Evidence for God from Science

First, It's NOT her body....that's the most inaccurate statement ever! Genetically, IMmunologically, histologically, the baby is different from the mother. The baby has different genes, different histological markers (so much so that the mother's immune system must be suppressed do that she will not attack the baby), different blood type, and different brain waves. What part of any of these establishes this "thing" as part of her own body?!?! Shoot, even the placenta is made by the baby and is not the mother's. What a strange part of our bodies, indeed, that we eject OUR part after nine months!! I mean, come on...the logic in this is absurd. IN the end only one question needs to be answered....is it HUMAN? If it is...then saying that she can murder someone simply because it inconveniences her is akin to a mother who kills her 2 year old because she was too cranky and dependent on her.

Second, just because YOU wouldn't take advantage of someone doesn't make you the more virtuous than someone who would (according to the evolutionary model of morality). Certainly the fact that YOU think it is wrong to take advantage of someone has no inherent goodness in it considering that, according to your own worldview, everything is simply the current evolutionary social solution. In fact, the fact that many of us deem "taking advantage" of someone to be wrong is EQUAL to someone who hogs and steals (much as chimpanzees do with food). In the end, all you are is a morality bully (as all atheists who proclaim a certain morality)...insisting that one way is "right" and another way is wrong. There is no right or wrong, merely what your thinking makes it....in which case ANY justification in my mind for an action, to be as honest and blunt as the evolutionary model allow us to be, is fine. The only worry, really, is whether a person could get away with it.

Bottom line: Rapist = non=rapist according to an atheist worldview...oh you may claim morality but there is no foundation for it. It's an empty claim...

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:My reason for being pro choice is twofold. One, the unborn fetus is not a child. Two, the rights of the fetus have to be balanced against the rights of the the mother. Unfortunately a third and morally unrelated reason is that if women aren't allowed to have safe medical abortions, many women will just get back alley abortions.

If you don't mind, let us shift the focus from the woman to the unborn "little one" (fetus).

What features make the unborn little one different, as to make it less important in your eyes than a child?

hs wrote:As for the hand in the cookie jar with nobody looking question, I wouldn't do it because I don't take advantage of people. It's a general rule that has served me well to this point.

But if there are no ramifications to yourself (nothing bad would happen to you), then wouldn't it serve you "more well" to take advantage of others for greater personal gain?

Do you have any other reason as to why you would not do so?

I don't know why the focus should be shifted from the woman, it's her body...but if you wish. At 3 months a "little one" weighs half an ounce. At 3 months, you can't induce labor and give the "little one" to a nice aunt or a young married couple.

And this changes the nature of the fetus because?

HS wrote: At 3 months, the "little one" isn't just dependent upon the woman, it is a part of the woman.

Yes, at three months, the little one is still dependant on a certain environment to go through certain stages of human development (as with us and all other human beings).

However, the fetus has their own self-contained body and separate DNA just like you or I. Their DNA would be distinguishable from their mother's just like with us.

HS wrote:I believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with any of her parts.

I agree, a woman should have the right to do as she desires with any of her parts, qualified by a woman being in a mentally stable condition and not doing any self-harm.

However, while a fetus resides inside their mother, they are not a part of their mother or their mother's body part.

HS wrote:The bigger question is what happens if you outlaw abortion. How do you plan to enforce such a law? Miscarriage isn't murder.

How are any laws enforced? This is a matter for legislation to define and law to uphold. Cancer isn't murder either.

HS wrote:I act in such a way that if everybody acted like me the world would be a better place. Obviously, that is just my opinion. It may not actually be the case, but that is my motivation. No, it wouldn't serve me "more well" to take advantage of anybody.

I agree the world would be a better place if more people were like you in not wanting to take advantage of others. So your opinion is mine also.

What I have asked is a hypothetical question. You say, "No" it would not serve you "more well" to take advantage of someone. However, my hypothetical question is built on the premise that there is a situation that arises where you would have great personal gain in taking advantage of someone else. A second premise is that there would be no negative consequences for you.

Given this hypothetical situation, would you take advantage of someone else? You say no. I asked why not? You responded that it would not serve you well. I responded that I am saying you would be served well. You say you would not. You don't seem to be responding to my hypothetical.

If there is no logical reason why you would not take advantage of someone else in such a situation, then fine. Maybe it is something that requires more thinking through rather than an on the spot response?

I explained clearly why I think certain things are wrong. You never explained how you know certain things are wrong.
I never stated that fairness or community was inherently better than anything. I stated that they were better for the continuation of humanity.

If our education is a good one, it will teach us to make sound moral decisions.

What? How can you deny inherent moral quality and then turn around and say one decision is morally sound versus another? To claim a decision is morally sound is to claim that there is some inherent standard that it can be measured against when compared to others. Otherwise it is only your preference versus mine.

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible.

By what measure? In fact all I have heard you reference to is, "your opinion?" What other standard are you measuring by to deduce that your conclusions are more defensible?" Otherwise you are saying your opinion is more valid. You in fact just stated that your opinon or morality is more defensible than Hitlers. Yet out of the other side of your mouth you say your opinion isn't more valid. Can you see how we would view this as contradictory?

No, I don't believe that the only reason I view murder and child molestation wrong is because the society I live in has preferences contrary to them. I never said that. Not once. Yes, I am repulsed by such actions. What does my repulsion have to do with objective morality? I'd bet you are repulsed by abortion. I'm repulsed at the idea of a woman not having the right to choose. Who is right?

Repulsed. Why? I'm repulsed by certain foods. it doesn't make those foods wrong. Are you equating your repulsion to something like your preference or digust of certain tastes?

but if you wish. At 3 months a "little one" weighs half an ounce.

So are short people less people than say, tall people? Are midgets less human?

At 3 months, the "little one" isn't just dependent upon the woman, it is a part of the woman.

At conception a child has a unique genetic code, and all the genetic info it will ever have. Ever! You do know what unique means don't you? also, are people with special needs who are dependent on other for their care, less human?

I act in such a way that if everybody acted like me the world would be a better place.

Do you really believe that? Why is your way better? How does a world full of people who do not believe that murder and child molestiation are inherently wrong, make the world a better place?????

The bigger question is what happens if you outlaw abortion. How do you plan to enforce such a law? Miscarriage isn't murder.

What happens if you outlaw murder? Nobody ever murders agian, right? Have you actually thought about these things? How to enforce? Shut down abortion on demand. Miscarriage isn't murder, anymore than if someone dying by natural causes. Are you saying that a person dying of natural causes is not really a loss?

One, the unborn fetus is not a child.

Is it human? do you have any case studies of a human fetus carried to term producing anything other than human children?

Nothing personal, but your replies on this issue, demonstrate that you have merely adopted talking points that fit your moral world view. Your facts are just flat wrong, or do not stand up to reason, as I have demonstrated.

zoegirl wrote:First, It's NOT her body....that's the most inaccurate statement ever! Genetically, IMmunologically, histologically, the baby is different from the mother. The baby has different genes, different histological markers (so much so that the mother's immune system must be suppressed do that she will not attack the baby), different blood type, and different brain waves. What part of any of these establishes this "thing" as part of her own body?!?! Shoot, even the placenta is made by the baby and is not the mother's. What a strange part of our bodies, indeed, that we eject OUR part after nine months!! I mean, come on...the logic in this is absurd. IN the end only one question needs to be answered....is it HUMAN? If it is...then saying that she can murder someone simply because it inconveniences her is akin to a mother who kills her 2 year old because she was too cranky and dependent on her.

Second, just because YOU wouldn't take advantage of someone doesn't make you the more virtuous than someone who would (according to the evolutionary model of morality). Certainly the fact that YOU think it is wrong to take advantage of someone has no inherent goodness in it considering that, according to your own worldview, everything is simply the current evolutionary social solution. In fact, the fact that many of us deem "taking advantage" of someone to be wrong is EQUAL to someone who hogs and steals (much as chimpanzees do with food). In the end, all you are is a morality bully (as all atheists who proclaim a certain morality)...insisting that one way is "right" and another way is wrong. There is no right or wrong, merely what your thinking makes it....in which case ANY justification in my mind for an action, to be as honest and blunt as the evolutionary model allow us to be, is fine. The only worry, really, is whether a person could get away with it.

Bottom line: Rapist = non=rapist according to an atheist worldview...oh you may claim morality but there is no foundation for it. It's an empty claim...

I understand your point. I think you are unwilling to understand mine. It is her body. That is a fact. This fact is the reason miscarriages weren't investigated as homicides even when abortion was illegal. I think we can agree to disagree. I'm never going to have an abortion, and apparently neither are you.

You keep talking about some evolutionary model of morality. I never said anything about a evolutionary anything. All you know about my worldview is that I don't believe in Yahweh. I've explained my system of morality a couple of times but you seem intent on ignoring it and giving me some other sense of morality. I'm not sure where the "bully" comment is coming from. I never ever judged anybody and I never said I was more virtuous than anybody. Atheist or theist doesn't matter. If you believe that we agree on certain moral issues because God put something in my heart, fine. If I believe that you use your good sense to make moral decisions, fine. In the end, we likely agree on things like rape, murder, child molestation and all the rest.

What gives your claim weight? Where's the foundation?

jlay,

I think you misunderstand me. I live by a code. Nothing is just an arbitrary decision for me. I'm bound to do what I believe to be the right thing. I have a system of morality that doesn't just allow me to do whatever all willy nilly. Generally, what I believe to be the right thing is the exact same thing as the Christians and Muslims that I know. I know Christians who have had abortions. I know Christians who, to the best of my knowledge, don't take advantage of people. I know Christians who are in favor of fairness. Except for the way we frame reality, there isn't much difference between me and the Christians and Muslims I know.

edit: btw, you still haven't told me how you know the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, if you know it, am I able to know it too?

Kurieuo wrote: What I have asked is a hypothetical question. You say, "No" it would not serve you "more well" to take advantage of someone. However, my hypothetical question is built on the premise that there is a situation that arises where you would have great personal gain in taking advantage of someone else. A second premise is that there would be no negative consequences for you.

Given this hypothetical situation, would you take advantage of someone else? You say no. I asked why not? You responded that it would not serve you well. I responded that I am saying you would be served well. You say you would not. You don't seem to be responding to my hypothetical.

If there is no logical reason why you would not take advantage of someone else in such a situation, then fine. Maybe it is something that requires more thinking through rather than an on the spot response?

Kurieuo, we may be having a communication problem. It simply isn't possible to for me to greatly benefit by knowingly taking advantage of somebody. Whatever tangible benefit that could be achieved would be outweighed by my desire to make things right.

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: What I have asked is a hypothetical question. You say, "No" it would not serve you "more well" to take advantage of someone. However, my hypothetical question is built on the premise that there is a situation that arises where you would have great personal gain in taking advantage of someone else. A second premise is that there would be no negative consequences for you.

Given this hypothetical situation, would you take advantage of someone else? You say no. I asked why not? You responded that it would not serve you well. I responded that I am saying you would be served well. You say you would not. You don't seem to be responding to my hypothetical.

If there is no logical reason why you would not take advantage of someone else in such a situation, then fine. Maybe it is something that requires more thinking through rather than an on the spot response?

Kurieuo, we may be having a communication problem. It simply isn't possible to for me to greatly benefit by knowingly taking advantage of somebody. Whatever tangible benefit that could be achieved would be outweighed by my desire to make things right.

I agree that we do appear to have a communication problem.

My hypothetical question presupposes you would not be negatively affected in any way. That includes your own moral conscience and wanting to make "right", whatever "right" means to you.

I just hear back that you feel strongly about not taking advantage of someone for personal gain. I do not see any logical reason why to continue following such an ideology rather than shaking off such feelings.

You appear to hold to some higher morality that you think has some ultimate meaning to it. A morality which stands above your own temporal life here and dictates how you should/shouldn't live your very own finite life. Why not just adopt an egocentric morality where self is first? This certainly makes logical sense if our life here is all there is.

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: What I have asked is a hypothetical question. You say, "No" it would not serve you "more well" to take advantage of someone. However, my hypothetical question is built on the premise that there is a situation that arises where you would have great personal gain in taking advantage of someone else. A second premise is that there would be no negative consequences for you.

Given this hypothetical situation, would you take advantage of someone else? You say no. I asked why not? You responded that it would not serve you well. I responded that I am saying you would be served well. You say you would not. You don't seem to be responding to my hypothetical.

If there is no logical reason why you would not take advantage of someone else in such a situation, then fine. Maybe it is something that requires more thinking through rather than an on the spot response?

Kurieuo, we may be having a communication problem. It simply isn't possible to for me to greatly benefit by knowingly taking advantage of somebody. Whatever tangible benefit that could be achieved would be outweighed by my desire to make things right.

I agree that we do appear to have a communication problem.

My hypothetical question presupposes you would not be negatively affected in any way. That includes your own moral conscience and wanting to make "right", whatever "right" means to you.

I just hear back that you feel strongly about not taking advantage of someone for personal gain. I do not see any logical reason why to continue following such an ideology rather than shaking off such feelings.

You appear to hold to some higher morality that you think has some ultimate meaning to it. A morality which stands above your own temporal life here and dictates how you should/shouldn't live your very own finite life. Why not just adopt an egocentric morality where self is first? This certainly makes logical sense if our life here is all there is.

Yes, I feel strongly about not taking advantage of people. Your hypothetical asks me to be a sociopath. I honestly can't imagine what that would be like. The logical reason for this is my mythical blind vote outlined earlier in this thread. No higher morality, just a way of being that tends to be fruitful for humanity in general. It is a rational system because it is consistent and predictable, not because it is based in any objective truth. All of this is just my opinion. We have to treat each other like people. This egocentric, self first morality idea just wouldn't work if everybody acted that way.

Look, we are talking in circles. I have already freely admitted countless times that my morality is not objective. I have conceded that God is the only way to moral objectivity. If I have this next part wrong let me know. If there is a God He put morality in my heart just like he did for you. If there is no God, then you are using reason to find morality just like me. God or no God we are all in the exact same boat in this life. Christians have the inside track to salvation, heaven and all that good stuff. I'll gladly pass on all that and live a clean moral life with what little time I have left.

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: What I have asked is a hypothetical question. You say, "No" it would not serve you "more well" to take advantage of someone. However, my hypothetical question is built on the premise that there is a situation that arises where you would have great personal gain in taking advantage of someone else. A second premise is that there would be no negative consequences for you.

Given this hypothetical situation, would you take advantage of someone else? You say no. I asked why not? You responded that it would not serve you well. I responded that I am saying you would be served well. You say you would not. You don't seem to be responding to my hypothetical.

If there is no logical reason why you would not take advantage of someone else in such a situation, then fine. Maybe it is something that requires more thinking through rather than an on the spot response?

Kurieuo, we may be having a communication problem. It simply isn't possible to for me to greatly benefit by knowingly taking advantage of somebody. Whatever tangible benefit that could be achieved would be outweighed by my desire to make things right.

I agree that we do appear to have a communication problem.

My hypothetical question presupposes you would not be negatively affected in any way. That includes your own moral conscience and wanting to make "right", whatever "right" means to you.

I just hear back that you feel strongly about not taking advantage of someone for personal gain. I do not see any logical reason why to continue following such an ideology rather than shaking off such feelings.

You appear to hold to some higher morality that you think has some ultimate meaning to it. A morality which stands above your own temporal life here and dictates how you should/shouldn't live your very own finite life. Why not just adopt an egocentric morality where self is first? This certainly makes logical sense if our life here is all there is.

Yes, I feel strongly about not taking advantage of people. Your hypothetical asks me to be a sociopath. I honestly can't imagine what that would be like. The logical reason for this is my mythical blind vote outlined earlier in this thread. No higher morality, just a way of being that tends to be fruitful for humanity in general. It is a rational system because it is consistent and predictable, not because it is based in any objective truth. All of this is just my opinion. We have to treat each other like people. This egocentric, self first morality idea just wouldn't work if everybody acted that way.

Why is "humanities fruitfulness" a good thing? As a friend of mine once said: "Humanity ruins everything it touches, and the world would be a better place without us in it."

And why must we have to treat each other like people? If this is just your opinion, then what reasons would you provide to someone who disagrees with you?

While an egocentric morality may not work if everybody acted that way (and I don't know what would be the criteria for determining whether a particular morality works or not), but it could be said an egocentric morality would definitely work for the person who lives their life by it.

You seem to be clinging to their being some ultimate meaning to supporting and trying to help "the larger humanity". What meaning is there to this, particularly if this life is all we will have?

HS wrote:Look, we are talking in circles.

We certainly appear to be, but I see new subtle points surfacing nonetheless.

HS wrote:I have already freely admitted countless times that my morality is not objective. I have conceded that God is the only way to moral objectivity.

I'd be more inclined to believe your morality is in fact based on an objective morality. Which is why you cannot bring yourself to affirm what is a more logical egocentric view if this life is all we have, and our universe in the end will be torn apart with holes and whatnot.

Your words within our discussion, such as "we have to treat each other like people" and the like, suggest that you do accept some standards of morality everyone ought to comply with.

Given 1) your words seem to reveal that you do accept some sort of objective morality, and 2) you concede that God is the only way objective morality is possible: wouldn't a Theistic position such as Christainity be a more coherent position for you to adopt here?

HS wrote:If there is a God He put morality in my heart just like he did for you. If there is no God, then you are using reason to find morality just like me. God or no God we are all in the exact same boat in this life. Christians have the inside track to salvation, heaven and all that good stuff. I'll gladly pass on all that and live a clean moral life with what little time I have left.

What is your living a "clean moral life" if morality is just your opinion. If what we believe as right and wrong is all just our opinion, then for us to live a clean moral life is to simply say we will live life according to how we choose.

Someone who adopts an egocentric morality could equally claim themselves to be living a clean moral life. As could a sociopath who feels no real moral wrong.

Who is to say any different?

PS. All my questions can be taken rhetorically if desired. I often just use questions to try more clearly convey my points.

The very fact that you want to keep using the word sociopath is indicative of you not being true to your worldview. After all there is no sociopath. There can only be "what I call a sociopath"...

I think you misunderstand me. I live by a code. Nothing is just an arbitrary decision for me. I'm bound to do what I believe to be the right thing. I have a system of morality that doesn't just allow me to do whatever all willy nilly. Generally, what I believe to be the right thing is the exact same thing as the Christians and Muslims that I know. I know Christians who have had abortions. I know Christians who, to the best of my knowledge, don't take advantage of people. I know Christians who are in favor of fairness. Except for the way we frame reality, there isn't much difference between me and the Christians and Muslims I know.

edit: btw, you still haven't told me how you know the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, if you know it, am I able to know it too?

I don't think I am misunderstanding you. No one here is saying that you are not capable of making moral decisions. That really isn't the issue. The question is why? You are evading the points we bring up that punch holes in your world view.

I have no idea what these comments have to do with anything.

I've explained my system of morality a couple of times but you seem intent on ignoring it and giving me some other sense of morality.

That's because you are borrowing from objective morality without admitting to it.

never ever judged anybody and I never said I was more virtuous than anybody.

Wrong.

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible.

No matter how you word this answer, it is still a judgment that your moral conclusions are more virtuous. I agree that they are more virtuous. Objectively so. I suspect you do as well, but won't admit it. Why? Because of what it does to your argument.

IMO, you should man up and answer this.
Is there anything inherently wrong with what Hitler did?

zoegirl wrote:The very fact that you want to keep using the word sociopath is indicative of you not being true to your worldview. After all there is no sociopath. There can only be "what I call a sociopath"...

zoegirl, What is my worldview as you see it? Why is it that you think that a sense of moral responsibility and social conscience or lack thereof can't exist in my worldview?

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: What I have asked is a hypothetical question. You say, "No" it would not serve you "more well" to take advantage of someone. However, my hypothetical question is built on the premise that there is a situation that arises where you would have great personal gain in taking advantage of someone else. A second premise is that there would be no negative consequences for you.

Given this hypothetical situation, would you take advantage of someone else? You say no. I asked why not? You responded that it would not serve you well. I responded that I am saying you would be served well. You say you would not. You don't seem to be responding to my hypothetical.

If there is no logical reason why you would not take advantage of someone else in such a situation, then fine. Maybe it is something that requires more thinking through rather than an on the spot response?

Kurieuo, we may be having a communication problem. It simply isn't possible to for me to greatly benefit by knowingly taking advantage of somebody. Whatever tangible benefit that could be achieved would be outweighed by my desire to make things right.

I agree that we do appear to have a communication problem.

My hypothetical question presupposes you would not be negatively affected in any way. That includes your own moral conscience and wanting to make "right", whatever "right" means to you.

I just hear back that you feel strongly about not taking advantage of someone for personal gain. I do not see any logical reason why to continue following such an ideology rather than shaking off such feelings.

You appear to hold to some higher morality that you think has some ultimate meaning to it. A morality which stands above your own temporal life here and dictates how you should/shouldn't live your very own finite life. Why not just adopt an egocentric morality where self is first? This certainly makes logical sense if our life here is all there is.

Yes, I feel strongly about not taking advantage of people. Your hypothetical asks me to be a sociopath. I honestly can't imagine what that would be like. The logical reason for this is my mythical blind vote outlined earlier in this thread. No higher morality, just a way of being that tends to be fruitful for humanity in general. It is a rational system because it is consistent and predictable, not because it is based in any objective truth. All of this is just my opinion. We have to treat each other like people. This egocentric, self first morality idea just wouldn't work if everybody acted that way.

Why is "humanities fruitfulness" a good thing? As a friend of mine once said: "Humanity ruins everything it touches, and the world would be a better place without us in it."

And why must we have to treat each other like people? If this is just your opinion, then what reasons would you provide to someone who disagrees with you?

While an egocentric morality may not work if everybody acted that way (and I don't know what would be the criteria for determining whether a particular morality works or not), but it could be said an egocentric morality would definitely work for the person who lives their life by it.

You seem to be clinging to their being some ultimate meaning to supporting and trying to help "the larger humanity". What meaning is there to this, particularly if this life is all we will have?

HS wrote:Look, we are talking in circles.

We certainly appear to be, but I see new subtle points surfacing nonetheless.

HS wrote:I have already freely admitted countless times that my morality is not objective. I have conceded that God is the only way to moral objectivity.

I'd be more inclined to believe your morality is in fact based on an objective morality. Which is why you cannot bring yourself to affirm what is a more logical egocentric view if this life is all we have, and our universe in the end will be torn apart with holes and whatnot.

Your words within our discussion, such as "we have to treat each other like people" and the like, suggest that you do accept some standards of morality everyone ought to comply with.

Given 1) your words seem to reveal that you do accept some sort of objective morality, and 2) you concede that God is the only way objective morality is possible: wouldn't a Theistic position such as Christainity be a more coherent position for you to adopt here?

HS wrote:If there is a God He put morality in my heart just like he did for you. If there is no God, then you are using reason to find morality just like me. God or no God we are all in the exact same boat in this life. Christians have the inside track to salvation, heaven and all that good stuff. I'll gladly pass on all that and live a clean moral life with what little time I have left.

What is your living a "clean moral life" if morality is just your opinion. If what we believe as right and wrong is all just our opinion, then for us to live a clean moral life is to simply say we will live life according to how we choose.

Someone who adopts an egocentric morality could equally claim themselves to be living a clean moral life. As could a sociopath who feels no real moral wrong.

Who is to say any different?

PS. All my questions can be taken rhetorically if desired. I often just use questions to try more clearly convey my points.

I think I get your point. There is a fatal flaw with your line of thinking with regards to morality. We'll get to that later.

The reasons I would give would be that you want to be treated like a person so you should treat others like people. I would tell him that such reciprocity is the very foundation of civilized society.

If you want to live an egocentric lifestyle, I can't do anything else to stop you. If you really think it makes sense, then go for it and see how far it gets you.

Humanity's fruitfulness is not necessarily a good thing. It is my opinion that the continued success of mankind is a good thing. This very well could not be the case. I'm wrong often. This is my standard of morality:

We both agree that what people ought to do, and what they do are too often different. Please read with an open mind. It is not just majority rule, or the will of the powerful that decides what is right or wrong. It is the proper framing of the question in one's mind. Take rape. I have to make a decision of whether rape is OK. Well that is easy. All I have to do is imagine that I don't know what I am. I don't know my gender, race, religion or place in society. All I know is that I will have to live in society. I then think of what rules are appropriate for society. Would I want to live in a society where I wouldn't be protected from rape? Of course not. It could be argued that I would think rape would be OK if I was a big strong man with a desire to rape people, but I don't know if I will be such a man.

That's it. It is a simple thought process.

jlay wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. I live by a code. Nothing is just an arbitrary decision for me. I'm bound to do what I believe to be the right thing. I have a system of morality that doesn't just allow me to do whatever all willy nilly. Generally, what I believe to be the right thing is the exact same thing as the Christians and Muslims that I know. I know Christians who have had abortions. I know Christians who, to the best of my knowledge, don't take advantage of people. I know Christians who are in favor of fairness. Except for the way we frame reality, there isn't much difference between me and the Christians and Muslims I know.

edit: btw, you still haven't told me how you know the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, if you know it, am I able to know it too?

I don't think I am misunderstanding you. No one here is saying that you are not capable of making moral decisions. That really isn't the issue. The question is why? You are evading the points we bring up that punch holes in your world view.

I have no idea what these comments have to do with anything.

I've explained my system of morality a couple of times but you seem intent on ignoring it and giving me some other sense of morality.

That's because you are borrowing from objective morality without admitting to it.

never ever judged anybody and I never said I was more virtuous than anybody.

Wrong.

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible.

No matter how you word this answer, it is still a judgment that your moral conclusions are more virtuous. I agree that they are more virtuous. Objectively so. I suspect you do as well, but won't admit it. Why? Because of what it does to your argument.

IMO, you should man up and answer this.
Is there anything inherently wrong with what Hitler did?

There is no objective morality to borrow from.

Saying that my moral conclusions are more defensible means that I could make a better logical argument for my side than Hitler. That is a fact. Go find some Nazi to play Hitler in a debate and I'd beat him soundly (as would anybody else with half a brain). I wouldn't have to impose any idea of moral superiority to do it. I would only have to expose the inconsistency of his morality and defend the consistency of mine. However, this assumes that logical arguments mean anything to anybody. They generally do, but it does not have to be the case that they do. I assume that we agree that logical arguments mean something because that is what we have been going back and forth with...more or less.

No, there is nothing inherently wrong with what Hitler did. I've answered this question already. What you haven't answered is:

How do you know right from wrong?

I've asked this question of you more than once. If you don't want to answer it, fine. However, I think it humorous for somebody to talk about "man up" and what not and continually avoid this very simple question. This 7 word question is at the heart of this whole discussion. Without an answer, I don't know how we could proceed.

humblesmurph wrote:
zoegirl, What is my worldview as you see it? Why is it that you think that a sense of moral responsibility and social conscience or lack thereof can't exist in my worldview?

Not to speak for Zoe, but you are missing our point. NO ONE is saying that. We are simply saying you have no grounds to defend holding to it, revere it, or boast about the fact that you have it. If there is not objective truth regarding morality, then why do you seemingly boast that your moral position has merit?

That is a fact. Go find some Nazi to play Hitler in a debate and I'd beat him soundly (as would anybody else with half a brain).

If there is no objective right or wrong, then how could you win? By what measure would you be the winner?? Your opinion?
If there is nothing inherently wrong, then it is simply your preference versus his. Why is your position better? It isn't. (if morality is only subjective) It is simply your opinion. And thus you are saying, your opinion is superior. To state your opinion is superior is to state that there is some objective scale by which we can judge.

I would only have to expose the inconsistency of his morality and defend the consistency of mine.

Now your inferring that consistency has some inherent moral quality. You really need to stop doing this.

How do you know right from wrong?

There are several ways to know right from wrong. Obviously we would have to clarify just exactly what you are speaking of. How do I know that 2+2=4 is the RIGHT answer? Because there is an objective standard, of truth.
How do I know it is wrong to murder? Because there is an objective standard to KNOW it is wrong. That standard is God. Now there is gobs of philosphy we could break out into, but for the sake of brevity, i'm not going there.