Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #130]

This in itself doesn't appear to answer the mystery as to what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.

I think it does

" Sure, animal likes and dislikes are evolutionary instinct, but all other morals are human constructs, taught over a lifetime, some never seem to learn them but still use the natural instinct ' "I want, I want"."

Morals are complex human social rules built up over social centuries a nd taught by society, and similar, culture o cultire because of instinctive human preference temped by the basic requirement of society; co -operation.

So in breaking that down, what have you identified as "universally agreed upon morals" or even one universally agreed upon moral? Perhaps it is those things which are cause for "cooperation"? If so, what are "those things" and what informs you that they are universal and further to that, how does this support the assertion that no invisible source-mechanism is involved?

You are falling into the eternal theist trap - assuming there must be a universal law of morality.

There isn't one. That shows it to be a human construct like art, music and language, and yet they are uncannily the same in all cultures. There is (the hypothesis goes) an instinctive basis, and the evolution of it is as un - mysterious as evolution of technology from chipping flints and making fire to space exploration and nuclear power.

The ancients who didn't know our history invented gods teaching us this stuff. It is the work of humans, no god needed, never mind any particular one. Theists make this fundamental logical and evidential error every time.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #141]

You are falling into the eternal theist trap - assuming there must be a universal law of morality.

Not at all. I am not saying that there is some universal morality in the first place. Your fellow atheist POI is the one who appears to be doing that, which is why I asked him what he meant by
If none of us are doing that, then we can drop the notion of their being any such thing as a universal moral.

[POI]

Your fellow atheist POI is the one who appears to be doing that

I am doing that for a specific purpose... I'm pandering to the ones who are, which are basically all theists, and some deists My test is tailored to them. In regard to 'murder' and 'rape', I simply indulge, as these are the topics theists will say are definitely "objectively" wrong. Otseng argues morals are driven by our "intuitive senses". Okay. Theists then also argue that such senses are given to us by an 'invisible agency'. Do you believe this is the case?

I think there exists no "invisible intuition giving agency" of ANY kind. Seems you speculate there may be one, on some level? If you think there is no such thing as any 'objectively moral' topic at all, then the given/provided test may not be a good one for you after all? In which case, I'll await any theists to oblige.

[SiNcE_1985]

Okay, but this does not apply for this test. The test is to verify <whether or not> an "invisible giver" is actually there to give... Here, you and I appear to be diametrically opposed. Allow me to elaborate...

I fail to see how any answer provided can be meant to verify whether God exists.

Scenario 1) Say euthanasia is completely legal in this thought experiment. An entire devoted Chrisitan family of ten folks resides in the same room as a loved one who looks to be suffering from a chronic and deemed fatal condition. IF a 'giver' exists, then why will these ten folks not agree on the same moment, if any, to proactively end his/her suffering without instead only allowing for 'nature' to take its course? The 'Holy Spirit' is giving them differing input. Why? Before you answer here, please also consider the following...


Scenario 2) The same ten folks are asked if rape is always bad, and if it is ever okay to do it, even if it were legal? They all unanimously answer YES, it should never be done. Seems odd, right? The "Holy Spirit" has the ability to effectively communicate to all ten here, in this "moral" issue. But with other 'moral issues', like the topics mentioned, he is not successful at all? WHY?

First off, your scenario [1] assumes that the family will not unanimously agree...and there is no reason to assume this unless one is trying to conjure up a conflicting paradox to add fire to their own confirmation bias.

I can just as easily give the same scenario with the only difference being; they all agree that the Holy Spirit convinced them to end the suffering.

See, I can play that game as well.

As far as scenario [2], we already have well established Biblical grounds to know that rape is wrong and no true Bible believing Christian should be on the fence about that much.

[POI]

Okay, but this does not apply for this test. The test is to verify <whether or not> an "invisible giver" is actually there to give... Here, you and I appear to be diametrically opposed. Allow me to elaborate...

I fail to see how any answer provided can be meant to verify whether God exists.

Scenario 1) Say euthanasia is completely legal in this thought experiment. An entire devoted Chrisitan family of ten folks resides in the same room as a loved one who looks to be suffering from a chronic and deemed fatal condition. IF a 'giver' exists, then why will these ten folks not agree on the same moment, if any, to proactively end his/her suffering without instead only allowing for 'nature' to take its course? The 'Holy Spirit' is giving them differing input. Why? Before you answer here, please also consider the following...


Scenario 2) The same ten folks are asked if rape is always bad, and if it is ever okay to do it, even if it were legal? They all unanimously answer YES, it should never be done. Seems odd, right? The "Holy Spirit" has the ability to effectively communicate to all ten here, in this "moral" issue. But with other 'moral issues', like the topics mentioned, he is not successful at all? WHY?

First off, your scenario [1] assumes that the family will not unanimously agree...and there is no reason to assume this unless one is trying to conjure up a conflicting paradox to add fire to their own confirmation bias.

I can just as easily give the same scenario with the only difference being; they all agree that the Holy Spirit convinced them to end the suffering.

See, I can play that game as well.

As far as scenario [2], we already have well established Biblical grounds to know that rape is wrong and no true Bible believing Christian should be on the fence about that much.

Ask 10 Christians if rape is wrong, and the answer will be unanimous. The "Holy Spirit" apparently supplies you all with this "intuitive sense", right? This is why the answer is universal about rape. You honestly think euthanasia would fetch the exact same results as rape? I doubt it. "Intuitive senses' would then conveniently differ. And yet, it too is a moral topic, just like rape. And since the "Holy Spirit' supplies you with your "intuitive senses" to know absolute right and absolute wrong, why is the 'Holy Spirit' having such a hard time conveying the same message to all Christians about the absoluteness of euthanasia?

[SiNcE_1985]

Ask 10 Christians if rape is wrong, and the answer will be unanimous. The "Holy Spirit" apparently supplies you all with this "intuitive sense", right? This is why the answer is universal about rape. You honestly think euthanasia would fetch the exact same results as rape? I doubt it. "Intuitive senses' would then conveniently differ.

The intuitiveness comes from, as I said, the Biblical grounds that we already have that rape is wrong.

If the Bible is blatantly clear about something, then we all obviously will be in agreement and unanimous on the decision.

Euthanasia isn't something that was addressed by God (although we have a couple of mercy killings in the Bible).

Since it wasn't addressed, we may/may not be less unanimous...which goes back to prayer and asking the Holy Spirit to guide us as to how our actions can match God's will.

Obviously, if the Bible has God saying "Thou shall not partake in euthanasia. Trust your Lord", then that would reflect our current intuitions just as rape does..and you wouldn't be on here using euthanasia in your little paradox scenario.

And yet, it too is a moral topic, just like rape. And since the "Holy Spirit' supplies you with your "intuitive senses" to know absolute right and absolute wrong, why is the 'Holy Spirit' having such a hard time conveying the same message to all Christians about the absoluteness of euthanasia?

You can ask the same question as many different times you'd like, my answer won't change.

Again, no matter what answer is provided you aren't coming any closer to belief so why an unbeliever would concern him/her self with the inner workings of a religion they don't believe in, is beyond me.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #143]

If you think there is no such thing as any 'objectively moral' topic at all, then the given/provided test may not be a good one for you after all? In which case, I'll await any theists to oblige.

Yes. I think by "theists" one is meaning "specifically Christians".
(I think there is good evidence that ex-christians are still highly influenced by their indoctrination and still carry baggage from that.
Maybe a thread debating such, would be interesting.)

I already gave my answer re you "test".

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #143]

If you think there is no such thing as any 'objectively moral' topic at all, then the given/provided test may not be a good one for you after all? In which case, I'll await any theists to oblige.

Yes. I think by "theists" one is meaning "specifically Christians".
(I think there is good evidence that ex-christians are still highly influenced by their indoctrination and still carry baggage from that.
Maybe a thread debating such, would be interesting.)

I already gave my answer re you "test".

Theists includes Christians, but can include any god -believer, including Deists, 'Agnostics', irreligious theists and sortagoddists such as (I guess) yourself.

The thing is theists address theist arguments, like morality, Cosmic origins, origins of Life, Consciousness and an intervening god (name your own). Christians address more specifically the Bible, which is the basis for saying whis is the right god and religion.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #148]

(I guess)

Yes - Is that a gut feeling or not even?

I think it is not even. It is more pot luck or assumption.

Anyway, is your post an indication that Post #138 lacks pertinent information which would allow one the opportunity not to guess?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #148]

(I guess)

Yes - Is that a gut feeling or not even?

I think it is not even. It is more pot luck or assumption.

Anyway, is your post an indication that Post #138 lacks pertinent information which would allow one the opportunity not to guess?

No.It is based on evidence - assessing what you have posted. You appear to believe in a Cosmic mind (sortagod) but not the Bible. But I don't know for sure. I have to 'guess' rather than assert what I can't be sure of. That's how honesty, integrity and rationality works. It does not (for example) pick up on nit - pick points and try to score cheap irrelevant points rather than address the actual argument.