Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Value Collector said:

My whole point on objective morality is that in any given situation there is an objective moral action, however without knowing all the information it's not always possible to work out what that action is, but we should always do our best to work out what that correct moral action is, even though obviously die to lack of information we will sometimes be wrong.

Click to expand...

In that case I suppose the only way to find out the objective moral action is to ask God.

luutzu said:

The dropping of the nukes have nothing, or very little, to do with saving the US troops. .

Click to expand...

Official American estimates of allied troops losses in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000.

So even the most conservative estimates of likely allied losses outnumbered the actual losses of Japanese from the nukes, add the that the Japanese losses, I really think it would have been a blood bath,

I know you think the Japanese only surrendered because of the soviets, but do you really think the soviets with their rifles are scarier than nuclear weapons? If the Japanese truly weren't phased by the nukes, why would they be phased by the soviets?

SirRumpole said:

In that case I suppose the only way to find out the objective moral action is to ask God.

Click to expand...

So far he is MIA,

But, as I have said the best way is to figure out some logical things to base it on eg wellbeing as I have explained, and then use logic and reasoning to figure out the best likely out comes.

Religious people like to claim they don't use logic and reasoning to figure out their opinions, but they do, they just use the faulty premise of biblical teachings and what they think their god wants, rather than actually thinking about the well being of humans and other thinking creatures.

Some of them actually preach that suffering is good, Mother teresa was seen as a good person, even though she let sick people suffer and denied basic medical treatment, because she believed allowing the people in her care to suffer brought them closer to god

Value Collector said:

Official American estimates of allied troops losses in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000.

Click to expand...

That assumes that an invasion of Japan was the only option. Containment by embargoes, naval blockades etc could have been effective with much less casualties on either side. But by then the Yanks had blood in their eyes and were only interested in revenge.

SirRumpole said:

In that case I suppose the only way to find out the objective moral action is to ask God.

Click to expand...

Whilst wearing my theist cap, I might be tempted to agree, but my critical thinking cap, is compelling me to disagree.

Your presumably "tongue in cheek" assertion, if taken literally, would be dangerously akin, to certain anti theists' claims, regarding the "only rational" choice of belief/disbelief system.

However, rest assured, I have not overlooked the emoticons, and my theistic side is quite amused by the cute way in which your suggestion was presented.

SirRumpole said:

That assumes that an invasion of Japan was the only option. Containment by embargoes, naval blockades etc could have been effective with much less casualties on either side. But by then the Yanks had blood in their eyes and were only interested in revenge.

Click to expand...

Do you understand that Australian soldiers were being killed in New Guinea right up until the surrender ? in fact Australia units had casualties after the surrender, The book I just finished reading about just 1 commando unit listed 15 casualties after the Japanese government had surrendered, and this was even though the Australian units had been told to stop all advancement and just sit in defence positions.

So to think that the Japanese were all nicely penned up, and the war was ending regardless is a fallacy in my opinion, do you really think Germany would have surrendered if we stopped at the border of France and just yelled across the river "Give up, you are surrounded" of course not, neither would have Japan.

o you really think Germany would have surrendered if we stopped at the border of France and just yelled across the river "Give up, you are surrounded" of course not, neither would have Japan.

Click to expand...

Who knows, but it would have been worth a try to avoid casualties. But as I said, revenge is a certainly a motive for destruction.

SirRumpole said:

Who knows, but it would have been worth a try to avoid casualties. But as I said, revenge is a certainly a motive for destruction.

Click to expand...

It would have given them time to rebuild build, rearm and boost morale of their people.

Fascinating that professed atheists enter into an ontological argument by creating a God persona in their own minds as a basis to discredit and refute that same fictional God. Bootstrap antagonism or wot!!

Debating the existence of the non existence either has to have a lie in there somewhere or insanity is in play.

cynic said:

Another pro securalism article that somehow fails to recognise that it has logically undermined its own logical basis for belief!
Will the entertainment never cease?!

Click to expand...

Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.

You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.

I expressed how we can have purpose before when I gave one simple example of "wanting to live life without fear" and the morality of the golden rule (a secular construct) would be the best way of achieving that goal, and determining whether actions were right or wrong would be based on whether they complied with the golden rule or not. The Scientific American article gave another example, which you simply laughed off. In reference to William Lane Craig's assertion that non-believers living in a universe without purpose and which will eventually end should not care that there is torture in this world, the response from his debating opponent was: “This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the eternal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them, it matters to their family, and it matters to us.”

You are trapped in a fallacious paradox, just like Zeno and his Dichotomy Paradox (infinite number of halved distances). You are like Zeno arguing with his fellow philosophers that it is impossible for them to walk from their homes to the temple because of the Dichotomy Paradox. His fellow philosophers laugh in bemused amusement, because they have just done that this morning and have done it every morning for the past several years.

You see secularists do have morality and do know how to differentiate right from wrong. It is a fact. The morality of secularism is there in the writings of the great philosophers and humanists. Your claims of the impossibility of that is absurd, just like Zeno's claim.

But what we haven't seen is any example of non secular morality. Grah suggested that it is revealed to us through prayer (or words to that effect). Yet we have not seen any example of this morality that differs from the secular morality of the time. The morality of those who pray is no different to those who do not pray as far as I can see. The popes and church leaders involved in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the torture and burning of so-called witches no doubt prayed, but still managed to commit vile acts. They reason they could do such acts is not because they had some special morality revealed to them, but because they used examples from the OT Scriptures as a guide rather than their own secular morality and humanity. We see the same within Islam. The justification for atrocities is based on the writings of Mohammed.

You see there is only secular morality. That which we as humans have developed over our evolutionary existence. Imperfect, but we are always striving to perfect it. We have purpose in our own lives and so do not need to invent some designing agent to imbue us with purpose. We have seen no new morality emanating from those who claim there is a designing agent. All they have ever given us is a regurgitation of what we already know to be morally correct.

I am really done arguing this issue. You can act like Zeno and insist that what we actually have and demonstrate on a daily basis is impossible for us to have. Until you free yourself from that fallacious paradox argument is pointless.

Interesting conversation between a vegan and a Christian, kind of shows how theism can be a road block in a conversation about morality, rather than trying to use logic to defend his position the theist just digs his heels in on a bible verse.

Value Collector said:

Interesting conversation between a vegan and a Christian, kind of shows how theism can be a road block in a conversation about morality, rather than trying to use logic to defend his position the theist just digs his heels in on a bible verse.

Click to expand...

People's morality can be warped by a lot of things, their religion, military indoctrination, loyalty to comrades, patriotism, devotion to a profession, all sorts of environmental , cultural and professional factors can distort a person's inane sense of what is right and wrong.

Atheists who ridicule religious people (rightly in some cases) just aren't aware that their own indoctrinated biases are distorting their moral systems in favour of what they are trained to see as a greater good; military victory for example.

People who have these biases have lost the ability to judge the morality of their actions, or those of their kind, because the whole point of military training is to remove morality and replace it with discipline, unthinking obedience and loyalty to their superiors.

Rather like a religion really.

bellenuit said:

Isn't it obvious. All of my comments that had extracts from the OT highlighted in bold those parts that described the rape of young virgins and the slaughter of innocents, particularly infants.

Click to expand...

http://biblehub.com/jonah/4-11.htm


There you go. I got this from googling a little. A verse where God expresses compassion and reluctance to kill infants in the same kind of event (Nineveh). You're wrong about God.


Suppose God was aborting all those children (something condemned by the NT and OT). Are you going to say He acted against His morality, or committed a war crime? All commentators agree that this doesn't apply to God, and for good reasons. As an example, if I aborted e.g. baby dogs in a pound (inferior life forms to me), nobody would call me a murderer. So if the Eternal chooses to take lives that aren't equal to Him (created by Him), then He can do that if He wants to.


Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies. Nobody would call me immoral for doing that, and this is because they aren't equal to me.


Regards the rapes, i've dealt with that, and there is a little more but I think it's a waste of time. You seem too sure in your understandings of the OT.


And yes, Christians and Jews find the God of the OT to be the same today. When there is no morality, we are concerned that destruction may come. There may be quite a few people of various backgrounds that are delighted to see secular morality on the rise. They think it leads to getting conquered (from what I saw on the net)

bellenuit said:

Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.

You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.

I expressed how we can have purpose before when I gave one simple example of "wanting to live life without fear" and the morality of the golden rule (a secular construct) would be the best way of achieving that goal, and determining whether actions were right or wrong would be based on whether they complied with the golden rule or not. The Scientific American article gave another example, which you simply laughed off. In reference to William Lane Craig's assertion that non-believers living in a universe without purpose and which will eventually end should not care that there is torture in this world, the response from his debating opponent was: “This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the eternal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them, it matters to their family, and it matters to us.”

You are trapped in a fallacious paradox, just like Zeno and his Dichotomy Paradox (infinite number of halved distances). You are like Zeno arguing with his fellow philosophers that it is impossible for them to walk from their homes to the temple because of the Dichotomy Paradox. His fellow philosophers laugh in bemused amusement, because they have just done that this morning and have done it every morning for the past several years.

You see secularists do have morality and do know how to differentiate right from wrong. It is a fact. The morality of secularism is there in the writings of the great philosophers and humanists. Your claims of the impossibility of that is absurd, just like Zeno's claim.

But what we haven't seen is any example of non secular morality. Grah suggested that it is revealed to us through prayer (or words to that effect). Yet we have not seen any example of this morality that differs from the secular morality of the time. The morality of those who pray is no different to those who do not pray as far as I can see. The popes and church leaders involved in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the torture and burning of so-called witches no doubt prayed, but still managed to commit vile acts. They reason they could do such acts is not because they had some special morality revealed to them, but because they used examples from the OT Scriptures as a guide rather than their own secular morality and humanity. We see the same within Islam. The justification for atrocities is based on the writings of Mohammed.

You see there is only secular morality. That which we as humans have developed over our evolutionary existence. Imperfect, but we are always striving to perfect it. We have purpose in our own lives and so do not need to invent some designing agent to imbue us with purpose. We have seen no new morality emanating from those who claim there is a designing agent. All they have ever given us is a regurgitation of what we already know to be morally correct.

I am really done arguing this issue. You can act like Zeno and insist that what we actually have and demonstrate on a daily basis is impossible for us to have. Until you free yourself from that fallacious paradox argument is pointless.

Click to expand...

When someone creates arguments against misconstruances, or misunderstandings, of another's arguments, one does both, oneself and the author of the misrepresented material, a serious injustice.

I do recognise, the existence of paradoxes, in arguments presented by, both myself, and my opponents,past and present, in this debate.

What I do not recognise, is the existence, of the particular paradox of which I am currently accused. It also seems that, in addition to the fallacious "fallacious paradox" accusation, there are yet further arguments, throughout the subsequent paragraphs, against claims that were never actually made. (The future practice of quoting the various posts that one is contesting, would be helpful in the accounting, and resolution, of any misunderstandings that may have occurred.)

The Zeno analogy has now been offered, in support of an argument, against a point, that was certainly never made. (Despite having, on at least one prior occasion, made a genuine effort, to draw attention to the existence of an important distinction, of a, comparatively complemental, argument, it seems my efforts, in that regard, may have been in vain.)

Purpose, as a noun is defined as: "intention"
Accident, as a noun is defined as: "a mishap"
By the very definition of the words themselves, accidents of existence, being unintended, cannot be rightly said to possess purpose!

I reiterate, in the seemingly vain hope of resolving a persistent misunderstanding, that the contemporary secular viewpoint, if true, deprives our universe of purpose, and therefore morality cannot truly, and objectively, exist due to the impossibility of objectively deeming the correctness (or lack thereof) of any behaviours of any of the inherently accidental outcomes. Morality, by the very definition of the word cannot be truly said to be subjective. Even if I were to entertain the notion of arbitrarily derived morality, due to its subjective nature, it would invite the possibility of multiple conflicting moralities!

How can it be moral to design a subjective "pseudo morality" knowing that the pursuance of same, will,almost certainly, give rise to the emergence of multiple "pseudo moral" crusades?
Please, please,please, understand that this is most definitely not saying, that subscription to secularism excludes the secularist from the moral populace!
What it is saying, is that, if the contemporary secular viewpoint turns out to be true, then morality cannot truly exist for any member of the human populace, irrespective of chosen system of belief or disbelief! Either, everybody has the availability of morality (in the event contemporary secular belief is incorrect) or nobody has such availability (in the event that contemporary secular belief is correct).

In the interests of being clear, I am most certainly saying that, belief in the existence of morality is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint.
However, I most certainly am not saying that, subscribers to the contemporary secular viewpoint, are devoid of morality!

The irony, of a publication labelled "Scientific American", featuring a highly prejudiced article, centering around a scant few "cherry picked" quotes, from a 90+ minutes debate, seems to have escaped your attention!

Those willing to attentively, and objectively, view the full debate, will likely recognise that there were reasonably good arguments, presented by both parties, to that debate, and that neither party could rightly claim, to have delivered a perfect, "error free" performance.

In his closing summation, Kagan, himself, (correctly in my opinion), acknowledged that the question around which the debate centred, hadn't been settled in that debate, and he further opined that it was a topic that couldn't be settled within that debate's time constraints (i.e. 90 minutes).

So before making the error of committing to belief, in a "Subjective" American, opinion piece, (presumably by reason of one's intense desire for the published opinion to be true), at the very least do oneself some justice, by performing some fact checking prior to proudly presenting, aforementioned, highly prejudiced, opinion piece, as evidence supportive of one's chosen religion.

SirRumpole said:

because the whole point of military training is to remove morality and replace it with discipline, unthinking obedience and loyalty to their superiors.

Click to expand...

Have you ever served in the military?

I can’t say any training I ever did was to remove morality.

Value Collector said:

Have you ever served in the military?

I can’t say any training I ever did was to remove morality.

Click to expand...

They teach you to kill without remorse don't they ?

SirRumpole said:

They teach you to kill without remorse don't they ?

Click to expand...

Saying that the army teaches you to kill without remorse, is like saying a school of karate teaches you to bash people up.

Obviously anyone that said some thing like “a school of karate just trains people to go beat people up” probably has no idea about what actually goes on in a school of karate, I see your comment as being similar to that.

Value Collector said:

Official American estimates of allied troops losses in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000.

So even the most conservative estimates of likely allied losses outnumbered the actual losses of Japanese from the nukes, add the that the Japanese losses, I really think it would have been a blood bath,

I know you think the Japanese only surrendered because of the soviets, but do you really think the soviets with their rifles are scarier than nuclear weapons? If the Japanese truly weren't phased by the nukes, why would they be phased by the soviets?

Click to expand...

Official estimates on such matters are made to serve the state. i.e. justify its heroic deeds and noble intentions.

The Nazi surrendered to the Soviets and the Allied right? No nukes where needed for Hitler to fall.

Since the Soviets were first into Berlin, half of Germany became theirs. So did everything East of Berlin. That and a few truckloads of German's best scientists and engineers.

The US and Allied got the other half.

So as not to repeat that mistake and get the entire colony all unto itself, a couple of cities will have to be sacrificed. Everything else afterwards are justification.

I mean, Japan is an archipelago of islands. It was then an impressive, dominant, technological centre of Asia. One capable of kicking practically all of the old European powers out of Asia. Sure it weren't all Imperial Japan's doing as the natives also fight against their colonial masters, but Imperial Japan was on par with other world powers.

So within that there would be a few technical genius like that of Nazi Germany.

To take Japan (and Korea) whole serves a lot of strategic motives. The world hate imperial Japan for its war crimes so nobody is going to question the legal or morality of a nuke or two.

It was a perfect target on all measure. Except the moral one. But that's what certain historians, Hollywood and the press are for.

luutzu said:

Official estimates on such matters are made to serve the state. i.e. justify its heroic deeds and noble intentions.

The Nazi surrendered to the Soviets and the Allied right? No nukes where needed for Hitler to fall.

Since the Soviets were first into Berlin, half of Germany became theirs. So did everything East of Berlin. That and a few truckloads of German's best scientists and engineers.

The US and Allied got the other half.

So as not to repeat that mistake and get the entire colony all unto itself, a couple of cities will have to be sacrificed. Everything else afterwards are justification.

I mean, Japan is an archipelago of islands. It was then an impressive, dominant, technological centre of Asia. One capable of kicking practically all of the old European powers out of Asia. Sure it weren't all Imperial Japan's doing as the natives also fight against their colonial masters, but Imperial Japan was on par with other world powers.

So within that there would be a few technical genius like that of Nazi Germany.

To take Japan (and Korea) whole serves a lot of strategic motives. The world hate imperial Japan for its war crimes so nobody is going to question the legal or morality of a nuke or two.

It was a perfect target on all measure. Except the moral one. But that's what certain historians, Hollywood and the press are for.

Click to expand...

Dude germany is a perfect example.

Over 400,000 people died on both sides during operation overlord, that was the D-day landings and the initial push forward over the next 2 months.

And that was just the western front, the Soviet’s lost over a million pushing forward on the eastern front.

Hundreds of thousands died in the operations after overlord, over 100,000 died in the battle of Berlin alone.

SirRumpole said:

They teach you to kill without remorse don't they ?

Click to expand...

They can't teach anyone that. People are quite humane and can't be taught to go against their human nature. Well there are exceptions but...

What they'd do is what our politicians and most news media does to us. Tell the troops how evil the enemy is; show examples of their evil deeds; sometimes without context, sometimes just an honest viewing.

Then the soldiers' own patriotism will take care of the rest.

But to make sure that things get done when patriotism and news clipping isn't enough, they're pushed into situations where there's no other choice really.