• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Twilight of Atheism

Gurdur said:
He certainly expresses a belief in one. The reasons for that are ones that should be addressed, not evaded.

Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.
Click to expand...

Let's address what is claimed, then.

Where does Gardner claim his god as source for morality? Does this morality extend beyond himself?
 
Last edited:
Gurdur said:
That is bloody clear. My previous post was bloody clear. An ethical question is a clear question; is it OK to murder traffic wardens? Science cannot answer that question for you.

That is no nitpick, that is a central category difference.
is-ought.[/URL]
Click to expand...

Lets cut to right here. Is it OK to murder traffic wardens?

Lets see how science would approach that questions.

First is the matter of defining OK.

If by OK we mean legal, then it is a simple matter of research, finding the fact and applying it to the situation.

If it is a matter of morality, we turn to sociology, identify the moral norms of the community and compare the action to the norms.

If it is a matter of ethics, we identify the ethic frameworks in use by the participants in the conversation and work deductively from the principles of that framework to reach the answer.

If it is a matter of personal preference, than it's more a question of what the person wants rather than if its ok.
 
Gurdur said:
He certainly expresses a belief in one. The reasons for that are ones that should be addressed, not evaded.

Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.
Click to expand...
God as a source of morality is irrelevant.

What would be the difference if

a. There is no god there are morals.
b. There is a god and there are no morals.
c. There is a concept of god and there are morals but the morals are not dependant upon a god.
d. There is a concept of god and morals are dependant upon the concept of god but there is no god.
e. There is a concept of god and morals are dependant upon god and there is a god.
f. There is a god and there are morals but they are not dependant upon god.
g. There is a god and there are morals and they are dependant upon god.

1.} a. , c. , f. there are morals regardless of whether there is a god and morals are dependant upon a god.


What tests would be used to determine if morals are dependant upon a god or the concept of a god. Just because some people, including pan and poly theists believe that morals depend upon god makes no difference. Just as there can be theists, pan theists and poly theists that don't believe morals are dependent upon god or the concept of god.

Therefore what difference would it make if there was a god or if there was a concept of god?

There is no way to say that any human concept is beyond science and observation. If so then people are just being vague as to what they are talking about.

I can generate a harm reduction model of morals based upon economic and social exchange. What value does god or the concept of god play in economic and social exchange that necessitates a belief in god or the concept of god?

What would be different in the system?
Science can only address ancillary issues of ethical questions; science cannot address central ethical questions themselves.
Click to expand...
Oh jolly, that is a nice assertion of a personal belief isn't it?

If language can encompass the concept of morals then which aspects of morals do not resolve in terms that can be described in economic/social exchange terms and game theory?

What is so special about morals that they can not be observed?

If they can't be observed then they can't be defined. If they can't be defined then they are not even concepts.



You of course have utterly failed to address the central point that you simply cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is"; no matter how much evidence you collect, the ethical question and decision is still not a scientific one.
Click to expand...
You have totally failed to demonstrate that, I would like to see your work. What makes you think that morals can not be observed and that they are not subject to science?

You can generate probability and cost benefit grids for the different choices and show that patterns will either have personal economic benefit, overall benefit and social exchange benefit.
 
Gurdur said:
Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.
...
That is bloody clear. My previous post was bloody clear. An ethical question is a clear question; is it OK to murder traffic wardens? Science cannot answer that question for you.
...
You of course have utterly failed to address the central point that you simply cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is"; no matter how much evidence you collect, the ethical question and decision is still not a scientific one.
Fallacy of is-ought.
Click to expand...


So what?
You can not move from an 'ought' to an 'is'. "God gave us our morals." is an 'is'. If you're truly convinced by Hume's argument you should find the theologians' arguments largely irrelevant in deciding what you should do.

On the other hand God is not an 'ought', God is either an 'is' or an 'isn't', and your objection to a single sentence in P.'s blog is irrelevant to the central thrust of his argument.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting.
Click to expand...
I for one shall be fascinated to see if it manages to get anywhere near the sales figures of, for example, Richard Dawkins.

I'm also curious to know which will happen first: the final decline of atheism, or the Second Coming. I mean, you guys have been waiting for that for the past two thousand years --- good luck with that, BTW --- so aren't you a little worried that your latest prophet might also be promising you "jam tomorrow", or, indeed, "pie in the sky"?
 
What is this "twilight" you speak of?

Believers around the world indoctrinate, even brainwash children in order for their religions to survive. But despite their best efforts throughout all of recorded history, atheism always keeps popping up. The shackles of imaginary gods are constantly thrown off in all corners of the world, and it always happens for the same reason.

Now that's interesting.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Where by "no content" you no doubt mean things you disagree with and cannot debate rationally.
Click to expand...
Is there anything you're not wrong about?

What tsig's referring to is the fact that you're too much of a crawling cringing snivelling coward to actually state your views and seek to justify them.
 
Why state your actual views when you can pretend to be somebody else and get much more attention?
 
Jekyll said:
So what?
You can not move from an 'ought' to an 'is'. "God gave us our morals." is an 'is'. If you're truly convinced by Hume's argument you should find the theologians' arguments largely irrelevant in deciding what you should do.
Click to expand...
Truly weird post of yours -- are you not paying attention?

To spell it out all over again:
whether or not you think morality etc. should not be part of the god debate, it is.

Whatever I decide for myself has no bearing at all on that whatsoever.

At some stage you yourself must decide whether you are being an analyst or an apologist; are you describing the situation, or trumpeting what you think should be the case?

It looks to me that you're doing the second.

On the other hand God is not an 'ought', God is either an 'is' or an 'isn't', and your objection to a single sentence in P.'s blog is irrelevant to the central thrust of his argument.
Click to expand...

Since the "central thrust" of his argument IS precisely the point I'm objecting to, then your assertion is ridiculous. I think perhaps you better re-read my first post there; you seem to have badly missed some points.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I for one shall be fascinated to see if it manages to get anywhere near the sales figures of, for example, Richard Dawkins.
Click to expand...


Not to get inbetween you and Tai Chi, but your argumentum ad populum doesn't take into account that Dan Brown, author of books like The Da Vinci Code and The Illuminati, outsells BOTH Behe and Dawkins. Do we really want to do that kind of thing? Is that a road which we really want to go down?
 
Good point. I think the Bible pretty much outshines all of them in terms of sales.
 
So Tai, why does creationists say such things as "you can't find God with the scientific method" in such absolute terms?

And why can't God be subject to scientific experimentation and observation?

And why won't you answer my questions?
 
Gurdur said:
Not to get inbetween you and Tai Chi, but your argumentum ad populum doesn't take into account that Dan Brown, author of books like The Da Vinci Code and The Illuminati, outsells BOTH Behe and Dawkins.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the many reasons why I haven't started a thread entitled "The Twilight Of Woo-Woo".

The argumentum ad populum is claiming that something's right because it's popular; I'm just pointing out that atheism is, apparently, quite popular.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Where by "no content" you no doubt mean things you disagree with and cannot debate rationally.
Click to expand...


Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle, Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.

Dear Tai , I have responded to many a thought and post of yours and you are the one who refuses to debate.

That is why I go


BAM BAM- another driveby posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom