The ability to evaluate the values of the actions with rationality is what make it moral." I find this totally illogical. Here you place the emphasis on the individual's ability to be rational and make value judgments. Therefore you make morality a subjective and effectively meaningless concept. Who is going to say whether a person is rational, or what the rational choice might be? Values themselves are subjective and changeable and so - by your definition then - must morality be
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum Also, another thing is that morality doesn't exist because in our nature (in the naturalistic world), we are not concerned much with others but rather for OUR survival. So, i could intelligently come up with an idea to kill you/murder you "intelligently" (i.e. steal what i believe is my property) and therefore take your life. My intelligence made decision to make that act for my survival. This is neither right nor wrong in your worldview.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - "My intelligence made decision to make that act for my survival."- you left out context displaying the goals of your actions and reason to evaluate them. It is irrational to kill simply because your goal is to take back what you believe is your property, their was no reason to take a life for that. Evolution is survival- for social species that mean GROUPS. We, as a social species, we live in groups to survive. In order to do that we have to co-exist.
rooio3 8 months ago
@rooio3 "you left out context displaying the goals of your actions and reason to evaluate them." You see, you are still missing the whole point! Even if you evaluate ITS STILL YOUR DECISION. Your decision isn't objective! That is merely a subjective evaluation of making a choice. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. People come to different conclusions and it still wont deem them "right" or "wrong."
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx - Bingo!
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@rooio3 "It is irrational to kill simply because your goal is to take back what you believe is your property, their was no reason to take a life for that. " What if there are two men who are starving and only one ration of food is available to survive, which is worth 1 serving for 1 man. As a result they have to kill each other for that ration of food-TO SURVIVE. One kills the other to survive to eat that food. Is this immoral? Remember, they are trying to survive.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx Although I would say that murder is not "wrong", because there is no wrong or right. Actually, if we are concerned primarily with our own survival we would not tolerate murder in our society. A society in which everyone looks after the physical and mental well-being of each other is a safer society and one in which we and our families will be happier. There are no right or wrong actions, just ones that have different effects. When a cat kills a mouse is it moral?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
@InitiumNovum You see, I am agreeing with you here on your worldview, that if there is no God, there cannot be a right and wrong. You can give your opinion, but that ultimately means no more than anyone elses. It is neither right nor wrong. And there is nothing wrong with a cat killing a mouse in the atheistic worldview.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx Yes, I know. At least we can agree on the alternatives. Now the really interesting part is why you believe that (a) there is a God and (b) the existence of a God would necessarily create morality? I obviously take the view that there is no evidence for God and that all we know about him is clearly man-made. But let's say there is a God, how do you know that he isn't an evil God? Also, if God decides what is moral isn't that itself a subjective view (his). What does God's God think?
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
I realise that I don't know anything and never will. But, for the record, I believe that society should forget about what is right and wrong and should be constructed around preventing all physical, emotional and mental harm of all people. I also think that the reason we instinctively know "right" from "wrong" comes down to the fact that we recognise ourselves in others and that our well-being and reproduction is reliant on the well-being of others. By helping everyone else we help ourselves.
InitiumNovum 8 months ago
sin lightly"- first of all, none of the biblical stories are supported historically or archeologically up to the book of Ezra after the Babylonian exile. The legend mythic use of the stories prove the lack of logic and reason. Contradicting historical, archeological evidence reinforces this. Second, "that everyone hates God (you obviously)"- I don't hate something that is nonexistent. What I do hate is the concept of god that was created from man as a source of belief.
rooio3 8 months ago
even have any basis to make such a statement. Since rationality does not exist with god, how can you know sin opposes his nature? What ever god says is all you agree with, along with no basis in reality to objectively point to because god is outside material existence and can change it at will. Surely you realized I made those statement in sarcasm meant to show no use of rationality. I clearly know what scripture says of sin and god's wrath. "This goes to show that God doesn't take
rooio3 8 months ago
Punishment is carried out through people, cultures. If punishment is only given in the afterlife, this law does not prove god made it or that he exist. "intelligence" doesn't mean anything in a meaningless world"- the world does not have to have meaning for objective moral truths to exist or for intelligence to function. As shown before, there was no meaning for extinct animals to exist in the first place, yet they have. "Sin is what opposes the very nature of who God is"- you don't
rooio3 8 months ago
who has a gun trained on you, killing an innocent person walking down the street, killing an animal for food on a hunting trip, killing an animal about to or in the act of attacking you, or killing a spider that entered the house. The act of killing produce consequences. Contextuality give us the values to evaluate because of this killing act, and reason conclude to us whether this act is moral. Obviously god has not personally appeared to prevent or stop killing in the world.
rooio3 8 months ago