Morality

[SWP's back]

Mark's gone mental again then...

No. He's arguing with his brother who's a vicar. Mark's posts are his brother's responses to him and Mark is using other forum member's points to throw back at the cockney vicar.

Why doesn't the silly **** use a different font colour or italics for his idiot brother so we knew when he was just being thick and when it's his sibling.

 

[Skashion]

Why doesn't the silly **** use a different font colour or italics for his idiot brother so we knew when he was just being thick and when it's his sibling.

I think the answer is self-evident; he's being thick when posting for his sibling.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Mark's gone mental again then...

No. He's arguing with his brother who's a vicar. Mark's posts are his brother's responses to him and Mark is using other forum member's points to throw back at the cockney vicar.

Why doesn't the silly **** use a different font colour or italics for his idiot brother so we knew when he was just being thick and when it's his sibling.

Because I'm not arsed if people think I've turned into a God bothering freak, writing as if its me gets a instant better reply to the actual points in the debate

 

[Skashion]

Because I'm not arsed if people think I've turned into a God bothering freak, writing as if its me gets a instant better reply to the actual points in the debate

This 'debate' has been utterly useless. You just can't hold conversations with religidiots.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Would this be a Harissian justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The average life expectancy has increased every year since 2003.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.ph...ctancy-birth-total-population&country=iz-iraq

Whilst there are other positive social developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21752819

Although it is a tricky situation to reasonably justify, it may be that the initial plans and intentions behind such an invasion were good just that the work after that failed to live up to its spirit.

This is where religion debate started, i always maintained and still do that the Iraq War was simply 'Wrong' for a number of reasons... mainly the lies, the motives etc

now he says why should i hold a moral view on this as im an Athiest

But that is absurd, some moral framework had to exist before religion or as he might put it Humans were aware of God, otherwise humans would not have got anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVXEmJRGns

Some brilliant well put points by Sam Harris in that clip.

 

[BlueHammer85]

He has stated a few times that he will come to that. The debate at the moment is purely how an Athiest can judge Morality

I've told him and he ignores it. To me the harm principle is an absolute morality. If, by using your liberty, you rob someone of their right to liberty, it is a crime and needs to be punished. If not, there is no crime. It isn't perfect, it can't demand positive actions (though nor do the Ten Commandments), but it can demand no harm. As long as that is fulfilled, we are each free to follow our own path of morality, with that's tee-total celibacy or drug and alcohol fuelled homosexual orgies.

So the harm principle is an absolute moral right ?! ....well if that's the case it cannot come from evolution since evolution is naturalistic...

You seem unable to grasp the concept of your own worldview.

In a naturalistic/Athiestic worldview (yours), The world really is without any meaning, Value or purpose,the universe, man, you, me and everyone you know are doomed to death, mans life ends at the grave, nothing will ultimately exist.

If each person passes out of existence, what ultimate meaning can be given to life ? Sure you may influence a few people, perhaps millions but ultimately, we simply cease to exist with nothing to remember ANY of mans endeavours.....your world weather you like it or not has NO values and no morals.

The world to which you indorse is natural......quite frankly if that is the case why should I appeal to your harm principle ?

Liberty exists in the minds (chemicals) of an ape like creature that ultimately is no more special than pigs,dust, house cat, worm....ultimately we are a collection of particles of matter....

You have claimed that this Harm principle is an absolute right.....but your worldview has no absolute moral rights, you are confused on this issue, these frameworks that you adhere too are challenged around the world, for example you say if you deny liberty to others you deserve to be punished.....why? What if that man has just murdered your family member who is showing signs of aggressive behaviour, but NOT denying liberty we could now be wrong, it now gets complicated and we start to get into all kinds of debates......

But that is besides the point ... your worldview is natural, there is no meaning to life.

To drive home the point, if life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference weather you live as a Hitler or Mother Theresa, since your destiny is unrelated to your behaviour, all we are confronted with is the bare valueless face of existence.

After all on the Athiestic worldview Humans are simply by-products of matter plus time plus chance, we are pure luck, a mixture of chemicals....we have evolved relatively recently on a small rock lost somewhere in the vastness of space and where doomed to perish individually and collectively.

There is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good.....and...........

No right and no wrong

... this has to be your viewpoint !

By claiming an absolute right you are contradicting all the statements on here,

Absolute morals DO NOT exist in a natural world, because it is just that...Natural, the process of evolution is not the basis of morals, since evolution main thrust is survival of the fittest......and I take it most organisms didn't use morals to get to the top of the food chain

If life is meaningless then so are your values, they exist purely and only in the electrical
Brain waves in your brain....and mine are different to yours

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

He has stated a few times that he will come to that. The debate at the moment is purely how an Athiest can judge Morality

I've told him and he ignores it. To me the harm principle is an absolute morality. If, by using your liberty, you rob someone of their right to liberty, it is a crime and needs to be punished. If not, there is no crime. It isn't perfect, it can't demand positive actions (though nor do the Ten Commandments), but it can demand no harm. As long as that is fulfilled, we are each free to follow our own path of morality, with that's tee-total celibacy or drug and alcohol fuelled homosexual orgies.

So the harm principle is an absolute moral right ?! ....well if that's the case it cannot come from evolution since evolution is naturalistic...

You seem unable to grasp the concept of your own worldview.

In a naturalistic/Athiestic worldview (yours), The world really is without any meaning, Value or purpose,the universe, man, you, me and everyone you know are doomed to death, mans life ends at the grave, nothing will ultimately exist.

If each person passes out of existence, what ultimate meaning can be given to life ? Sure you may influence a few people, perhaps millions but ultimately, we simply cease to exist with nothing to remember ANY of mans endeavours.....your world weather you like it or not has NO values and no morals.

The world to which you indorse is natural......quite frankly if that is the case why should I appeal to your harm principle ?

Liberty exists in the minds (chemicals) of an ape like creature that ultimately is no more special than pigs,dust, house cat, worm....ultimately we are a collection of particles of matter....

You have claimed that this Harm principle is an absolute right.....but your worldview has no absolute moral rights, you are confused on this issue, these frameworks that you adhere too are challenged around the world, for example you say if you deny liberty to others you deserve to be punished.....why? What if that man has just murdered your family member who is showing signs of aggressive behaviour, but NOT denying liberty we could now be wrong, it now gets complicated and we start to get into all kinds of debates......

But that is besides the point ... your worldview is natural, there is no meaning to life.

To drive home the point, if life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference weather you live as a Hitler or Mother Theresa, since your destiny is unrelated to your behaviour, all we are confronted with is the bare valueless face of existence.

After all on the Athiestic worldview Humans are simply by-products of matter plus time plus chance, we are pure luck, a mixture of chemicals....we have evolved relatively recently on a small rock lost somewhere in the vastness of space and where doomed to perish individually and collectively.

There is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good.....and...........

No right and no wrong

... this has to be your viewpoint !

By claiming an absolute right you are contradicting all the statements on here,

Absolute morals DO NOT exist in a natural world, because it is just that...Natural, the process of evolution is not the basis of morals, since evolution main thrust is survival of the fittest......and I take it most organisms didn't use morals to get to the top of the food chain

If life is meaningless then so are your values, they exist purely and only in the electrical
Brain waves in your brain....and mine are different to yours

-- Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:57 pm --

He has stated a few times that he will come to that. The debate at the moment is purely how an Athiest can judge Morality

I've told him and he ignores it. To me the harm principle is an absolute morality. If, by using your liberty, you rob someone of their right to liberty, it is a crime and needs to be punished. If not, there is no crime. It isn't perfect, it can't demand positive actions (though nor do the Ten Commandments), but it can demand no harm. As long as that is fulfilled, we are each free to follow our own path of morality, with that's tee-total celibacy or drug and alcohol fuelled homosexual orgies.

So the harm principle is an absolute moral right ?! ....well if that's the case it cannot come from evolution since evolution is naturalistic...

You seem unable to grasp the concept of your own worldview.

In a naturalistic/Athiestic worldview (yours), The world really is without any meaning, Value or purpose,the universe, man, you, me and everyone you know are doomed to death, mans life ends at the grave, nothing will ultimately exist.

If each person passes out of existence, what ultimate meaning can be given to life ? Sure you may influence a few people, perhaps millions but ultimately, we simply cease to exist with nothing to remember ANY of mans endeavours.....your world weather you like it or not has NO values and no morals.

The world to which you indorse is natural......quite frankly if that is the case why should I appeal to your harm principle ?

Liberty exists in the minds (chemicals) of an ape like creature that ultimately is no more special than pigs,dust, house cat, worm....ultimately we are a collection of particles of matter....

You have claimed that this Harm principle is an absolute right.....but your worldview has no absolute moral rights, you are confused on this issue, these frameworks that you adhere too are challenged around the world, for example you say if you deny liberty to others you deserve to be punished.....why? What if that man has just murdered your family member who is showing signs of aggressive behaviour, but NOT denying liberty we could now be wrong, it now gets complicated and we start to get into all kinds of debates......

But that is besides the point ... your worldview is natural, there is no meaning to life.

To drive home the point, if life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference weather you live as a Hitler or Mother Theresa, since your destiny is unrelated to your behaviour, all we are confronted with is the bare valueless face of existence.

After all on the Athiestic worldview Humans are simply by-products of matter plus time plus chance, we are pure luck, a mixture of chemicals....we have evolved relatively recently on a small rock lost somewhere in the vastness of space and where doomed to perish individually and collectively.

There is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good.....and...........

No right and no wrong

... this has to be your viewpoint !

By claiming an absolute right you are contradicting all the statements on here,

Absolute morals DO NOT exist in a natural world, because it is just that...Natural, the process of evolution is not the basis of morals, since evolution main thrust is survival of the fittest......and I take it most organisms didn't use morals to get to the top of the food chain

If life is meaningless then so are your values, they exist purely and only in the electrical
Brain waves in your brain....and mine are different to yours

But this doesn't address Sam Harris's point about well being. Of course Hitler wasn't punished in the afterlife but he was in this one watching his empire crumble before him. Hitler or any other tyrant may escape punishment but they are the exception and not the rule. Your comparison is also flawed, Mother Theresa may be on the road to a saint but she was no moral guardian. She made human suffering worse rather than do all she could to save lives. She was also full of doubt in belief of God, and so was she really a theist?

http://youtu.be/RLpq6lLnKFI

http://youtu.be/LUfLozwRln0

 

[Skashion]

This thing really is utterly pointless without the vicar being here. He's now responding to different people as though they are making the same argument. I'm not. I'm not making an argument from evolution.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

http://youtu.be/Sbax2HAUNPQ

 

[BlueHammer85]

This thing really is utterly pointless without the vicar being here. He's now responding to different people as though they are making the same argument. I'm not. I'm not making an argument from evolution.

No he has only responded to your point.

You haven't mentioned evolution in your previous posts. You stated that the "harm principle is an absolute moral right".. he is arguing if that's the case it cannot come from evolution since evolution is naturalistic... He is saying you can not claim an absolute moral right whilst being an Athiest.