Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

Tink, you are a very dishonest person,

Firstly, again you have brought up moral relivatism when I have already corrected you and said I don't agree with that and that I believe in objective morality.

You also are trying to say Christian moral teachings don't change, this is a load of rubbish, your club used to support slavery and the bible supports slavery, now it doesn't.

-----------------

Rumpole,

Read the start of tinks post, it proves my point about how religion slows the progress and hinders. Moral advancement.

 

[Tink]

OK, you don't believe in moral relativism, whats the difference?

Read the history.

The Christian teachings abolished slavery.
Yes, there may have been slaves, but they were made to be treated respectfully.

This is where you bring up all this rubbish about our Christian Bible.
You don't have to believe it, but it is what set up these countries.

We are not going back to this conversation.

 

[SirRumpole]

Can you name some things the churches have done?

People like Fred Nile have been campaigning on the temperence issue for a long time but I think that because he is a religious person people can easily dismiss him as a wowser, even though the stats surrounding damage due to alcohol bear out his views.

To put my view clearly I hope, there are many things on which I disagree with the churches, including most of the Old Testament and the Koran, the church's attitude towards contraception, voluntary euthanasia and homosexuality and putting forward creation myths unsupported by evidence, BUT I think that to have a balanced society we need a diversity of views and we can make judgements on each of those views on their merits and not just say "oh he is a Christian (or a Muslim) so his views don't count ".

In the case of alcohol and gambling abuse I happen to agree with the churches view that they are bad for society. Are you disagreeing with this view just to stick it up religion ?

How many of the pollies are declare atheists?

I've no idea, you made the assertion that most are religious, you provide the evidence.

 

[Value Collector]

People like Fred Nile have been campaigning on the temperence issue for a long time but I think that because he is a religious person people can easily dismiss him as a wowser, even though the stats surrounding damage due to alcohol bear out his views.

To put my view clearly I hope, there are many things on which I disagree with the churches, including most of the Old Testament and the Koran, the church's attitude towards contraception, voluntary euthanasia and homosexuality and putting forward creation myths unsupported by evidence, BUT I think that to have a balanced society we need a diversity of views and we can make judgements on each of those views on their merits and not just say "oh he is a Christian (or a Muslim) so his views don't count ".

In the case of alcohol and gambling abuse I happen to agree with the churches view that they are bad for society. Are you disagreeing with this view just to stick it up religion ?



I've no idea, you made the assertion that most are religious, you provide the evidence.

Religious people are entitled to their opinion and can speak out publically just as anyone can, What I am not in favor of is giving a religious persons opinion extra weight just because they are religious or because they can point to passages from the bibles or qu'ran.

I agree that alcohol or gambling abuse are bad, just like the abuse of anything is bad. I don't think the answer is more taxes though, there is a point where the risk of certain activities is out weighed by the reward. If someone genuinely feels their life is improved by drinking alcohol, who am I to stop them.

If at age 16, you were given a deal by a genie, that if you ate nothing but brown rice and drank nothing but water, he would guarantee you would live to 100, would take the deal?

I thought about this and said no, I will eat what I like within reason and drink what I like within reason, enjoy life and take the risk of maybe an earlier death, perhaps I will live to 100 anyway, and live a better life.

Now where things activities put others at risk, there is a problem, and that's where we need to focus attention, reducing the impact on innocent people, drink driving is bad, violent behaviour is bad, I think education is the best way to change behaviour.

 

[SirRumpole]

Religious people are entitled to their opinion and can speak out publically just as anyone can, What I am not in favor of is giving a religious persons opinion extra weight just because they are religious or because they can point to passages from the bibles or qu'ran.

Neither am I , the merit of their argument counts not what their religion is.

Now where things activities put others at risk, there is a problem, and that's where we need to focus attention, reducing the impact on innocent people, drink driving is bad, violent behaviour is bad, I think education is the best way to change behaviour.

As I mentioned before, education programs are expensive and don't work . We had the "Life be in it" campaign years ago and obesity rates haven't changed.

At least try shutting pubs at midnight and see what happens, what is there to lose ?

Having RBT camped in the parking areas of clubs and pubs might help too but the alcohol lobby seems to have shut this down.

 

[Value Collector]

OK, you don't believe in moral relativism, whats the difference?

.

Moral relativism - is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

This is the straw man moral belief system that religious people try and say you must believe if you don't believe in gods.

Objective Morality - Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true, meaning in any given situation there is an action which would be the most moral, and that option exists regardless of opinion, based on a set of principles that exist, but which we are discovering over time.

 

[SirRumpole]

Objective Morality - Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true, meaning in any given situation there is an action which would be the most moral, and that option exists regardless of opinion, based on a set of principles that exist, but which we are discovering over time.

So are you saying that there is a scientific law of morality like there are laws of science that can be proved to be true by experiment ?

Can you give examples ?

 

[Value Collector]

So are you saying that there is a scientific law of morality like there are laws of science that can be proved to be true by experiment ?

I believe a set of general moral principles can be put together through sound logic and reasoning (we may be wrong and need to make changes and adjustments, just like anything though) and once we have some of these general principles we need to weigh action against them to try and get as close to the best outcome as we can based on the information we have.

Can you give examples?

Through logic and reasoning, we come to the conclusion that a moral principle is

"Good Health is preferred to Poor Health"

Now we know through science that pouring battery acid into some ones throat would reduce their over all Health, So based on the facts, we can determine that forciblely pouring Battery acid down some ones throat would be immoral.

But we can't just make an absolute moral rule (like the religions prefer) that pouring battery acid down some ones throat is immoral, because in some medical situation in might be needed and be the most moral thing to do, or if the person wants to do it to them selves, the moral principle that "freedom is preferred to non freedom" might out weigh the other moral principle.

 

[Tisme]

The Christian teachings abolished slavery.
.

Only in Christian countries Tink

 

[Tisme]

Tink, you are a very dishonest person,

Firstly, again you have brought up moral relivatism when I have already corrected you and said I don't agree with that and that I believe in objective morality.

You also are trying to say Christian moral teachings don't change, this is a load of rubbish, your club used to support slavery and the bible supports slavery, now it doesn't.

-----------------

Rumpole,

Read the start of tinks post, it proves my point about how religion slows the progress and hinders. Moral advancement.

Unnecessary slur on Tink VC = poor form.

Not sure the old testament supported slavery as opposed to servitude contracts, which is pretty much what an employment contract is these days and a willing population by and large.

 

[Value Collector]

Unnecessary slur on Tink VC = poor form.

:

what better word than dishonest describes her when she constantly repeats the same rubbish after being corrected multiple times. Saying I believe something when I keep saying I don't, she is either trying to defame me by being dishonest, or not being honest with herself, either way it fits.

Not sure the old testament supported slavery as opposed to servitude contracts, which is pretty much what an employment contract is these days and a willing population by and large.:rolleyes

You boss can't beat you within an inch of your life, and the boss doesn't own your children and your wife.

Its funny to me how religious people make out they are the height of morality, then they go on and rationalise slavery, lol

 

[SirRumpole]

I believe a set of general moral principles can be put together through sound logic and reasoning (we may be wrong and need to make changes and adjustments, just like anything though) and once we have some of these general principles we need to weigh action against them to try and get as close to the best outcome as we can based on the information we have.



Through logic and reasoning, we come to the conclusion that a moral principle is

"Good Health is preferred to Poor Health"

Now we know through science that pouring battery acid into some ones throat would reduce their over all Health, So based on the facts, we can determine that pouring Battery acid down some ones throat would be immoral.

But we can't just make an absolute moral rule (like the religions prefer) that pouring battery acid down some ones throat is immoral, because in some medical situation in might be needed and be the most moral thing to do, or if the person wants to do it to them selves, the moral principle that "freedom is preferred to non freedom" might out weigh the other moral principle.

When you say something is "factually true" you need to be able to prove that it holds in all circumstances.

I agree that your statement "Good health is preferable to Poor Health" applies in all conditions that I can think of, but it doesn't help in situations where resources are such that giving one person medical treatment may deprive others of it, so does this statement actually help to solve the moral dilemma of who should get the treatment and who doesn't ?

 

[Tink]

Thanks, Tisme.
You get used to these people that try to shut you down.

VC, you are constantly in here degrading Christianity, what this country was built on.

If people are smart enough, they will do their own investigation, and learn the truth.

I am not saying Christianity was perfect, but compared to atheist countries, you have nothing to complain about.

Yet you still complain, just like this new student generation that is coming up whinging about the past, and what their forefathers built. Talking about removing this and that.

One ungrateful lot.

How about we talk about where our country is now, and where it is heading, that is my concern.

Yes, I am concerned for the future children, as these people go along destroying everything this country was built on.

 

[Value Collector]

When you say something is "factually true" you need to be able to prove that it holds in all circumstances.

Something will be factually true regardless of whether we can prove it. for example if I am a jar full of sand, the total number of grains that exist in that jar is a fact regardless of whether we know the number or whether we have the ability to count and prove it.

Remember I am not claiming to know every possible option and every thing about every option, I am just saying that all those options exist, and out of them one option will be the most moral out come.

The point of morality from a human stand point is to try and make the best decisions we can based on the information we have, and based on the moral principles we can understand, in doing this, absolute moral rules are not going to lead you to the best outcome, especially if those absolute rules were written hundreds or thousands of years ago based on old information.

I agree that your statement "Good health is preferable to Poor Health" applies in all conditions that I can think of, but it doesn't help in situations where resources are such that giving one person medical treatment may deprive others of it, so does this statement actually help to solve the moral dilemma of who should get the treatment and who doesn't

there are many more moral principles, eg life is preferable to death, freedom is preferable to non freedom, etc. but these are guiding principles, not moral absolutes, for example death might be preferable to poor health in some situations.

In your moral dilemma, there would be a most moral decision, what that is can be hard to figure out, but again moral absolutes get you no closer, but doctors make those decisions all the time.

eg, all things being equal, a non smoker will get the transplant organ, because medical science has proved that smokers suffer higher rejection rates etc. if the goal is to save a life, but you can only save one, all else being equal, you have to choose to save the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery.

 

[SirRumpole]

but doctors make those decisions all the time.

Yes they do and one doctor may make a different decision to another, so isn't that "moral relativism" ?

but you can only save one, all else being equal, you have to choose to saved the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery.

Do we ? Even if that person is a convicted pedophile serving a gaol term and the alternative patient is a life saving neurosurgeon ?

Here is were we get into non absolutes and where your Objective Morality breaks down because it's your opinion that "you have to choose to saved the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery", whereas others may have a different priority.

If Patient A (pedophile) had a 85% chance of recovery and Patient B (the surgeon) had an 80% chance, I'd be picking Patient B.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes they do and one doctor may make a different decision to another, so isn't that "moral relativism" ?

No, because as I said the most moral option exists, its objective, it exists whether the doctors takes that option or not.

One doctor could be right and the other wrong, or they could both be wrong.

Imagine a complicated mathematical problem, two doctors get different answers, does this mean the answer is subjective or based on relativism, not at all, the correct answer is there all along, one or both of the doctors maybe have interpreted the data incorrectly, or most likely neither doctor had all the information needed to get to 100% correct answer.

picture a jar full of sand, both doctors have to make a best estimate based everything they know, to get an answer about how many grains of sand are in the jar, the fact they get it wrong doesn't change the amount of grains, they will be wrong or right based on facts.

 

[Value Collector]

Do we ? Even if that person is a convicted pedophile serving a gaol term and the alternative patient is a life saving neurosurgeon ?



If Patient A (pedophile) had a 85% chance of recovery and Patient B (the surgeon) had an 80% chance, I'd be picking Patient B.

I said all else being equal, so both candidates would be pedophiles serving jail terms.

Here is were we get into non absolutes and where your Objective Morality breaks down because it's your opinion that "you have to choose to saved the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery", .

Its not my opinion, because life is preferable to death, we have to choose the best option that lets a person live, and has the lowest chance of having them both die.

whereas others may have a different priority

and one of us will be right and one of us wrong.

If Patient A (pedophile) had a 85% chance of recovery and Patient B (the surgeon) had an 80% chance, I'd be picking Patient B.

As I said, my example was based on all else being equal, every time you add a variable to any calculation you will change the answer, and there may be so many variables its impossible to know for sure what the correct answer is, but that's the shining light on the hill you need to do your best to get to.

 

[Value Collector]

 

[Tisme]

oral out come.

The point of morality from a human stand point is to try and make the best decisions we can based on the information we have, and based on the moral principles we can understand, i

I think I have a moral obligation to point out that it is " try to", not "try and"

 

[Tisme]

Thanks, Tisme.
You get used to these people that try to shut you down.

VC, you are constantly in here degrading Christianity, what this country was built on.

If people are smart enough, they will do their own investigation, and learn the truth.

I am not saying Christianity was perfect, but compared to atheist countries, you have nothing to complain about.

Yet you still complain, just like this new student generation that is coming up whinging about the past, and what their forefathers built. Talking about removing this and that.

One ungrateful lot.

How about we talk about where our country is now, and where it is heading, that is my concern.

Yes, I am concerned for the future children, as these people go along destroying everything this country was built on.

I think VC is young. Eventually he'll get old and fat, vote Liberal and wear a tartan cheesecutter to cover his bald pate and a paisley shirt, God will visit him in the night and VC will still argue the toss that gays are just like everyone else.