Moral objective values...
Moderator: Moderators
Moral objective values...
Post #1[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]
-
help3434
- Guru
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
- Location: United States
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Post #751
Slander is according to wikipedia
You really did say—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Therefore Danmark pointing out you wrote this is not slander.everything you pay you ate merely affirming is its false
Last edited by help3434 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post #752
None of my opponents have been able to back up any of their claims.
A few realised that this rule is wishful thinking by answering the question themselves if they would love my enemies.
Yet they try to assassinate my charterer by pointing out a few spelling mistakes. How desperate have they become, offering slander.
Evolution = golden rule.
golden rule = golden rule + something more.
Help = treat
rule = scientific fact or law or theory, whatever.
Lol.
All this anti-scientific pontification and no evidence.
Even their own golden rule link says it is not explained by science, but is grounded in non scientific principles.
They even neglect to search and read about the criticisms about this rule. They are to scared to tell me if they will love my enemies for me or even of they love their own enemies. Some refuse to help rapists or murderers but insists they follow this wishful thinking of a rule.
Science has not solved the puzzle If there is objective morality, yet some here insists it has been solved and the Golden rule is it.
How absurd. What a joke.
A few realised that this rule is wishful thinking by answering the question themselves if they would love my enemies.
Yet they try to assassinate my charterer by pointing out a few spelling mistakes. How desperate have they become, offering slander.
Evolution = golden rule.
golden rule = golden rule + something more.
Help = treat
rule = scientific fact or law or theory, whatever.
Lol.
All this anti-scientific pontification and no evidence.
Even their own golden rule link says it is not explained by science, but is grounded in non scientific principles.
They even neglect to search and read about the criticisms about this rule. They are to scared to tell me if they will love my enemies for me or even of they love their own enemies. Some refuse to help rapists or murderers but insists they follow this wishful thinking of a rule.
Science has not solved the puzzle If there is objective morality, yet some here insists it has been solved and the Golden rule is it.
How absurd. What a joke.
Post #753
Correct. Tell that to my opponents.Nickman wrote: Jesus Christ! The Golden Rule is about doing to others as you would want them to do unto you.
It is based on sympathy and empathy. Which is subjective. The whole rule itself tells you it is subjective. "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you."
You and You are telling!
The only way it becomes objective is if someone thinks that some invisible, imaginary being proclaims it.
They seem to think this rule is some objective morality. How absurd, plain ridiculous, just rubbish.
And when they refuse to love their enemies or mine, they still think this rule is some objective morality that evolution or some deity gave us.
It is sad that people do not understand this. At least you do.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #754
Nah, you do it because the good feeling DOES outweigh the unpleasantness, (and keithprosser3 pointed out, the bad feeling you will feel for not doing it outweights the good.) It's the only reason anyone does anything by choice - it always boils down to because you want to.instantc wrote:This is precisely wrong, that was my whole point. Even when the good feeling doesn't nearly outweigh the unpleasantness, I might still help, merely because it is the right thing to do, no further reason, no (simple) evolutionary explanations.Bust Nak wrote: If the good you feel doesn't outweight the unpleasantness, you wouldn't be doing it.
Give me an example and I will show you what feelings outweight what other feelings.
Post #755
LOL. The Golden Rule is the ethic of reciprocity and you listed ethics under evolution. You have spent all these posts arguing with yourself.JohnA wrote:1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality" (My emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
So, since you put ethics under evolution please explain to us how the ethic of reciprocity or The Golden Rule evolved.
Post #756
You are still assuming golden rule = ethics = evolution.Artie wrote:LOL. The Golden Rule is the ethic of reciprocity and you listed ethics under evolution. You have spent all these posts arguing with yourself.JohnA wrote:1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality" (My emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
So, since you put ethics under evolution please explain to us how the ethic of reciprocity or The Golden Rule evolved.
That is false, unless you can produce the science that shows your opinion is true. And the irony is that your own golden rule link says you are wrong. This rule is subjective as highlighted before. Yet you still continue to pontificate dogma drivel. This is my last post to you on this. You have offered nothing new here. You refuse to answer my questions and showed your preference for anti-scientific dogma.
Will you love my enemies?
Answer that question if your want. I will not waste my time responding to you any more.
Bye.
I find your opinion that you have no opinion on a god strangely ironic.
Post #757
This is a debate that we cannot have unless we share the same moral experience (which I suspect we might), since I don't have any objective data to present.Bust Nak wrote:Nah, you do it because the good feeling DOES outweigh the unpleasantness, (and keithprosser3 pointed out, the bad feeling you will feel for not doing it outweights the good.) It's the only reason anyone does anything by choice - it always boils down to because you want to.instantc wrote:This is precisely wrong, that was my whole point. Even when the good feeling doesn't nearly outweigh the unpleasantness, I might still help, merely because it is the right thing to do, no further reason, no (simple) evolutionary explanations.Bust Nak wrote: If the good you feel doesn't outweight the unpleasantness, you wouldn't be doing it.
Give me an example and I will show you what feelings outweight what other feelings.
On the one hand I have my own moral experience, and on the other hand I have your assurances that I have in fact missed something and unconsciously been aware of the good feeling that would serve as the real reason for the actions in question. I don't see any reason why this should be the case. I'm rather confident that I have at least once in my life helped someone for no other reason, apart from the fact that it is the right thing to do.
Post #758
JohnA wrote:Artie wrote:LOL. The Golden Rule is the ethic of reciprocity and you listed ethics under evolution. You have spent all these posts arguing with yourself.JohnA wrote:1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality" (My emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
So, since you put ethics under evolution please explain to us how the ethic of reciprocity or The Golden Rule evolved.No, you do as I proved in this very post!You are still assuming golden rule = ethics = evolution.
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity" and "1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)" clearly proves that you place empathy and ethics under evolution and the Golden Rule is the Ethic of Reciprocity. You are arguing with yourself.No wonder. I bet you will continue to argue with yourself though...I will not waste my time responding to you any more.
Post #759
Artie wrote:I'm breaking my own promise here by responding. Artie offered nothing new. I just need to beg him to stop with the fallacies because he is not shining a good light on himself - actually it paints him quite dark portraying less of a good person.JohnA wrote:Artie wrote:LOL. The Golden Rule is the ethic of reciprocity and you listed ethics under evolution. You have spent all these posts arguing with yourself.JohnA wrote:1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality" (My emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
So, since you put ethics under evolution please explain to us how the ethic of reciprocity or The Golden Rule evolved.No, you do as I proved in this very post!You are still assuming golden rule = ethics = evolution.
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity" and "1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)" clearly proves that you place empathy and ethics under evolution and the Golden Rule is the Ethic of Reciprocity. You are arguing with yourself.No wonder. I bet you will continue to argue with yourself though...I will not waste my time responding to you any more.
Artie,
Stop straw manning me. PLEASE STOP.
Stop claiming to know to believe my beliefs.
For the record, my position is:
Golden rule is wishful thinking, not evolutionary ethics given that science has not verified or falsified this at all - science do not waste time on wishful thinking garbage. This golden rule is subjective, and can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion, NOT science. Science does not deal with things that are clearly false and contradictory. There are many alternative versions of this golden rule because it is a well KNOWN FACT that this rule has many criticisms and can not be true in its pure form.
Additionally, I do NOT have the burden of proof here, even-though I have shown conclusively that this rule is false and anti-scientific. The fact that my opponents can not understand this is indeed not something that I can change anymore. They need to just answer a simple question "will they love my enemies" to conclude themselves that this rule is fake, false, wrong, rubbish.
Artie - again,
You must be new to debate. Given your opinion of having no opinion on god/gods is absurd.
You made a claim and refuse to back it up, you refuse to take your burden of proof.
You are using a dishonest debate technique to straw man me repeatably.
You refuse to answer my questions or address any of my objections to your empty assertions.
Please stop rejecting science with this anti-science dogma drivel.
Stop pretending to know my beliefs - I TOLD you that I do not hold the beliefs that you claim I do. STOP, STOP BEING DENYING THE CORRECT POSITION, STOP IGNORING MY POSITION. This is not being truthful to yourself or to me. That alone demonstrates conclusively that you are not following this golden rule and therefore this golden rule can not be true.
AGAIN:
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
STOP STRAW MANNING ME.
Last edited by JohnA on Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #760
Artie wrote:JohnA wrote:Artie wrote:LOL. The Golden Rule is the ethic of reciprocity and you listed ethics under evolution. You have spent all these posts arguing with yourself.JohnA wrote:1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality" (My emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
So, since you put ethics under evolution please explain to us how the ethic of reciprocity or The Golden Rule evolved.No, you do as I proved in this very post!You are still assuming golden rule = ethics = evolution.
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity" and "1. Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)" clearly proves that you place empathy and ethics under evolution and the Golden Rule is the Ethic of Reciprocity. You are arguing with yourself.No wonder. I bet you will continue to argue with yourself though...I will not waste my time responding to you any more.
Why do you think straw manning me is doing your position any good?
Do you think straw manning is ethical?
Will you love my enemies for me?
