Morality again!!! Why Believe in Religion (6 of ...)

So what exactly is it about morality that leads us to believe in God??? It's all in the "should"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Morality
• God
• belief
• good
• evil
• evolution

[pokermaster54]

Post script

The order of my messages might be confusing. It actually goes from bottom to top. This is the fourth message and the first one is 3 posts below.

[hofisito]

I appreciiate your explanation, but I already completely understand your position.

I sent you a message explaning a bit more in detail about a reply

[hofisito]

well there's a question right, SHOULD God do anything??? I think for God, since He's in theory unchanging, there's nothing He SHOULD do, only what He WOULD do.

lol, well is there such thing as "a" verb?

[Woootloops]

That is what I would call practical proof for the subjectivity of "should" statements, which is what we were talking about.

Now you could easily make me smash my head into my monitor and say that non-moral actions are decided through "action intuition", which is just as baseless as saying there is a "moral intuition", but I pray that you will be reasonable, and in seeing how stupid it would be to say that there is an "action intuition", in turn see how stupid it is to say there is a moral one.

[Woootloops]

Once again, you fail to give any reason why you might be correct, and I wrong, but I'll still answer your question.

"Should' judgements are do not always encompass moral judgements. When you are deciding what you should do with the pen, morality has nothing to do with it. You decide, on the basis of your preferences and values in regard to the actions you might accomplish with the pen, that you should do one action over all of them.

[hofisito]

so I think I'm gonna make a new video on basica moral reasoning so our words actually mean the same thing when we say it. I'm thinking that we're encountering semantic problems.

Got another question for you though in the mean time.

What PROOF do you have that we make moral judgments based on our subjective values/preferences??? and not on moral intuitions of truth?

[Woootloops]

How on Earth does that point to objectivity?

[Woootloops]

Your counter to everything is "well you can't objectively prove it" when you have nothing that supports your own argument.

You think that there is an objective "should", but you have no intellectual support for thinking that.

Why shouldn't Hitler kill the Jews? You can bring up numerous reasons why he shouldn't, but none of your reasons why he shouldn't will mean anything to him unless they align with his values. "Should" statements are subjective, what I've said is proof. WHY am I wrong?

[hofisito]

so I think you've proven my point.

Your theory defines should as would. I don't think that idea is intirely obvious (that should=would) possible yes... obviously true???? no...

There are those of us that think there is a difference between what someone would do and what they should do (ie... what someone SHOULD do is independent of their desires. Hitlery SHOULD NOT kill Jews even if he WOULD do it)

I think if you ask any Jew that came out of the holocaust, they would agree...

[pokermaster54]

God is necessary to explain morality. That claim implies that murder is ok as long as there is no god.

I don't believe for a second that you honestly think that meaningful morality does not exist without god. If you did then the ineluctable corollary of that is that if god was disproved(methodologically impossible but hypothetically), you would go out and murder someone. Your quote seems appropriate here.

"if I had a theory that lead me to say something like that, I'd double check my theory"