Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok that is an opinionated statement. Fair enough. But I'll suggest the followin. It was entertaining and thoughtful at the same time.
Are you so bereft of responses that you ignore all posts replying to you and cite some movie as proof that atheists can do bad things? Really? I know Christian apologetics are weak, but this might be the most pathetic thing I have seen in a long while.
No basis is any better or worse than any other. Thus...ancient religious texts are no better, but no worse, than any other basis to use in making moral determinations.
I would not agree with this at all. There are genuine ways we can discern between one basis and another. For example human society is a human relationship. And relationships go two ways. Therefore a moral basis that is dictated by one member of that society onto all others would be "worse" than a two way basis.
The moment one admits to anything such as a continuum of human well being, one instantly has a basis upon which to measure the relative merits and demerits of varied moral systems.
Further one of the most important basis for having a moral conversation is understanding of the consequences of ones actions. If you can not understand what result a given action will have, then this clouds moral discourse on that action. This ALSO gives us a firm basis to judge one system against another. A moral system steeped in ignorance is by definition worse than one permeated with knowledge.
As such "Ancient religious texts" are certainly worse than modernity in moral discourse as they were massively ignorant of many such things. The average 13 year old Student studying Science in the schools of my home country has a better and more wide ranging knowledge than many of even the most enlightened peasantry of the time of the more popular religious texts being written.
Similarly I can suggest that any moral system based on the concept of "god" is going to be worse. Solely because we have not even got the first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest such an intelligent intentional agent even exists. Certainly none from you.
As such any differences of opinion about this agents will or intention for us, upon which we base our moral decisions are.... at best.... fantasy.... and at worst divisive and by definition irreconcilable through anything but violence. Basing, at its core foundation, a morality on the assumption our existence has some kind of intentional "purpose" for example is to base that morality on unsubstantiated fantasy. And divorcing a world view from reality does not bode well for its utility mapping well back onto that reality.
Except for the nth time, it fails completely in scenarios where harm is caused by either choice.
You just can't comprehend that if harm is inevitable, that whatever creates the least harm would be the choice.
What, in your esteemed opinion, would be a better solution?
Except for the nth time, it fails completely in scenarios where harm is caused by either choice.
Except for the nth + 1 time, no it does not. Nor is harm caused by "either choice" in the example you have been clinging to with such desperation.
Also you are acting like "Harm" in one directional. That increasing it is bad, even if the sum decreases outweigh the increase. Your example being that if you opt for, and take, Euthanasia you are causing "harm" by the distress your passing will cause.
But that increase in harm is more than mediated by them now not having to watch you suffer....... financially and with other resources continue to support the elongation of your otherwise terminal life (which when keeping some people alive is surprisingly high per day even).......... knowledge that you are being denied your right to die which you want.
And from the perspective of the patient their unbearable pains and suffering and loss of dignity are ended.... they are granted the dignity of human freedom in the right to choose to die.... and much more.
So there is no increase in "harm" here when you look at both sides of the scales. You are just desperate to see one side of the scales, ignore the other side, and act like this makes a point for you. It does not.
I would not agree with this at all. There are genuine ways we can discern between one basis and another. For example human society is a human relationship. And relationships go two ways. Therefore a moral basis that is dictated by one member of that society onto all others would be "worse" than a two way basis.
The moment one admits to anything such as a continuum of human well being, one instantly has a basis upon which to measure the relative merits and demerits of varied moral systems.
Further one of the most important basis for having a moral conversation is understanding of the consequences of ones actions. If you can not understand what result a given action will have, then this clouds moral discourse on that action. This ALSO gives us a firm basis to judge one system against another. A moral system steeped in ignorance is by definition worse than one permeated with knowledge.
Yet you gave a prime example of how someone who favors one side of a moral choice can be COMPLETELY blind or biased to consequences. I listed possible consequences of making assisted suicide legal, and you totally blew them off saying that the complication of the issue is no excuse for not allowing the issue. Completely not addressing my point directly. It's a refusal to acknowledge the potential consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
As such "Ancient religious texts" are certainly worse than modernity in moral discourse as they were massively ignorant of many such things. The average 13 year old Student studying Science in the schools of my home country has a better and more wide ranging knowledge than many of even the most enlightened peasantry of the time of the more popular religious texts being written.
Having no foundation for morality is most certainly worse because then you are basing things on majority vote or looking to government to decide your morality. Once it goes in a bad direction, it will continue that way until good people rise up and fight for change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Similarly I can suggest that any moral system based on the concept of "god" is going to be worse. Solely because we have not even got the first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest such an intelligent intentional agent even exists. Certainly none from you.
As such any differences of opinion about this agents will or intention for us, upon which we base our moral decisions are.... at best.... fantasy.... and at worst divisive and by definition irreconcilable through anything but violence. Basing, at its core foundation, a morality on the assumption our existence has some kind of intentional "purpose" for example is to base that morality on unsubstantiated fantasy. And divorcing a world view from reality does not bode well for its utility mapping well back onto that reality.
But until you can substantiate that believing in God or the Bible IS fantasy, your statement here holds no bearing. Let's not forget that the vast majority of the world population does not believe like you.
Except for the nth time, it fails completely in scenarios where harm is caused by either choice.
Gray areas Jeff. We have addressed them repeatedly.
What you are proposing is worse though. A moral system that does not weigh relative harms is arbitrary and needlessly cruel. You are defending the the people who killed that young woman in Ireland. You are defending slavery. You are defending torture.
Hah comical that you spend so many times skipping and ignoring my posts to you, that you then reply to a post from me to someone else
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yet you gave a prime example of how someone who favors one side of a moral choice can be COMPLETELY blind or biased to consequences.
No I offered no such example. You are either confusing me for someone else or putting words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I listed possible consequences of making assisted suicide legal, and you totally blew them off saying that the complication of the issue is no excuse for not allowing the issue.
And like I said: It is not.
What you listed in your post were things like the difficulty of mediating WHEN to allow assisted suicide. And I am pointing out this is a crass attempt to not allow it. Of course allowing it means a lot of checks, balances, regulations, caveats, and mediation. That is obvious. And this is hard work.
But it being hard work does not negate the utility in doing it all the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Completely not addressing my point directly.
You are the last person on this forum with the pedestal to accuse others of not addressing points. Especially when I addressed every one of your points in a reply that you subsequently ignored and skipped over. As usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's a refusal to acknowledge the potential consequences.
Except I did acknowledge them. You not reading, or replying, to my posts does not mean I did not make them. It is there in black and white for all to see.
But I went on to say that being anti Euthanasia does not allow you to simply focus on the consequences out of all context. And as I said further in the post JUST before this one.... you have to look at both sides of the scales. The question is not "IS any harm of any type caused here?" but "Does this action OVERALL cause a net increase in harm."
What you are bloviating at us here is an extremist application of the "Hippocratic Oath" to do no "harm" that is so extreme that it would not even allow a doctor to administer an injection because doing so causes "harm" in the form of the pain the injection causes. But harm is not measured that way. It is measured by an all encompassing view of the entire context and we realize the "harm" caused by the pain of an injection is mediated for many times over by the benefit of doing so.
Similarly my dismissal of your poor argument here is not a failure to acknowledge certain painful aspects of assisted suicide, but to view those painful aspects in the whole context.... to see both sides of the scales.... and make a choice based on THAT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Having no foundation for morality is most certainly worse
At no point did I indicate having "no foundation" for it. I have given many foundations for it on this thread and others in my time on this forum. I simply do not, like you and your cohort, imagine to have an "objective" foundation for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
because then you are basing things on.....
You are now consigning yourself to making the same rebutted arguments over and over using different words each time. But restating your failed points does not rescue them, they remain failed points.
No one is claiming, except you and your cohort, a "perfect" moral system here. I am aware that a human construct (which morality appears to be) will have human failings. You are making it clear you will accept no answer from the likes of me that is not "perfect" and I am making it clear to all (BUT you it seems) that such is not being claimed, nor is it necessary.
At the end of the day society is a human relationship and like all human relationship the only basis we have for deciding how to live with each other.... is discourse WITH each other. And that discourse and how we act on it is what I call "morality".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But until you can substantiate that believing in God or the Bible IS fantasy
I have done so.
1) Subscribing to a belief without a shred of any substantiation of any form is a fantasy.
2) The claim there is a god is devoid of a shred of any substantiation of any form.
3) Therefore belief in god is a fantasy.
It is you, not I, who has failed and done so consistently here. You have failed to lend even the smallest level of credence to your claims there is a god. Actually to be accurate, you have failed to even make the attempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Let's not forget that the vast majority of the world population does not believe like you.
Lets not forget that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. One you would do well to learn given the number of times you have espoused it as what you and you alone believe to be a good point.
Yet you gave a prime example of how someone who favors one side of a moral choice can be COMPLETELY blind or biased to consequences. I listed possible consequences of making assisted suicide legal, and you totally blew them off saying that the complication of the issue is no excuse for not allowing the issue. Completely not addressing my point directly. It's a refusal to acknowledge the potential consequences.
He didn't dodge the consequences any more than you did. In fact, I think that many of your points were addressed. Assisted suicide IS complicated. It can relieve suffering, causing no net increase in harm. It can be misused, so we can set up proper procedures to prevent this.
Quote:
Having no foundation for morality is most certainly worse because then you are basing things on majority vote or looking to government to decide your morality. Once it goes in a bad direction, it will continue that way until good people rise up and fight for change.
Hang on a second there. We have repeatedly proposed a foundation for morality. Every page on this thread has repeated it. Do I need to ask cupper to restate it?
Quote:
But until you can substantiate that believing in God or the Bible IS fantasy, your statement here holds no bearing. Let's not forget that the vast majority of the world population does not believe like you.
First, the burden of proof is on you as a believer to substantiate the existence of god. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that there is a sentient, powerful, involved being out there that we cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste. We cannot detect this being with any instrument, and the universe appears to follow completely naturalistic rules.
Secondly, the majority of the world population does not believe as you do either. Most people are not Christian, many follow religions that you would find quits alien, and many others are not believers at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
