Morality and Belief in God

[gfm7175]

LMAO uhm 289 is EXACTLY one of the posts i was talking about
I saw that post and when it all that started in post 273 and i already responded. Its EXACTLY has I pointed out... more feelings and subjective opinions, guesses and theories but ZERO FACTS that do anything to change the fact morals are subjective. It doesnt even come close on any level to amount to anything more than feelings and subjective claims with no actual merit. It not even an "argument" in any valued sense. Its those "arguments" that actually further prove morals are subjective because your best so called arguments are all based 100% on subjective opinions and what ifs and feelings and subjective beliefs and nothing factual. Its exactly entertaining to watch that fact be over looked by you and what 1, 2 others over and over again.

By all means like i already requested though and it keeps getting dodged over and over again if you disagree when you or ANYBODY can do so please let us now and provided this factual evidence that morals are objective..heck just list one of the objective morals and prove its objective...just one, thanks!!

We've listed one... the one we've listed is suicide.

If you disagree with any of the premises, let us know which ones and make an argument for why each premise isn't sound in reasoning.

Otherwise, we find that all the premises are sound and lead to an objectively true and logical conclusion.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)We've listed one... the one we've listed is suicide.
2.)If you disagree with any of the premises, let us know which ones and make an argument for why each premise isn't sound in reasoning.
3.)Otherwise, we find that all the premises are sound and lead to an objectively true and logical conclusion.

dodged again

1.) no, you factually havent... you posted ANOTHER opinion and more feelings and ZERO facts LMAO
2.)No argument is needed because you still have yet to fulfill the request of a FACTUAL objective moral and proof of such. Your "claimed" subjective reasoning is meaningless we are asking for facts.
3.) what you find is also meaningless to facts . . the fact that you call them premises is even more telling
until you can answer said question your feelings and opinions will continue to fail and be exposed as false by the majority here based on facts and definitions


so now we continue to wait if you disagree when you or ANYBODY can do so please let us now and provided this factual evidence that morals are objective..heck just list one of the objective morals and prove its objective...just one, thanks!!

 

[devildavid]

I have amended the argument very slightly, in red text, to hopefully make it a bit better by clearly establishing Hamlet's question (suicide) as a moral question with a moral answer. Let me know what you think. I think all the premises are pretty solid and logically follow from each other...


1) Behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts) exist.

2) Volition supersedes such behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts).

3) Given #1 and #2, one can conclude that agency is involved.

4) Mankind can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and can be held accountable for said moral decisions (regardless of whether one believes morality is subjective or objective because both beliefs equally assert that morality exists).

5) Given #4, one can conclude that mankind are moral agents.

6) Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm others or ourselves.

7) Given #5 and #6, one can conclude that Hamlet's Question is a moral question with a moral answer.

8) Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer in and by the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

9) Suicide contradicts the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

10) Given #7, #8, and #9, one can conclude that the absolute and objective moral answer to Hamlet's Question is "to be" and the absolute and objective immoral answer to Hamlet's Question is "not to be".

#4 is where you go wrong. Morality is a human invention. It is a qualifier humans subjectively apply to natural human behavior. It has no basis in fact. It is make believe. All we know for certain is that humans can make choices. We cannot determine how free these choices are or that any of these choices have an inherent morality attached to them. So we really can't objectively determine the morality of human behavior any more than we can attach morality to any natural behavior or events.

 

[Angel]

#4 is where you go wrong. Morality is a human invention. It is a qualifier humans subjectively apply to natural human behavior. It has no basis in fact. It is make believe. All we know for certain is that humans can make choices. We cannot determine how free these choices are or that any of these choices have an inherent morality attached to them. So we really can't objectively determine the morality of human behavior any more than we can attach morality to any natural behavior or events.

No, we find morality at work in the survival instinct, a fact of science.

 

[Angel]

I have amended the argument very slightly, in red text, to hopefully make it a bit better by clearly establishing Hamlet's question (suicide) as a moral question with a moral answer. Let me know what you think. I think all the premises are pretty solid and logically follow from each other...


1) Behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts) exist.

2) Volition supersedes such behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts).

3) Given #1 and #2, one can conclude that agency is involved.

4) Mankind can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and can be held accountable for said moral decisions (regardless of whether one believes morality is subjective or objective because both beliefs equally assert that morality exists).

5) Given #4, one can conclude that mankind are moral agents.

6) Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm others or ourselves.

7) Given #5 and #6, one can conclude that Hamlet's Question is a moral question with a moral answer.

8) Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer in and by the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

9) Suicide contradicts the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

10) Given #7, #8, and #9, one can conclude that the absolute and objective moral answer to Hamlet's Question is "to be" and the absolute and objective immoral answer to Hamlet's Question is "not to be".

Outstanding. Six will be controversial only for those who adopt a completely a-moral position just for the sake of argument. Morality is at bottom about right and wrong action. The denier of six must argue, against nature, that self-preservation is neither right nor wrong. But if neither right nor wrong, then why has it been favored and selected by nature as the universal action? The ad hoc a-moralist must answer, following his scientific theory, that it favors the propagation and continuance of species. At this point the a-moralist introduces a value and his argument is lost.

 

[blarg]

We've listed one... the one we've listed is suicide.

If you disagree with any of the premises, let us know which ones and make an argument for why each premise isn't sound in reasoning.

Otherwise, we find that all the premises are sound and lead to an objectively true and logical conclusion.

some one killing themself is only bad to people who don't like it

its good if you like it

its neither good or bad if you don't care

saying its good or bad just because it is, and that people should or shouldn't kill themselves just because makes no sense

it makes no sense for anything and that's what objective morality would be list of dos and don'ts just because

 

[blarg]

No, we find morality at work in the survival instinct, a fact of science.

maybe just not objective morality
survival instinct may alter someone's morals and explain a preference to live but that's not an objective reason why any one should

 

[gfm7175]

Outstanding.

I thought it was... and I was fully expecting DD to reject #4, so that didn't come as a surprise, and I think your response to DD's objection was adequate.

Six will be controversial only for those who adopt a completely a-moral position just for the sake of argument. Morality is at bottom about right and wrong action. The denier of six must argue, against nature, that self-preservation is neither right nor wrong. But if neither right nor wrong, then why has it been favored and selected by nature as the universal action? The ad hoc a-moralist must answer, following his scientific theory, that it favors the propagation and continuance of species. At this point the a-moralist introduces a value and his argument is lost.

Absolutely correct, so #6 should "hold it's own".

So far I think this whole argument and conclusion is solid. I can't find where it fails.

 

[blarg]

Outstanding. Six will be controversial only for those who adopt a completely a-moral position just for the sake of argument. Morality is at bottom about right and wrong action. The denier of six must argue, against nature, that self-preservation is neither right nor wrong. But if neither right nor wrong, then why has it been favored and selected by nature as the universal action? The ad hoc a-moralist must answer, following his scientific theory, that it favors the propagation and continuance of species. At this point the a-moralist introduces a value and his argument is lost.

and 3 because im not sure how free will is

and 7 has multiple answers

and as for 8 and 9 most kinds of life have gone extinct its natural for anything that doesn't manage to reproduce before dying to die out just as much as its natural to reproduce before dying anything you can do is natural and something natural is only as good or bad as you feel it is

given 3 , 7 ,8 9 once can conclude that you conclusion is based on flawed premises

 

[Angel]

hmm unless you don't care about taking a human life 1 way or another then its morally neutral

dose that still count as a moral matter?

if so choosing which pair of socks to put on between identical looking pairs is also a moral action

Shane didn't come back, blarg. Remember? I remember. I'm like an elephant in that way. Do you get the reference? Either one?

I guess you got neither reference.
This was a brush-off, blarg. Tit for tat. You ran out on me in gfm's thread on Objective Morality after answering the question no one else among the moral relativists would answer.. Aren't you aware of your own actions? You left me holding the bag and ignored repeated attempts by me to get you back to the conversation.

some one killing themself is only bad to people who don't like it

its good if you like it

its neither good or bad if you don't care

saying its good or bad just because it is, and that people should or shouldn't kill themselves just because makes no sense

it makes no sense for anything and that's what objective morality would be list of dos and don'ts just because

Here is what you said in gfm's thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...t-and-and-moral-argument-w-222-829-a-116.html

Angel's Unanswered Question

Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?

blarg at #1156

always right or wrong based on how you feel about each case

 

[blarg]

I guess you got neither reference.
This was a brush-off, blarg. Tit for tat. You ran out on me in gfm's thread on Objective Morality after answering the question no one else among the moral relativists would answer.. Aren't you aware of your own actions? You left me holding the bag and ignored repeated attempts by me to get you back to the conversation.


Here is what you said in gfm's thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...t-and-and-moral-argument-w-222-829-a-116.html

Angel's Unanswered Question

blarg at #1156

or neutral if you don't care

 

[blarg]

I guess you got neither reference.
This was a brush-off, blarg. Tit for tat. You ran out on me in gfm's thread on Objective Morality after answering the question no one else among the moral relativists would answer.. Aren't you aware of your own actions? You left me holding the bag and ignored repeated attempts by me to get you back to the conversation.


Here is what you said in gfm's thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...t-and-and-moral-argument-w-222-829-a-116.html

Angel's Unanswered Question

blarg at #1156

and the same act could be any of the 3 to any one and only for as long as any one feels a certain way

 

[Angel]

or neutral if you don't care

You're changing your answer now. Have you no shame? If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't have answered "always right or wrong." Always means always.
You should have taken the "ever" option, which meant "sometimes right or wrong."
And you shouldn't have run out on me,
Have a nice day, blarg.


Namaste

 

[blarg]

You're changing your answer now. Have you no shame? If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't have answered "always right or wrong." Always means always.
You should have taken the "ever" option, which meant "sometimes right or wrong."
And you shouldn't have run out on me,
Have a nice day, blarg.


Namaste

yes and some of the time but not over this leaving out the 3rd option was an oversight on my pat sorry about that my mistake

 

[gfm7175]

yes and some of the time but not over this leaving out the 3rd option was an oversight on my pat sorry about that my mistake

So your answer is "sometimes right or wrong"?

 

[William Rea]

Let me guess, the theists are still trying to argue something into existence rather than showing existence as an argument.

 

[blarg]

So your answer is "sometimes right or wrong"?

it can be right or wrong or just not matter

and which 1 it is can be different for every one and shifts with their feelings

 

[Angel]

Let me guess, the theists are still trying to argue something into existence rather than showing existence as an argument.

No, you miss your guess, Mr Rea. The theists have mounted an argument based in scientific fact. You might want to read some of the previous posts.


Namaste

 

[Angel]

So your answer is "sometimes right or wrong"?

Is he a moral relativist or a nihilist? Or is this yet another argument from convenience?

 

[blarg]

Is he a moral relativist or a nihilist? Or is this yet another argument from convenience?

oh i am both of those but its not a mater of convenience it can be quite unpleasant what some people find to be moral or immoral its just what makes sense to me

surly there's nothing convinyant about saying what you deem as moral or immoral goes for everyone else

 

[gfm7175]

it can be right or wrong or just not matter

and which 1 it is can be different for every one and shifts with their feelings

Well, what's your answer to the question?

 

[gfm7175]

Is he a moral relativist or a nihilist? Or is this yet another argument from convenience?

I'm confused... I'm thinking argument from convenience.

 

[blarg]

Well, what's your answer to the question?

that was it can't you read it?

it can be right or wrong or just not matter

and which 1 it is can be different for every one and shifts with their feelings

 

[gfm7175]

oh i am both of those but its not a mater of convenience it can be quite unpleasant what some people find to be moral or immoral its just what makes sense to me

surly there's nothing convinyant about saying what you deem as moral or immoral goes for everyone else

Huh??

 

[blarg]

I'm confused... I'm thinking argument from convenience.

then yes you are confused