Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[Ringtone]

Only because you read the Bible like a child for the express purpose of making a children's argument that even you yourself do not believe. If you were any more dishonest your head would implode.

Rational people readily apprehend that moral relativism is inherently contradictory, self-negating. Irrational people fail to apprehend the fact that their very assertion of it proves that the opposite is necessarily true.

Hollie writes:

You can look to the writings of Christianity to see how morality has changed from when Hebrew theology was incorporated into the Bibles. The Bibles are the last place I would look for lectures on morality. The actions of the Christian gods are as immoral as I can describe.​

Laying aside her childish hermeneutics, she claims as a matter of absolute fact that no objective standard of morality exists, yet she simultaneously avers that the actions of the God of the Bible, for example, "are as immoral as I can describe." She unwittingly implies a standard of morality against which we may ascertain the supposed immorality of the God of the Bible.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

 

[Hollie]

Only because you read the Bible like a child for the express purpose of making a children's argument that even you yourself do not believe. If you were any more dishonest your head would implode.

Rational people readily apprehend that moral relativism is inherently contradictory, self-negating. Irrational people fail to apprehend the fact that their very assertion of it proves that the opposite is necessarily true.

Hollie writes:

You can look to the writings of Christianity to see how morality has changed from when Hebrew theology was incorporated into the Bibles. The Bibles are the last place I would look for lectures on morality. The actions of the Christian gods are as immoral as I can describe.​

Laying aside her childish hermeneutics, she claims as a matter of absolute fact that no objective standard of morality exists, yet she simultaneously avers that the actions of the God of the Bible, for example, "are as immoral as I can describe." She unwittingly implies a standard of morality against which we may ascertain the supposed immorality of the God of the Bible.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of reason and rationality which you struggle with, I sought to extend and amplify the fact that your inability to support your earlier claim: “The fundamentals of morality are universally understood” was spectacularly (I suspect rhetorically) incomplete and and you didn’t even allow yourself the ability to begin strolling down that path. So, as long as we commenced the perambulation, let’s take that stroll, shall we? Let us return to your nonsense, unsupported claim: “The fundamentals of morality are universally understood”. This is of course only a tiny subset of your actual confusion and befuddlement. We are social creatures. We did not have to be, and many organisms are excruciatingly solitary. But by dint of our contingent history, we are social creatures.

So, the core reason for your confusion about “The fundamentals of morality are universally understood” is actually about that pressures of community and that we will be held responsible for our choices by our community. Any individual is perfectly free to not care about the morality of our actions. But that choice carries with it accountability (within our social structure) for the consequences. Communities have a vast suite of coercive structures and processes for bringing those consequences to bear, imprisonment being only one of many. In fact, it can be argued that much or most of our legal systems have nothing to do with morality at all, but instead deal with regulation of communities larger than those for which our survival sense originally evolved.

Friendship, love, status, influence, power, respect, recognition, approval, safety… these are resources (emotional and physical) that are either presented or withheld by our communities. And to the extent that we infringe on that community’s shared interests in stability, security, justice and opportunity, the community will respond either formally or informally by presenting or withholding these resources. And make no mistake, for most of us these are needs as fundamental as food and shelter. We have evolved these needs because the communities of humans that value and respond to them have been over the eons more successful than those that did not. These are all hard wired into our biology as survival mechanisms.

Now, what is critical to point out here is that such social coercion need not even be conscious. It is not simply “self interest” that motivates moral behavior, because most of the time there is no conscious consideration of consequences. We do not make each individual moral choice by calculating the risks and benefits to our own interests. We instead already have the hard wired biological template of social behavior that we inherit, and then we overlay on the template the personal tendencies that we learn as we grow. Among the first things we learn is that other people will respond to and reciprocate our own behavior. Experience drives most of us towards socially acceptable behaviors purely out of empathy.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of your nonsense claim, "... we may ascertain the supposed immorality of the God of the Bible.

There is nothing "alleged" about the Noah fable and angry, vicious gods wiping most of humanity from the planet. Call that action ''mass murder" and apply that morality to social structures and what you learned earlier in my post about "pressures of community and that we will be held responsible for our choices by our community".

 

[Hollie]

Search resume for Frank Turek

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Diagnosis: Rank theocrat and Taliban fundie. Relatively standard fare for this Encyclopedia, in other words, but Turek seems to have risen to a position of some prominence in the wingnut community.

 

[ding]

Only because you read the Bible like a child for the express purpose of making a children's argument that even you yourself do not believe. If you were any more dishonest your head would implode.

Rational people readily apprehend that moral relativism is inherently contradictory, self-negating. Irrational people fail to apprehend the fact that their very assertion of it proves that the opposite is necessarily true.

Hollie writes:

You can look to the writings of Christianity to see how morality has changed from when Hebrew theology was incorporated into the Bibles. The Bibles are the last place I would look for lectures on morality. The actions of the Christian gods are as immoral as I can describe.​

Laying aside her childish hermeneutics, she claims as a matter of absolute fact that no objective standard of morality exists, yet she simultaneously avers that the actions of the God of the Bible, for example, "are as immoral as I can describe." She unwittingly implies a standard of morality against which we may ascertain the supposed immorality of the God of the Bible.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of reason and rationality which you struggle with, I sought to extend and amplify the fact that your inability to support your earlier claim: “The fundamentals of morality are universally understood” was spectacularly (I suspect rhetorically) incomplete and and you didn’t even allow yourself the ability to begin strolling down that path. So, as long as we commenced the perambulation, let’s take that stroll, shall we? Let us return to your nonsense, unsupported claim: “The fundamentals of morality are universally understood”. This is of course only a tiny subset of your actual confusion and befuddlement. We are social creatures. We did not have to be, and many organisms are excruciatingly solitary. But by dint of our contingent history, we are social creatures.

So, the core reason for your confusion about “The fundamentals of morality are universally understood” is actually about that pressures of community and that we will be held responsible for our choices by our community. Any individual is perfectly free to not care about the morality of our actions. But that choice carries with it accountability (within our social structure) for the consequences. Communities have a vast suite of coercive structures and processes for bringing those consequences to bear, imprisonment being only one of many. In fact, it can be argued that much or most of our legal systems have nothing to do with morality at all, but instead deal with regulation of communities larger than those for which our survival sense originally evolved.

Friendship, love, status, influence, power, respect, recognition, approval, safety… these are resources (emotional and physical) that are either presented or withheld by our communities. And to the extent that we infringe on that community’s shared interests in stability, security, justice and opportunity, the community will respond either formally or informally by presenting or withholding these resources. And make no mistake, for most of us these are needs as fundamental as food and shelter. We have evolved these needs because the communities of humans that value and respond to them have been over the eons more successful than those that did not. These are all hard wired into our biology as survival mechanisms.

Now, what is critical to point out here is that such social coercion need not even be conscious. It is not simply “self interest” that motivates moral behavior, because most of the time there is no conscious consideration of consequences. We do not make each individual moral choice by calculating the risks and benefits to our own interests. We instead already have the hard wired biological template of social behavior that we inherit, and then we overlay on the template the personal tendencies that we learn as we grow. Among the first things we learn is that other people will respond to and reciprocate our own behavior. Experience drives most of us towards socially acceptable behaviors purely out of empathy.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of your nonsense claim, "... we may ascertain the supposed immorality of the God of the Bible.

There is nothing "alleged" about the Noah fable and angry, vicious gods wiping most of humanity from the planet. Call that action ''mass murder" and apply that morality to social structures and what you learned earlier in my post about "pressures of community and that we will be held responsible for our choices by our community".

You prove you believe in absolute morals with every argument you make. Thank you.

 

[Ringtone]

You prove you believe in absolute morals with every argument you make. Thank you.

Zoom Right over.

 

[Hollie]

You prove you believe in absolute morals with every argument you make. Thank you.

Zoom Right over.

Awww. They're so cute when they're stuttering and mumbling.

Frogs croacking

 

[ding]

You prove you believe in absolute morals with every argument you make. Thank you.

Zoom Right over.

Awww. They're so cute when they're stuttering and mumbling.

Frogs croacking

I couldn't have described your post any better, my dear.

May the Buddha be with you.

 

[BreezeWood]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.
convincing yourself of a fallacy does not create a substantiation but rather a delusional sense of value where there is non.

as that conviction there is not a distinction of equality between good and evil and the divergent possibilities each represents as a final destination would preclude you and your religion to ever triumph over either as the means from antiquity to free your spirit for admission to the Everlasting. having triumphed correctly.

the resultant consequence between good and evil will remain unabated for the duration of the universe.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.
convincing yourself of a fallacy does not create a substantiation but rather a delusional sense of value where there is non.

as that conviction there is not a distinction of equality between good and evil and the divergent possibilities each represents as a final destination would preclude you and your religion to ever triumph over either as the means from antiquity to free your spirit for admission to the Everlasting. having triumphed correctly.

the resultant consequence between good and evil will remain unabated for the duration of the universe.

Sounds like you are arguing against absolute morals but I can't tell because you always speak in code.

 

[BreezeWood]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.
convincing yourself of a fallacy does not create a substantiation but rather a delusional sense of value where there is non.

as that conviction there is not a distinction of equality between good and evil and the divergent possibilities each represents as a final destination would preclude you and your religion to ever triumph over either as the means from antiquity to free your spirit for admission to the Everlasting. having triumphed correctly.

the resultant consequence between good and evil will remain unabated for the duration of the universe.

Sounds like you are arguing against absolute morals but I can't tell because you always speak in code.

.

Sounds like you are arguing against absolute morals but I can't tell because you always speak in code.

.
there are absolutes between one or the other in triumph however the divergence of good and evil being equal precludes a set standard otherwise - in accordance from antiquity.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

.
convincing yourself of a fallacy does not create a substantiation but rather a delusional sense of value where there is non.

as that conviction there is not a distinction of equality between good and evil and the divergent possibilities each represents as a final destination would preclude you and your religion to ever triumph over either as the means from antiquity to free your spirit for admission to the Everlasting. having triumphed correctly.

the resultant consequence between good and evil will remain unabated for the duration of the universe.

Sounds like you are arguing against absolute morals but I can't tell because you always speak in code.

.

Sounds like you are arguing against absolute morals but I can't tell because you always speak in code.

.
there are absolutes between one or the other in triumph however the divergence of good and evil being equal precludes a set standard otherwise - in accordance from antiquity.

Everything God created is good. Clearly you must not believe that.

 

[Ringtone]

.
there are absolutes between one or the other in triumph however the divergence of good and evil being equal precludes a set standard otherwise - in accordance from antiquity.

Do you speak English?

 

[Ringtone]

.
convincing yourself of a fallacy does not create a substantiation but rather a delusional sense of value where there is non.

as that conviction there is not a distinction of equality between good and evil and the divergent possibilities each represents as a final destination would preclude you and your religion to ever triumph over either as the means from antiquity to free your spirit for admission to the Everlasting. having triumphed correctly.

the resultant consequence between good and evil will remain unabated for the duration of the universe.

Dude, seriously, what language are you speaking?

 

[badger2]

Wow, #8 is truly mad.

 

[Ringtone]

Wow, #8 is truly mad.

Really? Perhaps you can tell us why . . . after you correctly state in your own words what he's asserting.

 

[Hollie]

Wow, #8 is truly mad.

Really? Perhaps you can tell us why . . . after you correctly state in your own words what he's asserting.

You're misappropriating your various apprehensions.

 

[Blues Man]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

There is no moral truth.

Morals are a human concept. And as human societies become similar, the more their behaviors and attitudes will align.

That this happens is not necessarily proof that there is some absolute moral code floating in the ether but rather it demonstrates that humans are far more alike than they are different

So there are no moral absolutes, except the moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes?

crickets chirping

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone..

So what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and by what means do you make this distinction?

There are no moral absolutes.

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't right?

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

If a person kills my wife and I then find him and kill him our society says that's wrong.
If the cops find him and the state kills him that's not wrong. But we as a society can't even agree if capital punishment is right or wrong as some states have banned it and others haven't.

The government can send me to a foreign country and tell me to kill people and that's OK but if I go to that foreign country of my own volition and kill foreign soldiers that's wrong.

And in that other thread I believe I was talking about self defense. Some pacifists will not even kill in self defense. Personally I don't think killing in self defense is wrong.

And in that at least there has been agreement throughout history.

So in light of these contradictions what is the moral absolute on killing?

It's pretty clear to me that there isn't one.

 

[Blues Man]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

There is no bad. There is only good. By any objective measure existence is good. Go ahead and do a full accounting. What you perceive as bad is..

1. the absence of good
2. completely overstated
3. tiny in comparison to what is good

Arguing neutrality is a shade of grey that has no bearing on the self evident truth that existence is good.

Again good is a subjective assessment imposed by humans on the world.

Good and bad have no meaning to the universe.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

What behaviors are those?

 

[Blues Man]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

There is no moral truth.

Morals are a human concept. And as human societies become similar, the more their behaviors and attitudes will align.

That this happens is not necessarily proof that there is some absolute moral code floating in the ether but rather it demonstrates that humans are far more alike than they are different

So there are no moral absolutes, except the moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes?

crickets chirping

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone..

So what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and by what means do you make this distinction?

Yes, I am very curious about his answers too. It seems that good and bad do have meaning to him and he is part of the universe.

So you are so arrogant as to think your thoughts are the thoughts of the universe?

We are nothing when compared to the vastness of the universe. Humans have been in existence for 200000 years or so. That is nothing compared to the age of the universe.

and what you don't seem to grasp is the concept that what I have been conditioned to think is right or wrong is not necessarily the same things other people, past present or future have or will have been conditioned to believe are right or wrong.