What is the religious meaning of 'evidence'?

Except, you just said that your morals aren't based on social constructs. That was the whole meaning of asking the Hitler question in the first place.

It's pretty straight forward. It's not a gotcha at all. The 'gotcha' was the checkmate question that you failed, but refuse to acknowledge that you did indeed fail.

Oh? Now all of a sudden, morality isn't simple to define, hmm? Now you're complaining about all the grays in morality - and yet, somehow, morality is subjective. Meaning that me punching you in the face is equivalent to you walking an old lady across the street because... hey... They're subjective. It's whatever I want it to be.

Hitler killing 6 million Jews... "Oh no! Well, that's different because he's causing harm"... "But it's subjective, so, if someone wants to believe he did a good thing, then he's entitled to that." Doesn't mean I have to accept it, right? "There's no such thing as absolute evil. It's all in your head"... This is what you're saying, buddy.

How is it any different? Humans are animals, according to most atheists. Are you suggesting that humans _aren't_ animals?

Except lions and other animals do have a societies of their own. It may be different, but that isn't to say it's irrelevant to our own human cultures.

How? You're telling me rape is subjective. Just come out and admit it. Tell me right now in plain words that rape is subjective. You know that's what you believe.

Yes you have. When you said that you would still believe what Hitler did was evil, even after he would win WWII and convince everyone that what he did was right. You're openly admitting that you'd think totally differently than what society would think. Therefore, your "opinions" operate outside of social views. You admitted it yourself. Are you now backtracking?

But you believe rape is subjective....

Under what basis? What foundation could you make such a claim if rape is subjective to you? Just think about what you're saying...

Oh, but this would be your opinion, because rape is subjective. I sound like a broken record, because you're just repeating the same rhetoric over and over and over.

At this stage, I simply tearing your point-of-view apart. The questions are simply there to reveal what type of person you are. Nothing more.

Right... Once again, you believe rape is subjective. What else more is there to say?

 

"Why are so many people willing to pull the lever to kill the 1 to save the many, but refuse to push 1 person off a bridge for the same result? Can you answer that question? Scientists are baffled."

Erm, okay. Yes, morality and ethics are related.

 

Humanity.
Caring about others. Not infringing on others personal rights. Not harming other humans. Basic human needs forms the basis.

 

Yes. Continue to avoid my question, thus proving my point. You have to feel pretty silly aright about now. Honestly, you do. Don't worry about winning arguments over the Internet. You need to actually question your beliefs and ask yourself what really makes sense to you.

I didn't ask where morality comes from. I asked about its foundation. You're committing the same mistake the last guy has.

I swear, atheists are some of the most illogical people I've ever met. The saddest thing is that they try to use logic to prove their ideals and it just simply back fires.

 

You asked me if morality is about ethics. I clearly replied to you, guy. Get off your self-imposed high horse and read.

 

Miracles are considered evidence, however they have to be confirmed.

 

In Christianity, the Bible is the evidence and the basis for belief. For Christians, the Bible is truth and evidence that Jesus is God. There are some connections that can be made through archaeology and stories in the Bible so there is some 'evidence' that some of the Bible is chronicling actual events of the day. Christianity is based on a certain interpretation of what is written in the Bible.

 

OK. I'll leave you alone. I think I've proven my point.

 

Umm, foundation, where it comes from? What more do you want? Foundation is the base, of everything, almost.
Logic, human, only backfires when one wants to apply non human logic. But hey, we are human.

BTW - dig back though my last 3 yrs of posting to show where I'm an atheist.

 

My understanding is that evidence is how people attempt to find the truth about all non-religious things. Religious people apply a special exception to religion while non-religious people do not. If I asked a stranger to lend me their car to save the world, a reasonable person would be skeptical. They would want to have evidence that the world needs saving and I am not just trying to con them. They would be crazy to lend it to me based only upon me asking them to have faith. With religion, religious people make outlandish claims without any kind of evidence. When it comes to religion, most of my conversations end with the other person asserting that it's a matter of faith. Faith means belief that is not because of evidence, and indeed is meant to stand contrary to evidence. This mode of thinking is not something I can even begin to comprehend. No wise deity would require faith for any kind of merit-based reward.

The bible talking about events that happened does not lend credence to its supernatural claims. The bible really cannot serve as evidence in itself, being only a book. Ancient peoples' wrote loosely historical tall tale books all the time. A book could, I suppose, point the way towards evidence. I would agree that things like miracles would be evidence as MrNick mentioned, but I'm not aware of any well-documented true miracles (and I don't mean eyewitness testimony or books). Miracles as I've heard people declare them are mostly a matter of them having a poor understanding of statistics and science.

Objective morality is an application of logic. There is no opinion about logic - logic only fails with insufficient information. But what is the goal of life? Objective morality relies upon the assumption there is some inherent meaning and purpose to life. On an individual basis, this can only be subjectively defined, but that is an objective fact in itself. Looking at people as a whole, we have certain needs and tendencies and what is moral for us would necessarily cater to those needs and tendencies. So Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews and establish an idealized German empire throughout the world. What makes that wrong? In a society where people can be exterminated for how they are born, and the criteria for exterminating them is baseless, how can anybody feel safe enough to be as productive or happy as possible? The undesirables of today are not always the undesirables of yesterday. If many people cannot be productive or happy, how can the rest of us have all of our desires and needs met? Humanity has so much potential to create, to comfort, to challenge. In the long run, these things are stifled in a society like Nazi Germany, and we are all worse off for it, even the nazis.

The notion that morality comes from a deity is actually immoral, because it cheapens our humanity to be pawns in the grand plan of a supposedly benevolent, superior being. It makes us slaves in one way, and not truly moral in another, since we'd hurt other people if it pleased this god.

In a society where rape is okay, nobody is safe. With this hanging over peoples' heads, we all suffer. The rapist is ill, basically. They have desires that bring injury to both themselves and others. Getting away with it is rarely a sure thing, they put themselves at risk of contracting diseases, and the extent to which they get away with it puts themselves and those they care about at risk of rape. The harm done to the person raped can damage their sex life permanently, and the extend to which rape occurs, the rapist will also be at risk of caring for somebody damaged in that way. Rape hurts another person, and hurting others necessarily opens oneself to being hurt - whether by the law, relatives, killed by the victim defending themselves, buttraped in prison, etc. They also are deprived of being able to look back at their life and imagine they did more good than harm.

 

Love, hate and disgust are all emotions, Emotions may manifest themselves partially as physical feelings but they definitely are not senses. Senses are how we communicate with the outside world. We may react to our senses but the sense is not the reaction.

 

If you're not an atheist, then I apologize.

When I say "foundation" I mean the "What original basis did morality derive from?"

 

You define morality so simply from basic examples. Yet, no one can answer the Trolley Problem. If you can answer the Trolley Problem, then you'll be a heck of a lot wiser than most people answering the morality question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

 

I think someone has already answered that to you. Thousands and thousands of human years trying to live together. It evolved and continues to evolve. Morality that is.

 

The trolley problem is at the discretion of each individual. There is NO objective answer.

 

Where did I say that?

Well I definitely answered it, but from your point of view, of course I failed. You set up a test where you were expecting one of only two narrow outcomes. So by presenting a third outcome, it obviously "failed" your test. Of course, in reality, I didn't fail anything. Pointing out how a test is flawed is a better response than attempting to give a flawed answer.

I never said that morality was simple to define. I only said that it was simple to determine if morality was objective or subjective. And all the "grays in morality" only helps the "morality is subjective" argument.

No, I don't believe there is absolute evil. Of course, most people can agree that a specific act is evil, but the person(s) committing the evil act obviously don't have the same view. Thus, not absolute.

I explained int he very next sentence - "The societal rules followed by humans are not the same as lions or any other animal species".

Of course not. Humans are animals. That doesn't mean that all animal species share the same rules or values. I'm kind of shocked that I even have to explain this - and more than once.

Yes it does. At least in the context of this particular discussion, it is completely irrelevant.

I already have admitted as such. As a society in general (including myself), we believe that rape is horrific and evil. Most of us share that particular value. However, those committing rapes obviously do not. I don't understand the confusion.

Well, ultimately my point was that you wanted me to provide a simple answer to a complex scenario, one which would never happen. Perhaps some of my opinions do operate outside of societal views. Perhaps some of yours do as well. But that wouldn't extend to one's entire moral system.

I haven't backtracked on anything, you're simply making fallacious conclusions.

Again, I already answered this in the very next sentence - "protecting the individual rights of the victim, and preventing unimaginable trauma".

I'm not sure you're really grasping the whole subjective thing. My personal values and opinion about rape aligns with that of society on general. The point is that since the same is obviously not true of the rapist, those values are necessarily subjective.

Far from it. In fact, you seem to have been struggling to even understand my point of view. It's like you're purposely trying to make things as difficult as possible, then either twist my response or put words in my mouth to force it to conform with what you want me to say.

And what type of person do you believe you have "revealed" me to be?

Just that, again, this response implies that you don't seem to grasp what is meant by "subjective".

 

The question is... Why wouldn't people push the man off the bridge? Mostly everyone who is faced with situations like this will not push the man. The only people known to push the man down the bridge are labeled psychopaths. So, why is that? You claim its subjective, yet psychologists say it isn't, because anyone who would decide to push someone off a bridge is a psychopath.

Thanks. I reset my case. That's all I wanted you to say.

 

You are being incredibly dishonest by ignoring my entire post and trying to simplify it as such. You quite obviously are unable to understand what is meant by "subjective".

I sincerely wish that just one person I debate with on this site could manage to muster some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing intellectual honesty. It's disgusting.

 

oli

Uh huh, what psychologists say that? This entire time you've been trying to form the debate so that 1) You come out the victor and 2) You put yourself into a "higher position" of morality. Childish.

And we rest ours. You've made it clear that you weren't looking to have a conversation, but rather you were looking to win one from the start with dishonest framing. and quote mining.

 

What are you talking about?

1) You've already voiced your distaste of having to repeat yourself over and over and over. That's exactly what you did in your last post. I'm actually doing you a favor.

2) You've already admitted to the premise I was trying to make. I even explained to you what it was. Just in case you didn't quite understand; I was essentially calling you an immoral monster by asking you a question you couldn't answer (a checkmate question). You eventually answered the question you originally refused to, and you admitted (by admission of your own words) that you're an immoral monster. What makes you an immoral monster? Well, you think rape is subjective. Rape is wrong, no matter what anyone's opinions are. However, you disagree with this. That's immoral.

I've spoken to you about other topics before. I've come to the conclusion that you do very little research into the things you talk about.

You want to know what psychologists are saying? Here ya go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ

Enjoy!

 

You're giving yourself too much credit. I knew exactly what you were trying to do. Unfortunately for you, your "trap" was laughable, your "checkmate question" was fallacious, and your premise was flawed. I knew that even if you got exactly what you wanted, that it wouldn't mean what you wanted it to mean - which you've just proven, because you still don't understand what I mean by subjective. You're still trying to twist it to fit your broken argument, hence the intellectual dishonesty.

I've already said, multiple times, that I agree that rape is horrific, evil, immoral, wrong, etc. You keep claiming I said "rape is subjective", which is ambiguous and not exactly true. What I said was that morality is subjective, then you brought up rape as an example. (To be clear - yes, back in the thread a bit, I agreed when you asked me to admit that "rape is subjective", but at that point I thought that we might have been on the same page as to what I meant by subjective, which then became clear that we were not.)

At this point, I don't believe that you're ever going to get it. It is common for the religious to do whatever they can to contort the views of those that don't agree with them into predefined categories of what they think the opposition should believe, usually either because that's what is necessary for them grasp the argument within their narrow worldview, or in a fallacious attempt to make the other person's argument look bad and theirs look better, because that's really all they've got. Both are dishonest in different ways, and I think you are guilty of both.

So, given your descent into dishonesty, I am inclined to be done with you, though I will leave you with one more thing to contemplate. This should be all that is necessary to understand (not holding my breath). You don't even have to respond, just think about it...

Does the rapist believe what he is doing is immoral and wrong?

 

Blah blah blah
Should I quote you on what you said? It's a bit too late to backpedal now.

Right... So, you've already admitted rape is subjective. You believe rape is not wrong for everybody. You say, "I think rape is horrific and evil", but then you say, "rape isn't horrific and evil for everybody". So, if another man thought rape was right, you would have NO problem with his worldview, because you believe rape is subjective. Child molestation, according to you, is also subjective. So, if a pedophile thought it was perfectly OK to feel up little girls, you would have no qualms with how he felt - because you believe it's subjective. Just take a step back and listen to yourself.

 

I haven't backpedaled on anything, you just refuse to understand, willfully or otherwise.

If by "rape is not wrong for everybody", you mean, "not everyone thinks that rape is wrong", then yes, that's what I've been saying. This is a completely factual statement, given that people commit rape. Arguing against this fact just makes you look even more silly.

You need to choose your words carefully, as something as simple as rearranging the order of a phrase can vastly change the meaning. Though I suspect that's been your intention this whole time.

Stop (*)(*)(*)(*)ing putting words in my mouth. Never have I said, or even implied, that I have no problem with that worldview. I absolutely have a problem with it, but that in no way negates the fact that there are some people who don't have a problem with it (namely, those committing rape).

Same as above.

All I hear is silence, because I've never said the things you are claiming - not even remotely close.


What could you possibly hope to accomplish by lying? You're just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, and any credibility you thought you had has certainly gone out the window long ago. What's worse is that what you're doing is beyond insulting, since the way you're framing it more or less amounts to saying that I think rape is ok - which is just so unbelievably far off the spectrum from what I actually said. If you can't be honest, why are you even here?

 

Lying? How? You're just talking in circles right now. You're saying exactly what I'm telling you that you're saying, but you feel the need to reword it. You're extremely confused and I dunno how else to make this simple to understand.

If a man thinks rape is OK, then you are fine with the fact that he thinks that way. You don't see a problem with how that man thinks and feels, because you believe how he thinks and feels is subjective. What I'm saying to you, is that your way of thinking is immoral. I can't make it any more simple.

 

What a pleasant person you are.

First off, that's ONE psychologist. Of course somebody like you would take the words of one psychologist and then make a generalized statement that ALL psychologists are saying this. Two, he doesn't say that only psychopaths would push the man, he said it is EASIER for them to do so because they have a disconnect with emotions. What you're doing is akin to taking the statement, "Psychopaths find it easier to break the law," and turning it into "ONLY psychopaths break the law."

Intellectual dishonesty at its height.