cofty

Joined

• started 464 topics
• posted 24,957 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cofty

• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  John_M you are way off regarding nihilism. I am rushing out will explain later.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  John. I am not a nihilist and Sam Harris is not one either. You need to try to honestly represent the position of others if we are to have a useful conversation.
• 
  27

  Oh God(s)!

  by tepidpoultry in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  meant to hopefully get your mind off the craziness which we sadly refer to as the news these days,.

  we'll call this one .

  fun for seculars.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  If I can define god as a theist one who created the world and who is involved in human affairs - the god of Jesus for example - then I am a 7.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Thank you for a very thoughtful post David Jay. A lot to think about there.

  I have a sincere question that might surprise some in view of my anti-theist position.

  Do you think that the sort of morality that David_Jay writes about which is inspired by a religious sense has something to contribute that a purely secular objective morality lacks?

  If God is love and the epitome of what is truly good, then one can also reason that all love and good is in essence God.

  That seems to reduce god to a metaphor, but even if that is so, does it still add something to the human quest for morality? That isn't a trick question I am genuinely wrestling with the question of whether anchoring ethics to an ultimate source is a useful thing even if it is not objectively true?

  Does it still resonate with human nature in a way that purely secular ethics do not? Or does it belong to the infancy of our species? Can it safely be discarded?
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Interesting dilemma never a jw.

  I wonder what a panel of christian ethicists would make of it. It's always tempting to change the terms of a thought experiment to escape the dilemma but that misses the point doesn't it? Would it be a moral good - or less of a moral ill - to kill humans who, through no fault of their own, posed a threat to a large number of others? Would theists and secularists really approach the problem any differently once we get behind the rhetoric? I'm really not sure.
  

  Objective facts about the consequences are a tool that should be used to help us make good ethical decisions. But that doesn't mean there are always easy answers. Sam Harris points out the difference between ethical answers in theory and in practice. How many birds are there in flight around the world right this moment? The answer does exist but there is no way to reliably access it.

  There is a great deal of low-hanging fruit that a secular morality could help us with. Other parts of the moral landscape might be far more challenging to access.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  It's becoming clear you you don't want to engage with any of the actual arguments on the topic John. That's a pity.

  Perhaps you would answer one question....

  Can you think of a moral position that isn't predicated on the well-being of conscious creatures?
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Stem cell-research is a useful example of the clash between the absolute moral pronouncements of theism and a more rational morality based on objective facts.

  Compare ---

  Yes, we believe that the soul is directly created and infused by God in the very moment of conception. It's not about the embryo having a neural system or not or ability to feel pain. It's about the soul already created - John_Mann

  Catholics want to prohibit important medical research on the basis of the specific belief that god infuses the fertilised egg with a unique human soul at the moment of conception.

  Objective facts show that this belief is impossible. These facts should give pause to those who would deny important medical knowledge to people suffering from debilitating diseases. It won't give them pause of course because their morality is based on the premise of "god says.... the end".
• 
  22

  Absolute moral standards and fiction.

  by The Rebel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.

  fiction allows our imagination to be free.

  i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  I don't know Vander. Perhaps you should ask somebody who wishes to justify the use of the Atomic bombs of WWII. I don't.
• 
  29

  Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

  i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

  hope some of you get a chance to listen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Sadly Peterson indulges in incoherent gibberish in this and other recent interviews.

  I think he is unwell.
• 
  22

  Absolute moral standards and fiction.

  by The Rebel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.

  fiction allows our imagination to be free.

  i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  could there then also be benefits of slavery of the few (millions) for the benefit of the many (billions)? - Vander

  That is the ethics of Yahweh not those of a post-enlightenment society.

  Morality does not reduce to arithmetic. A world where universal human rights are respected represents a higher peak in the moral landscape than one where the weak can be enslaved.

  It does remind me a little of Sam Harris's railway carriage issue: Is it right to pull a lever and cause a runaway carriage to kill 1 railway worker vs 5 on another track? - Simon

  I have always answered no to that dilemma. I would not kill one to save 5. The victim cannot be used as a commodity without their consent.