This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#351C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 2/2/2013 10:45:57 AM(edited)
Alright, this is the last post I feel like I really need to make on the subject at hand. And to start, I want to reiterate that Faust_8 brought up another excellent point, that even scientists will admit that you can't prove much at all; instead, when deciding whether something is true, they go with whichever explanation carries the most explanatory value. If you are waiting for me to prove something, you've come to the wrong topic, and the wrong board. But I think I can demonstrate that atheism doesn't give the best explanatory value for our view of the world.

I think I've made a pretty airtight case for why atheism gives no objective reason to give a solid foundation for any moral statements, to even claim that humans have value. And you guys have fought me every step of the way as I was displaying that, but I think now you understand what I meant from the beginning.

To prove this point, we started with the premise that there is no god. Therefore, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Therefore, the fundamental idea that humans have value cannot even be considered a fact. I know it has made you guys angry for me to say this, but it's not an attack, you just have to admit this if you're going to be intellectually honest: on atheism, human value is imaginary and invented.

However, we don't believe that human value is imaginary. We do believe that human flourishing is good. We do believe that it's always wrong to rape someone regardless of anyone else's personal feelings about it. So if we see that atheism can't explain how we view the world, why not change the premise?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#352ThuggernautzPosted 2/2/2013 12:20:46 PM
C_Mat posted...

However, we don't believe that human value is imaginary. We do believe that human flourishing is good. We do believe that it's always wrong to rape someone regardless of anyone else's personal feelings about it. So if we see that atheism can't explain how we view the world, why not change the premise?


We do. Others don't, others certainly didn't. For example, the vikings, the mongols and my earlier example of Prima Nocta. Further, you seem to keep promoting this idea that 'atheism' has some sort of overarching framework or dogma that each individual must adhere to. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods. Nothing more. There are atheists that believe in a secular objective framework, there are atheists that believe in subjective morality. There are probably some that are completely agnostic on the matter.

Ascribing subjective value to something does not make it meaningless, and comparing it to some objective standard which you can't even show to exist is pointless.
#353Faust_8Posted 2/2/2013 8:14:09 PM
C_Mat posted...
Alright, this is the last post I feel like I really need to make on the subject at hand. And to start, I want to reiterate that Faust_8 brought up another excellent point, that even scientists will admit that you can't prove much at all; instead, when deciding whether something is true, they go with whichever explanation carries the most explanatory value. If you are waiting for me to prove something, you've come to the wrong topic, and the wrong board. But I think I can demonstrate that atheism doesn't give the best explanatory value for our view of the world.


Atheism doesn't attempt to explain anything. Why you continue to think this is beyond me.

Atheism at its core is literally "theism hasn't convinced me." It doesn't try to or even HAVE to explain anything.

I think I've made a pretty airtight case for why atheism gives no objective reason to give a solid foundation for any moral statements, to even claim that humans have value. And you guys have fought me every step of the way as I was displaying that, but I think now you understand what I meant from the beginning.


No we didn't. I also can't believe you still think this. We never claimed we could demonstrate value objectively. We just argued that this doesn't matter because we can in other ways.

To prove this point, we started with the premise that there is no god. Therefore, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Therefore, the fundamental idea that humans have value cannot even be considered a fact. I know it has made you guys angry for me to say this, but it's not an attack, you just have to admit this if you're going to be intellectually honest: on atheism, human value is imaginary and invented.


We've known that all along. And we even got you to admit that it is apparently a perfectly valid way to establish value, so where the flying fudge are you even coming from with this? Isn't this concluded? Or do you view money and practically everything else in your life as valueless?

However, we don't believe that human value is imaginary.


Citation needed.

We do believe that human flourishing is good. We do believe that it's always wrong to rape someone regardless of anyone else's personal feelings about it. So if we see that atheism can't explain how we view the world, why not change the premise?


Atheism doesn't try to explain the world, and you have yet to establish that "everyone thinks rape etc is wrong" is evidence of objectivity. Everyone thinks money has value, does that mean it's an objective fact?

We're of the mindset that people who act according to subjective morality would act the exact same way as those who believe in some higher objective morality, so you pointing to the current state of the world is literally a non-issue with us. In fact, pointing to the current state of the world goes against you, from my perspective, when looking at history and other parts of the world.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while