Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
70 seconds till crash? I am going to grab some of those cheap wine minis and find out who wants to have a quickie. Would not exactly qualify as the Mile High Club, but....
Rephrasing a previous question that was overlooked:
I'd like to know what conclusions your objective mechanisms make about the following question, and how (in detail) you came to a conclusion:
Would the release of ionizing radiation into the environment be murder? It raises the cancer rates, which increases the death toll, but no single death can be tied to the release.
But I haven't offered any objective mechanisms on this forum, have I? Even if we were to bring Scripture into the mix, my understanding of the Ten Commandments is that they are the basic, bare minimum expectation for behavior. They're not the conclusion of morality.
I'm also not sure I understand how your question works. If no single death can be tied to its release, then how did you tie it to the increased death toll via cancer? I would also need to know the circumstances of its release. Just like there are natural wild fires, radiation is naturally released into the environment. But an arson starting the Gatlingburg fire or the Chernobyl disaster, bring with it issues of intent and negligence.
Right, you haven't offered it, but you have appealed to it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Well that is how it works, empirically. There is debate about which function best models these observations, the most popular one is linear.
-------------------------------------------------------
Boy it sure sounds like you have this objective mechanism. Would be nice if you would post it.
John, you wrote, “But I haven't offered any objective mechanisms on this forum”
You, however, insist objective morals exist. I’ll ask again, what mechanism did you employ to decide so?
This OP mainly argued that either objective morality exists or it doesn't at all, and the subjective aspect are meaningless.
I haven't argued for objective morality, that's for the audience to decide. The OP sides with morality being pointless if it's subjective.
Right, but then you appealed to an objective mechanism to determine right and wrong: blatant question begging.
I don't recall appealing to such undisclosed objective mechanism. I've mainly been trying to show why things like pain, or people's other moral claims are meaningless.
Let me refresh your memory:
Read that entire conversation carefully, let me know if you're still confused.
You told us there was an objective mechanism used to determine murder was wrong in the first place. If there is such a thing, then the debate is over, as that mechanism itself is an example of objective morality. You have begged the question.
What I am confused about, is your unwillingness to remedy the situation. It would be quite simple: just retract that postulated objective mechanism. Does not seem critical to what you are saying. But as long as you continue to endorse it, you are engaging in circular reasoning.
I didn't say there WAS an objective mechanism to determine murder is wrong (although I personally think if one doesn't exist, then murder isn't wrong). Cyber specifically asked me what mechanism could be used to determine the difference between killing and murder. Obviously, we would use whatever mechanism we used to determine murder was wrong in the first place.
Its like asking me how we know if a 1 inch line on the left, is equal to the 1 inch line on the right. I'm saying use whatever you used to determine what an inch is in the first place, hopefully a ruler.
Again, you appealed to an objective method for determining that murder is wrong; in an argument about whether or not objective morals exist. Textbook circular reasoning. Your inability to see this is troubling.
My inability to see is directly proportional to your inability to explain. If its textbook circular reasoning, walk me through two cycles of it: The grass is green because its short, and grass is short because its green, its green because its short, its short because its green. That's circular, where have I done that?
I've pointed that explicitly several times now. But one more just in case you are serious:
In your initial post you set up a situation where we are asked if it is wrong to murder someone in a fucked up airplane that is doomed to crash and kill everyone. When questioned about the situation you told us that we should use the objective mechanism we used to determine murder was wrong in the first place.
See when you postulated that we already used an objective mechanism to determine murder is wrong, asking if murder is wrong is kind of dumb; you just postulated that it is.
--------------------------------
Right, instead you just postulated it!
"When questioned about the situation you told us that we should use the objective mechanism we used to determine murder was wrong in the first place."
Nope.
V.S
You see John, I've been down this road with you before, so when I wrote a summary of what you had done, it was just a copy of what you said. Because I knew your mental gymnastics was about to start. Only question is which way will you flip? Will you claim that answers to questions about your OP don't apply to the OP? Or something more ludicrous?
My objection is due to the context, not content. Cyber never questioned me about the plane situation, nor if murder is wrong. She asked if there are killings which aren't murder, then questioned me about what mechanism could demarcate between the two.
Murder is already by definition a wrongful killing. If she's going to use the word at all, and isn't questioning if murder is actually wrong, then she has to go to whatever place that definition/mechanism came from. I don't see anything controversial about that.
So we have our answer, question begging followed by what? More question begging! Why couldn't I think of that!
I can't beg the question if I haven't offered a conclusion nor a because to the question of objective morality.
Look what you told us:
Now lets combine that with the other item:
You tell us murder is objectively wrong; and tell us that if murder is wrong objectively then the murder on the plane is wrong. You are begging the question.
You're jumping from a conversation with Chimp, to Cyber, to you.
I never stated that murder is objectively wrong, I told Chimp that if it is, then it is wrong by definition. Then I told Cyber that to inquire about the specifics of murder, means looking at wherever the definition came from.
As far as I'm concerned, murder isn't wrong if there is no objective morality.
"As far as I'm concerned, murder isn't wrong if there is no objective morality."
You think there is objective morality? Could you explain how you know this please? You think murder is wrong? Why does your deity commit murder indiscriminately in the bible, and encourage humans to do so if it is objectively immoral?
How do I know something I haven't claimed to know?
John, is objective morality a tenet of the sect of christianity to which you have claimed membership?
I've only heard my sect talk about the moral law or moral standard, which are the ten commandments. Since they are external, I would call them objective. But I've only heard the words objective morality on this site.
I would say its implied, but not a tenet. My church doesn't really have dogmas or tenets. We do have what are called fundamental beliefs, which are more descriptive of what we believe than prescriptive of what we ought to believe.
John, you changed this. Earlier you said there was objective morality in your sect and you agreed with it. Why did you remove that sentence? You completely changed your second paragraph.
I changed the format and the structure around for better clarity. But I don't recall having said there was objective morality in my sect, just that I think it is implied.
No, you completely changed your answer. Unfortunately, I did not assume this sort of dishonor so did not screen shot your initial response.
Perhaps Nyar knows how to retrieve the edit history. I have no objection to my changes being vetted.
I do think your complaint shows a change was warranted, since that wasn't the position I intended to communicate. Users should be encouraged to make edits at their discretion.
Pages