John - the paragraph that contains the phrase "people like Cofty..." Please explain further what you mean. It sounds like a GROSS misrepresentation of my position but I should give you a chance to clarify before I object.
Thanks
Posts by cofty
-
210Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
Apologies for that. I did realise the sentence was provisional. I quoted it without context for brevity.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
" Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?" - Rebel
Science doesn't dictate how anybody should think or what they must believe. It is a method for discovering what is objectively true about the world. Some of the things that have been learned through the scientific method are more certain than other things.
When faced with moral questions we need information on which to base our decisions. Why should we abandon the method that has served us so well? If our desire is to enhance the wellbeing of conscious creatures then start with as much information as you can get about the likely consequences of our proposed actions. Maybe we can't "get an ought from an is" but we can get some of the way there.
That means we don't get to trump the conversation with evidence-free dogmatic statements that end with "...thus sayeth the lord"
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
Ruby - I am using the words morality and ethics interchangeably. Both words are simply shorthand for how we worry about the way our actions impact of the well-being of conscious creatures.
the good thing about Plato's line and about arguing from ethics is that at least this gives us an evolutionary platform from which to argue.
I think it does the opposite. Theists like John_Mann and William Lane Craig see morality in Platonic terms. To them god is the absolute standard of perfection against which everything is measured. It is like Plato's essential triangle.
Evolutionary psychology and biology shows us how morality developed from the bottom-up without reference to perfect ideals.
Belief in perfect gods and eternal judgements after physical death was an effective way to convince people to be good when nobody was watching. It is a persistent meme.
philosophical reasoning tends to argue for the welfare of sentient beings. for me this is a little narrow because sentient beings sooner or later have to acknowledge that their long term well being also depends on what condition nature is in
But that is the same thing. We worry about the ethics of caring for the environment because of the effect our actions will have on the well-being of its inhabitants.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
By analyzing our morality systems we're able to spot just one dilemma (human embryos in scientific research). - John_Mann
That could not be further from the facts. I could list plenty more examples. We are discussing stem-cell research as a sample of conflict between secular objective ethics and those based on religious dogma. We could debate homosexuality, abortion, fertility treatment, contraception, the role of women, premarital sex and many more issues.
In every case your position would be based on unproven assertions about supernatural events. I would advocate a position based on a rational investigation about the consequences of actions and how they affect the well-being of conscious creatures.
Your approach would be based on an imaginary perfect being - absolute morality. Your views would be intransigent and impervious to reason since they are prefaced by an implied "Thus sayeth the almighty..."
My moral choices would be open to new information.
The gulf is very large.
And the bases of our morality systems are different. What you defined as absolute vs objective (which I disagree) and I define as Catholic vs atheist.
You keep saying you disagree but you never give a reason. Your moral judgements have no connection with objective facts. You admit they are a matter of "faith" which is a gift of your god to those whom he chooses. What could possibly be less objective?
You say embryonic research can bring a lot of good. But China is doing this kind of research since it was possible because they don't have this moral dilemma. I don't know nothing about what China discovered in this specific research, do you know about some panacea invented based on this research?
It is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Your objection is not practical but ideological. No matter how much benefit ever comes of human stem-cell research, no matter how much suffering is alleviated your objection will not - cannot - weaken one iota. It is based on an absolute standard rooted in the character of your deity. It is immune to facts.
Also I repeat you have a very Sola Scriptura influence in your atheism.
And yet I have not used scripture once in our entire conversation!
My strongest argument against the christian god does not depend on the bible at all...
If I am talking with Evangelical Protestants I will debate scripture, if I am talking to a Roman Catholic I will address your peculiar epistemology.
And your position about "there's no absolute(s) in the universe" is a contradiction by itself.
I have never said "there's no absolute(s) in the universe". Why did you put those words in quotation marks. They are not my words. You have repeatedly misrepresented my views in this conversation. I have tried very hard to present your position honestly. I said there is no such thing as an absolute standard of morality.
The reason of why our morality seems to be very similar is because I believe everyone has a soul created with absolute moral commands.
And yet you have still presented no evidence to support this assertion. Genuine and sincere christians can be found on both sides of every moral dilemma. Your "absolute moral commands" are not so absolute are they?
Even if you deny the existence of the Law-giver you can't deny the law written inside you.
We have the capacity for making moral judgements. We have evolved a capacity for justice, reciprocity, empathy, as well as disgust, anger and shame. All of this can easily be accounted for by evolution - there is no ghost in the machine.
-
39
UK: Paul Shields "abused girls after luring them with video games"
by darkspilver infyi from north-east england:.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/johovahs-witness-abused-girls-after-12538877.
jehovah's witness abused girls after luring them with video games, court told.
-
-
cofty
Oh dear. That must be a shock!
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
Hi John. I am out at the moment and typing on my phone is difficult. I look forward to posting a detailed reply to your post later.
Spoiler alert - I disagree with every sentence!
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
The topic is Morality not Catholics v science.
You still avoiding all the questions. Why should your evidence-free dogma trump the opportunity to alleviate suffering?
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
You are making a philosophical attempt to differentiate objectiveness and absoluteness. But you're failing to do that.
I have explained the difference very clearly multiple times in this thread. One is top-down rooted in the character of an absolute source of perfect morality. The other is worked out from the bottom-up by reasoning on the effects of our actions on the well being of conscious creatures.
Your claims about stem-cell research being unethical is based on an appeal to absolute standards handed down to us with no thought to the objective facts.I believe consciousness is produced by a soul and I believe the soul is created at the moment of conception.
Why should those suffering painful diseases care what you believe? -
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
cofty
John - I am happy to discuss the issues with you but I don't appreciate your efforts to psychoanalyse my feelings and motivations.
You are so blindly attacking faith itself that you are making gross logical contradictions in your position.
My criticism of faith is not blind. It is based on a lot of experience. If I am making "gross logical contradictions" they should be very easy to point out. I am aware of no contradictions in my position but I am listening.
Let's stick to the topic of Morality without Deity.
We agreed that when we talk about morality we are concerned about maximising the well being of CONSCIOUS creatures. How is achieved by prohibiting stem-cell research?
On the one side we have thousands of people suffering from debilitating, painful and often fatal diseases. On the other side we have a little ball of cells already frozen and awaiting disposal following a round of fertility treatment.
What are we missing here?