Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 3/9

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Continuing a discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.


Continuing a discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.

While you are at it, see my book Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors starring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, and Neil deGrasse Tyson and also my book Reasons for Being An Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide.

eddy eldridge
“if you have evidence for abiogenesis then I guarantee that you will become instantly rich and famous.” Ever heard of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey? Yeah, that’s because proving abiogenesis doesn’t make you rich and famous. That’s NOT how science works and I don’t know where creationists ever got the idea it does. Bill Gates didn’t get rich because of a discovery, he got rich because of an invention AND marketing. If it wasn’t for the latter, that invention wouldn’t have made him a household name nor have made him very much money.
“I have also already read into the subject and the only thing on which scientists agree is that there are many, many theories but no evidence.” Well, that proves you didn’t. There is one theory. There are many hypotheses. There are loads of evidence for the theory, and a little bit for each hypothesis.
“What mostly is meant by “slavery” to us moderners—basically kidnapping people who then work for no pay and are never released—is likened to the crime of murder in the Bible.” The bible says you can buy slaves from other slaves owners. And unless those original slave owners were Hebrew, the bible doesn’t care how they originally got their slaves. If they WERE Hebrew, they could take them as prisoners of war. Those prisoners were never released. Those prisoners fit YOUR definition of a slave.
And children born of slaves? They’re never released either. Female slaves? They’re never released either. And the slaves who are able to go free eventually? The bible very clearly says if you get that slave married, the wife and children are yours, forever, and the male slave can either go free or chose to stay with his family, then he’s yours, forever, too.
And slaves can be passed onto your children. LIKE PROPERTY! You set up a definition of slavery and that is EXACTLY the kind of slaves you get in the bible. You liar.
“why empathy and not enmity” Because enmity would be harmful. If we evolved to be innately hostile to our own kind, we would have died off a LONG time ago. “Your worldview has no answers for that nor can it provide you a premise upon which to chose between them.” No, it clearly does, I don’t know how you think it doesn’t. “Thus, you rely on your tentative interpretation of bio-chemical neural reactions to come to such subjective conclusions.”
Well, no, see these conclusions are OBJECTIVE. We’ve mapped out the brain. We know what does what. We know how to trigger compassion and hostility by messing with people’s brain chemistry. We know, for a fact, that these physical things influence our behavior. And I know people like you don’t like hearing that our minds, the very core of what we are, are nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, but, again, the universe doesn’t owe you the reality you want. Either accept or admit you’d rather live in a fantasy where you have some reason to think souls exist.
“What is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative?” Are you asking for some objective thing for which I based my morals on? Because I don’t know how many different ways I can tell you that there really isn’t one. Every moral conclusion, even your god’s, is subjective. Its their opinion. You may think yours is objective, because its the absolute will of your god, but if you move it back one step, he just tossed his opinion out there, just like everyone else.
Do you think that because its subjective, that we shouldn’t actually TRY for it? That I should eat the orange I don’t like because its in arm’s reach, rather than get up and go across the room just to get the apple I do like?
“to condemn that which they decided to not like but it is illogical for Atheists to do so.” Are you saying they shouldn’t condemn that which they don’t like? Are you saying that’s logical? That if we acknowledge a serial killer is just exerting is own subjective morals, that we shouldn’t exert ours back and try to stop him? That’s absurd.
If your morals cause you to harm anyone, even if its only by telling them a being you have no reason to believe exists DOES exist, my morals tell me that’s harmful to that person, and I deem it more moral to stop you, rather than to let you keep lying to that person. I’m practicing my morals, same as you. Everyone is free to try and practice their morals and everyone else is free to try and stop them, and everyone beyond that is free to try and stop them from stopping the first guy. You need to get your head around this: just because you don’t like the idea of morals being subjective, doesn’t make yours objective.
“If you do not realize that there are different sorts of definitions and that a vocabulary based grammatical definition is insufficient for a philosophical discussion, or theological discussion, etc. then you are simply mistaken” There’s no point in arguing if we can’t even agree what words mean. Same when I tried debating with a wiccan who claim that, to be an atheist, I would have to deny trees exist, because he defined trees as gods.
“you do not want her to treat you based on grammar.” They have pretty standardized texts. Its not like one group of doctors refer to a mild case of the sniffles as cancer. One of the reasons the medical field is as efficient as it is, is because they agree on what words mean. And they don’t let doctors change the definition of cancer, because they want to claim they cured cancer when all they did was wipe someone’s nose.
“How do you know that your subjective morality helps more people and does less harm? Also, you are, yet again, merely authoritative asserting that helping more people and doing less harm is somehow superior but how and why?” The answer to both is observation. I’ve never observed my attempts at helping people end up harming them.
And I deem it superior because people who try to do the opposite either get stopped by the many people in society who disagree with them or because societies based around behaving in a manner counter to my own don’t last very long.
But aren’t your morals fed to you by other people claiming its from a guy you can’t verify is even real, let alone they ever met, and that your morals supposedly is getting you into a place you don’t know is real and keeping you out of another place you also don’t know is real?
I’ve seen the smiles on those peoples’ faces. You haven’t seen heaven, hell, nor God.
“You see your worldview also allows you to authoritatively assert the exact opposite: in fact, many people who share your worldview have done just that.” Not sure what you’re getting at here.
“Why would I argue that my “morality” is objective when I argue that it is subjective?” Then why is it that you deem my morality as being less than yours, simply because its subjective, and then criticize me for saying mine is superior anyway? That’s hypocritical.
“Why would I hate being told that I am not special? I know for a fact that I am not special.” Because you think you’re not special in comparison to God. You still believe that the whole universe was created for you, that you’re a superior life form, second only to the literal divine, that you have something that objectively makes you better than all other life, and that this super being, who is always right, sees some value in you, has your best interest in mind, and that you’re somehow helping this super entity. You do think you’re special, you just think God is so much better. And without God, ALL of that goes away.
“Friend, your follow up point about your friends and slavery just prove…” You say that, but my previous response illustrates otherwise. Its all in the bible, in black and white, but guys like you don’t like the fact that the bible teaches immoral things, so your brain automatically twists it to mean something else, long before the fact that its immoral ever registers in your mind. Its a result of your likely indoctrination.
“How has God condemned anything in absolute terms?” by going so.” How? With threats?
“Conversely, you admit that you condemned thing in subjective, relative, tentative, intrinsic terms which means that your condemnations are impotent and essentially meaningless emotive expressions of bio-chemical reactions.” Yep.
“Now, what makes you think that, according to your own theology, God “just decided what he personally doesn’t like”?” Why is sin bad? Because it sends us to hell. Who decided the rules by which humans get into hell? God. All is supposedly according to his will. So he willed the various sins to be sins, and thus, bad. Without a mind capable of forming opinions, they’re simply actions, neither good nor bad. He decided which actions were bad.
“your worldview fails—fails to even get going” You still haven’t demonstrated how it fails. Only that you don’t like it.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Ken Ammi
Well friend, many scientists are becoming celebs now a days so if you do not think that you can become rich and famous by evidencing abiogenesis then you do not understand how culture works. In any case, you previously claimed that there was evidence for it and now you claim proof. One reason that Miller and Urey did not become rich and famous for “proving abiogenesis” is that they proved no such thing. Thus far, I read Shapiro and I am thinking that our discussion of definitions was on point since I think you may have a different definition of “evidence” than well, everyone else. Evidence is not ideas, guesses, theories nor even experimentation. So, before I waste even more time (although the paper verified that which I already knew), if there is actual evidence within it please quote it.
You do not seem to understand that when, for example, you became so indebted to someone that you could not possibly pay them back they could “buy” you as a “slave” so that you worked off your debt and were then released when it was paid off. But you cannot confuse and compound everything. For example, there were systems of support back then as well as dowry and so a family could “sell” their daughter as a “slave” so as to ensure that she would be well cared for. There are many scenarios and speaking in generic chattel slavery terms such as sell, buy, slave, etc. merely proves that the historical and cultural context is being ignored.
Now, you condemn slavery on merely subjective terms and now you call me a “liar” which is something that you cannot know unless you can read my mind and now you have to provide a premise upon which your worldview allows you to condemn lying: or are we back to the fact that it is merely your personal opinion (based on bio-chemical neural reactions)?
So “enmity would be harmful” but that merely moves the question back one notch to why harm is condemnable so, “What is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative?” Also, you hit upon speciesism by stating “If we evolved to be innately hostile to our own kind…” which is an unjustified preference for members of your own species.
The reason that your worldview has no answers for that nor can it provide you a premise is that your only replies are that you have personally decided to make such claims and they are based on interpretations of bio-chemicals you call thoughts (of course, with “you” also merely being the result of accidental bio-chemical reactions). And you finally admit that I have been correctly assessing your worldview all along by stating, “our minds, the very core of what we are, are nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions” (and I am surprised that you believe in the “mind”). Yet, that is not evidence or proof but you are merely asserting a statement of your “faith” in materialism, naturalism, reductionism, physicalism, etc. And you do so because Atheism is thought restricting and will only allow you to come to such conclusions but the universe does not owe you the reality you want.
Well now we come to an interesting point about choosing to live in a fantasy: you are condemning living in a fantasy but what is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative, that we should not live in a fantasy? After all, the typical Atheist/evolutionist “faith” based answer to why people are theists is that it developed as a Darwinian survival mechanism: so why do you insist on telling people that their Darwinian survival mechanism is wrong? Clearly, since the majority of humanity has been theists then theism is the very best Darwinian survival mechanism that has ever accidentally come about.
What makes you think that God “just tossed his opinion out there, just like everyone else”? My statement about condemning that which they, Atheists, decided to not like is multiphase for example, you do so without an absolute premise which makes their condemnation merely an emotive and impotent reaction. Indeed, “Everyone is free to try and practice their morals and everyone else is free to try and stop them” and may the fittest win, right?
Lastly, how could you even imagine stating that I “don’t like the idea of morals being subjective” when I have been arguing that all along: I am the one who made that statement. You need to get your head around this: just because you do not like the fact that there is a difference between mores and ethos and that one is subjective and the other objective does not make it so.
I have been begging people in this comment section to do that which I noted upfront within the video: forget about “words” and focus on definitions, concepts, such as the demonstrable difference between A and B with A being disagreed upon and B being agreed upon. It is a simple fact of every language that words have more than one meaning and a fact that there are various dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. specifically geared towards different disciplines.
You cannot merely assert on your own subjective brain-fizz authority that helping is better than harm. Just ask social Darwinists and/or eugenicists or the secular cultures that think that death is the best solution to all problems: baby=death, elderly=death, Down Syndrome=death—problems solved!
You then assert that you are right because otherwise “societies…don’t last very long” but why simply invent the idea that duration of existence is any sort of standard? Friend, you are merely making up all sorts of things because your worldview provides you nothing but an empty void and when you are made to face that fact you just throw out anything that comes to mind but it is all mere authoritative assertions.
The undebatable historical fact is that your worldview also allows you to authoritatively assert the exact opposite: in fact, many people who share your worldview have done just that and they mass murdered hundreds of millions because they saw them as useless bio-organisms. They thought that their societies would last longer without them and so: death was the answer.
I in no way deem your morality as being less than mine since they are both subjective so I am unsure why you keep making contextually inaccurate comments such as those. So, first you claim to somehow know that I think that I am special and when you find out that the exact opposite is the fact you do not back away from your demonstrable error but push on.
I am not even sure how any of this matters to you because you believe that nothing caused nothing to explode, you are an accident, you are temporary and very, very, very soon you, everything you have ever though, everything you have ever done, everyone you have ever known will come to literally a meaningless nothing—your worldview guarantees you as much.
“With threats?” it is not surprising that someone who hold to a literally meaningless worldview which only guarantees suffering and death would focus on that.
Now, we are close to getting to the bottom line which is that the answer to “Why is sin bad?” is not “Because it sends us to hell” because then the question becomes why would sinning send us to hell. The fact is that sin is bad because God is holy and sin violates His very nature and essence. We are created in God’s image which is why we are constantly striving for the ethos (you even do it by assuring me that your view is good, right, helpful, etc.) The ethos is that which is at the very core of the godhead as God’s very nature and essence is relational.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.