vaxx:
ok let me play the devil adovocate. rape is good. can you argue it out?

How many rape victims have u seen rejoicing after being raped?

Or will u throw a party if anyone rapes ur daugther?

johnydon22:
I am not sure you people know the arguments you engage in. Nobody said anything about any actions being attributed to God that an atheist cannot perform.

The argument is on moral basis not moral action.

Religious moral basis are less arbitrary and logically sound than secular morality.




Again Moral basis is the argument.

I have no idea what the hell you are on about.

Let me demonstrate: Is rape wrong?

Why?

Pls what is the basis of morality for theists, how does this basis makes it better that what the atheists are proposing?

JujuSugar:

Hmmm.....
Sir, does this mean that theists have "won" the argument regarding morality because there are no universally correct values in an atheistic worldview?

Technically no. So great question. It would be that the theist has valid a positive case for objective morality while the atheist does not. Something like that.

Vic2Ree:
Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)

I'm of the mind that this subject is largely independent of whether or not God exists.

Vic2Ree:

The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

This is a complex subject, but I don't think theists have "won" naturalism. However, there may be a case that it's a trivially obvious metaphysical position and doesn't have much import on the question of God.

Vic2Ree:

Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

Atheists don't necessarily believe in a infinite material universe. If we're talking about the results of the big bang, for instance, we know it's spatially finite and had a beginning in time. There may be some sort of multiverse that's infinite, but I'm agnostic on the matter. Reality may well be finite.

frank317:


How many rape victims have u seen rejoicing after being raped?

Or will u throw a party if anyone rapes ur daugther?

You forget emphaty is what devilish individual lack. As long as you are evil, everything wicked or satanic become a thing of joy. what if i derive joy in it.

frank317:

How many rape victims have u seen rejoicing after being raped?
Or will u throw a party if anyone rapes ur daugther?

A PARTY MUST BE THROWN TO CELEBRATE "GOD'S PLAN".

vaxx:
Natural selection has been observed and measured both in the lab and in nature. so nothing controversial about it.

I didn't see much here. I was expecting to a detailed publication not stuff done by biased evolutionists with no input from critics.

Has the experiment been repeated and peer reviewed?

Seems they deleted the original research:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8446

No wonder nobody is talking about it since the first publication.



Please check if this website is reachable at your end.

Vic2Ree:

Technically no. So great question. It would be that the theist has valid a positive case for objective morality while the atheist does not. Something like that.

But the debate is about whether objective morality does or does not exist .......
It's very biased of you to assume which is correct and base the winner around that ........

IAmSabrina:

Atheists don't necessarily believe in a infinite material universe. If we're talking about the results of the big bang, for instance, we know it's spatially finite.

we know it's spatially finite.

No, we don't ma.....

The observable universe (i.e. the bits light has reached us from since the big bang) is spatially finite, mostly because the speed of light is finite and the big bang happened as a horizon......

But cosmological data at the moment point towards a flat overall cosmology, which is simplest with a spatially infinite universe. Obviously nothing's really settled in that realm yet, but the thing that's most emphatically not settled is that the universe is spatially finite........

OpenYourEyes1:


I didn't see much here. I was expecting to a detailed publication not stuff done by biased evolutionists with no input from critics.

Has the experiment been repeated and peer reviewed?

Seems they deleted the original research:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8446

No wonder nobody is talking about it since the first publication.



Please check if this website is reachable at your end.

what nonsense are you talking about. do you want me to copy the whole Articule here. and that is not the only Articule that talk about the experiment .


The Articule even have a subset of other links with video detaling the research

vaxx:
what nonsense are you talking about. do you want me to copy the whole Articule here. and that is not the only Articule that talk about the experiment .


The Articule even have a subset of other links with video detaling the research

This is the original article which futurism.com references: https://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html



Below the article I found this:

More information: J. R. Meyer et al, Ecological speciation of bacteriophage lambda in allopatry and sympatry,
Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aai8446

JujuSugar:

But the debate is about whether objective morality does or does not exist .......

Not exactly. I think most atheists argue that objective morality exists independent of a god. And I think theists have overwhelmingly won that debate.

As for objective morality vs. moral nihilism, that's un-won territory in my book, but moral nihilism is sort of winning by inches.

But yes, if you accept the nihilism inherent in atheism, and if we're talking about whether or not objective morals actually exist, then you are correct that this is unfinished business between the two sides.

OpenYourEyes1:


This is the original article which futurism.com references: https://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html



Below the article I found this:

More information: J. R. Meyer et al, Ecological speciation of bacteriophage lambda in allopatry and sympatry,
Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aai8446

Then how those it refute the Articule.


Do you even know how to verify an authentic publication and how to render a publication substandard?

Vic2Ree:

Not exactly. I think most atheists argue that objective morality exists independent of a god. And I think theists have overwhelmingly won that debate.

As for objective morality vs. moral nihilism, that's un-won territory in my book, but moral nihilism is sort of winning by inches.

But yes, if you accept the nihilism inherent in atheism, and if we're talking about whether or not objective morals actually exist, then you are correct that this is unfinished business between the two sides.

Pause, sir!
a) You can't assume that every atheist believes the same thing.
b) There's no reason to believe that most atheists argue for objective morality.

JujuSugar:

Pause, sir!
a) You can't assume that every atheist believes the same thing.
b) There's no reason to believe that most atheists argue for objective morality.

Understand that this is simply based on my observations. In my experience. Particularly here on nairaland, and on listening to Sam Harris and his followers. But it's ultimately anecdotal. That's why it's "by my estimation".

frank317:


Pls what is the basis of morality for theists, how does this basis makes it better that what the atheists are proposing?

God.

Let's put it this way; The fundamental assumption fot theological basis for morality is - God exists.

Therefore here are the logical steps.

The owner of any system determines what governs such systems.

Based on the assumption of God existing which is fundamental to theology.

1. God exists
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Therefore God owns the system
4. Any thing God considers sacred is fundamental to the universe like the laws of physics.
5. Therefore any moral basis on this principle is objective.

So, the only way to attack this argument is to argue that God doesn't exist, but one cannot deny in any way the sound logical link in that argument based on the fundamental assumption of no.1.

Second basis: Fundametal belief in a non-arbitrary value system.
Belief such as; Sex is sacred, Human life is sacred etc.

Secular morality on the hand operates on two principles.

1. Borrow a primary foundation from a theological basis (which most human law practise)

2. Or simply make a moral conclusion based on what you feel is ok without deriving a fundamental assumption that injects distinction between subjects. (Most atheistic arguments on morality operates on this one even though one can still ultimately link this to 1)

The idea that morality is individually subjective is a secular idea which ultimately means morality doesn't really exist

Which then puts us in a moral dilemma cus on that note, nothing truly can be wrong.

frank317:


How many rape victims have u seen rejoicing after being raped?

Or will u throw a party if anyone rapes ur daugther?

Is this a basis that something wrong?

You are just making a moral conclusion that 'not rejoicings over an action' makes it wrong.

How did you get to this conclusion?

See? Example 1 of the implications of fundamental basis for moral conclusions.

JujuSugar:

No, we don't ma.....

The observable universe (i.e. the bits light has reached us from since the big bang) is spatially finite, mostly because the speed of light is finite and the big bang happened as a horizon......

But cosmological data at the moment point towards a flat overall cosmology, which is simplest with a spatially infinite universe. Obviously nothing's really settled in that realm yet, but the thing that's most emphatically not settled is that the universe is spatially finite........

Infinite space and the appearance of nothing. No matter how far we look into an atom, or back in time, or into outer space, something is there. Even appearing with a seeming randomness as if it were unintended.
I believe there's more contention there than we think.

IAmSabrina:

I'm of the mind that this subject is largely independent of whether or not God exists.

Actually it isn't. You cannot divorce a theists moral basis from God so God is largely a part of that argument for a theist. How is that independent of God?

vaxx:
You forget emphaty is what devilish individual lack. As long as you are evil, everything wicked or satanic become a thing of joy. what if i derive joy in it.

The question is; why is it even evil in the first place?

vaxx:
Then how those it refute the Articule.


Do you even know how to verify an authentic publication and how to render a publication substandard?

They probably deleted the original work out of shame due to errors and lies

johnydon22:
Lol. Abi?

Lmao.

Why is rape wrong?

Again, basis is the argument, whichever way it goes.

Lol what does this even mean?

You tell me!

vaxx:
That is why johndon says morality basis has a quality theological explanation. Theist offer a plausible explanation as to why it is wrong to hurt others in order to gratify yourself. it will always be wrong even without putting God to it base on human veiw

The most fundamental point of theists is about interacting with other people. ... for example ""My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Since neither of us has a privileged position, ACCORDING TO THEISTIC explanation neither of us is entitled to impinge on the other against the other's will.

You confuse things. Is that deliberate?

The theist position is that nothing is wrong as long as their god sanctions it.

advocate666:


You tell me!

Answering a question with a question, classic. Lol.

And again, i am the one trying to demonstrate to you how secular morality (Your morality in this case) is derived without any moral basis but simply a leap into conclusion.

Answer freely, I'm as much atheistic as you

OpenYourEyes1:


They probably deleted the original work out of shame due to errors and lies

lol...... A published Articule powerd by UniversIty of Chicago is based on shame you mean.?

i think you are wasting my time.



Check the sublinks attached to the page, check the university link . the articule is still intact.

advocate666:


You confuse things. Is that deliberate?

The theist position is that nothing is wrong as long as their god sanctions it.

Isn't that essentially the secular position? Nothing is wrong as long as we say it is not?

Basically subtituting God with human.

Except that in the literal sense of word, God is assumed by the theist as the creator of everything hence laws given by God is as intrinsic to the universe as the laws of physics.

Hence an argument on non-arbitration

johnydon22:
Answering a question with a question, classic. Lol.

And again, i am the one trying to demonstrate to you how secular morality (Your morality in this case) is derived without any moral basis but simply a leap into conclusion.

Answer freely, I'm as much atheistic as you

No, you are the person who refused to answer my first question.

Define morality first so we know where we stand.

Asking questions like "is rape wrong?" doesn't advance the discussion.

johnydon22:


The question is; why is it even evil in the first place?

frank37 is of the opinion anything objectively concluded by human to be wrong is evil and hence i have to play by his rule

Vic2Ree:

Understand that this is simply based on my observations. In my experience. Particularly here on nairaland, and on listening to Sam Harris and his followers. But it's ultimately anecdotal. That's why it's "by my estimation".

And i'm criticizing your "estimation." Sam Harris does not represent every atheist, nor do his followers.
Try this exercise;
a) Define Objective
b) Define Absolute
c) Having defined the terms from a & b, do you consider it a possibility that you are confusing both terms?

I would argue that secular objective morality is a moral framework based on the wellbeing of man. Within this framework, slavery is demonstrably wrong. If you argue that the wellbeing of man is not axiomatic, then we are no longer talking about morality.

johnydon22:


Isn't that essentially the secular position? Nothing is wrong as long as we say it is not?

Basically subtituting God with human.

Except that in the literal sense of word, God is assumed by the theist as the creator of everything hence laws given by God is as intrinsic to the universe as the laws of physics.

Hence an argument on non-arbitration

Exactly what I have been saying.

They attribute human behaviour (morality) to their god. How are they winning the argument on that?

JujuSugar:

a) Define Objective
b) Define Absolute
c) Having defined the terms from a & b, do you consider it a possibility that you are confusing both terms?

Perhaps that's a way to clear up the language.

JujuSugar:

If you argue that the wellbeing of man is not axiomatic, then we are no longer talking about morality.

But then, this. I take issue with this because it is defining morality as that which promotes well-being. I define morality as something like that which a human should or should not do.

I would not define well being as morality, therefore I would not agree that to say otherwise means "we are no longer talking about morality."

But absolute morality, okay. Perhaps we can work with that. So it is fair to say that the atheistic view I've seen presented is that it ia not absolutely wrong to gas Jews, or it is not absolutely wrong to hate, and that it is not absolutely better to be a loving father than to gas Jews. I think this explanation is fair.

advocate666:


You confuse things. Is that deliberate?

The theist position is that nothing is wrong as long as their god sanctions it.

what is it that you don't understand?

Vic2Ree:

But then, this. I take issue with this because it is defining morality as that which promotes well-being. I define morality as something like that which a human should or should not do.

OK, I don’t disagree. But finish the sentence; that which a human should or should not do, because…..

I would not define well being as morality, therefore I would not agree that to say otherwise means "we are no longer talking about morality."

Then, pray tell sir, what is morality?

So it is fair to say that the atheistic view I've seen presented is that it ia not absolutely wrong to gas Jews, or it is not absolutely wrong to hate, and that it is not absolutely better to be a loving father than to gas Jews. I think this explanation is fair.

Hmmm..... evoking Nazis,.....
This is a good example, Vic2Ree, so let’s unpack this.....
When you say absolutely wrong after I’ve stated that I don’t believe that absolute is a coherent position, it makes it seem like you’re painting my position as one where there is room for the possibility of atrocity within my moral framework.......
So not absolutely, but objectively, I would categorically be against the gassing of anyone.....
And, it’s often said about non-believers that we can’t say that these atrocities are wrong because we have no justification, but what we can do is take action. When asked how I could justify my objection to Germans gassing Jews, I would say that it’s demonstrable, and storm the beaches at Normandy.

Ultimately, I don‘t think absolutely gets you further down the road. It has no foundation. Ask yourself this, how would I create a moral framework given the absence of a deity? When you start there, it might become clear.