Can't Have It Both Ways

Some people don't even realize what they believe.
If you didn't understand the end, that's okay. I realize I was being more than a bit silly and vague. Many theists have used dishonest argumentation with me, which no doubt causes them to suspect that I, too, am using dishonest argumentation (projection), which can ironically cause them to be skeptical about the wrong things. That was the point of the misdirection and subsequent alien.

Pretty pretty please check out my new channel!!!
http://www.youtube.com/darkantics

I believe it is wrong to harm others. That is my opinion, which is subject to change under different circumstances. Furthermore, even my definition of "harm" is subjective. While I believe indoctrination of children is causing harm, there are religious people who see it as vitally important. Our opinions don't get to decide ultimate truth, though. So who is objectively correct? Neither of us. It isn't so simply black or white. Is it better to know a harmful truth or to believe a comforting lie? Which is moral?

If the vast majority of us agree upon what is good or bad for human beings, for all intents and purposes, that can be like objective morality, and I could see how one could justifiably call it objective, but that's not entirely accurate, and I don't wish to call it objective because that implies transcendence, which is baseless. When something is objective, it is true independent of our minds, yet our minds are a requisite of morality. For morality to be objective, you must explain how morality continues to exist if humans cease to exist.

Let's put it another way:

Morality is an emergent property. It is contingent upon there being people who are interacting. If there are no people interacting, then the property of morality is not generated. Therefore it is not a property that exists in the world or universe independent of us. So who decides what morality is? We do.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• atheist
• cartoon
• comedy
• animation
• objective
• subjective
• morality
• god
• christianity
• religion
• creationist
• creationism
• jesus
• skit
• debate

[CitizenOfEuphoria]

@elizalovebug19 Why was God such an asshole before? Why did anyone have to die for humanity to be forgiven? Why is God still an asshole for letting so much evil occur? Why are you so stupid?

[Gnomefro]

@elizalovebug19 "the culture and time had no affect on the change in covenants "

Really? So you think it's just a coincidence that large parts of the Mosaic law is basically a copy of the code of Hammurabi then? No cultural mechanisms were involved at all?

Also, doesn't the New Testament tell women to shut up when men are discussing things that matter? Don't you know your place?

[TableWolfMusic]

Some atheists argue that an example of objective morality, unchanging at its core, is the "selfish gene" evolved to be a hard coded "good" in all people from birth even if they end up doing bad things due to stuff happening to them in life (...although this does not account for situations if they have some genetic abnormality, but that is the minority anyway).

[Bisondoof]

VAT A TVIST

[cbl2988]

@Taakuyaa The child, is quite simply, not capable of being considered a moral agent. Morality, it seems to me, can only be applied to beings who are capable of being moral agents, i.e., reflect upon their actions, understand concepts such as "right" and "wrong", etc. and theists typically ignore these facts when they don't think it helps their arguments (or they just honestly forget?).

[cbl2988]

@Taakuyaa Theists are VERY dishonest when they talk about this. For example, it is not always wrong everywhere to destroy my personal belongings. Under what circumstances? For example, I wouldn't necessarily consider an 18 month child morally culpable for ripping the pages in one of my books. Though I might not like it, the child has no concept of morality nor does he have the ability to reflect on his actions and understand them in any moral terms. That implies different standards.

[cbl2988]

It all depends on how one defines morality. I tend to favor a more Kantian form of Ethics. I recognize that there are no objective values period. However, I tend to favor morality being defined in terms of rationality. If something is logically contradictory (or irrational) then it is morally impermissible. If it is consistent, then it is permissible. The irrational is the bad, and the rational is the good.

[karlehamel]

Objective morality isn't only religious... just remember Kant's philosophy. Subjective morality is necessarily very relative. Reason is objective. So if we are looking for the truth, using reason, I'd argue that subjective morality is not true because it is not universal and fundamental since it is not objective and it doesn't apply to everyone at every time in every context. It is also irrational because it has to do with emotion (empathy and such) instead of reason which is objective.

[aptspire]

@SevenRiderAirForce Check the Book of Ripley for more info :P

[SevenRiderAirForce]

Alien ex machina

[Taakuyaa]

@CitizenOfEuphoria *so killing someone who is about to murder your wife? Not evil. Killing someones wife because she wont sleep with you? evil. Stealing an apple because you're starving? not evil. Stealing $100M out of greed? evil. Its all about WHY we do things, not WHAT we do exactly. At least, that would be my theory on any true god. And I dont doubt the christian god could be THIS type of god, its just that that book is so corrupted from mans influence.