Logic Discussion

[Edgarcito]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

The reality of morality does not prove or disprove the reality of Jesus. If morality is shown not to exist because it is not made of matter, this does not bolster the certainty level of Jesus. 

I like this comment actually.  Just an example that had crossed my mind M.  If someone said to you, prove to me your great great grandmother ever existed, it might be a challenge in doing so.  I mean, here's her picture, and there's a rocking chair she rocked children in, but that's not really proof... 

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

 

A simple google search may open the door to your mind:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770908/

 

https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2016.00003

What good would me taking responsibility for my own knowledge achieve.....greatness?  I'd just be that much bigger an ass if I had more capacity.  I appreciate the effort though sir....truly.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

But, are you really looking for a scientific definition... if you already know the answer you want?

 

In the 'Suspension of Disbelief' thread you replied to Weezer, saying...  "That's right W, I know the answer already...."

 

However, science doesn't work that way and scientists don't start with the answer they want and then interpret the evidence to fit with their wishes.

 

So, Endgarcito3 are you really looking a proper scientific definition of morality?

 

Or do you want to find something that you will interpret as supporting your Christian faith?

 

If it's the former, then you need to follow the rules and avoid the subjective, the personal and the supernatural.

 

But if its the latter, then you aren't really looking for a proper scientific definition of morality at all.

 

You're just looking for something to validate your Christian faith.

 

Your call.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of the above....thanks.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Oooh ooh! Raises my hand...I know the answer to that one!!!! 

< Mr. Kotter voice>  "yes Mr. Horshack?"

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I don't know what exactly is going on in this thread,  but I was planning on turning to the subject of morality in the Truth,  Knowledge,  and Belief thread in the near future. Just as soon as my schedule allows.

 

I actually do think it's important to be able to give a coherent account of morality aside from Christianity/religion. This is an area where I think a lot of atheists end up essentially ducking the question. I hope to be able to avoid doing that. Time will tell.

Thanks D....I've given them the option to define morality on their terms.... Not gonna happen in our lifetime...but who knows.  Take this pill and be a moral bastard......cue John Lennon...

[florduh]

What's the big mystery about what morality is? It is virtuous behavior. Virtuous is defined as good because it does no harm and promotes general well being in the society at large. We learned a long time ago (well, most of us anyway) that killing your neighbors and stealing their shit wasn't a good, sustainable plan.

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I don't know what exactly is going on in this thread,  but I was planning on turning to the subject of morality in the Truth,  Knowledge,  and Belief thread in the near future. Just as soon as my schedule allows.

 

I actually do think it's important to be able to give a coherent account of morality aside from Christianity/religion. This is an area where I think a lot of atheists end up essentially ducking the question. I hope to be able to avoid doing that. Time will tell.

 

There are a few well known books on the issue of morality without a God. Sam Harris A Moral Landscape springs to mind.

 

There are also a few atheist youtubers who discuss the issue at length.

[TEG]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

What's the big mystery about what morality is? It is virtuous behavior. Virtuous is defined as good because it does no harm and promotes general well being in the society at large. We learned a long time ago (well, most of us anyway) that killing your neighbors and stealing their shit wasn't a good, sustainable plan.

 

“The law written on their hearts.”  Or, inbred behavior that has been selected for because it confers an advantage on the gene pool, not just one individual.  For example, babies display altruism before they can walk.

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I like this comment actually.  Just an example that had crossed my mind M.  If someone said to you, prove to me your great great grandmother ever existed, it might be a challenge in doing so.  I mean, here's her picture, and there's a rocking chair she rocked children in, but that's not really proof... 

 

Still asking for proof?

 

In a thread where you insist you want a proper scientific definition of morality?

 

Sorry E3, but the proper scientific definition won't give you proof either.

 

BAA tried and failed to explain to you that science uses evidence, not proof.

 

Proofs are used in mathematics, not in any other science.

 

 

[WalterP]

Ok, so we're 3 pages into another of Endgarcito3's threads and what do we see?

 

 

He won't follow up on the two on-topic links sdelsolray gave him.

He won't ask himself how the RedneckProf and I can agree about morality, without checking or conferring with each other first.

He won't answer where he ever said (as End3 or as Edgarcito) that, 'Morality is demonstrable'.

He won't follow the rules of logic, of science and of evidence... even though he claims he wants a properly scientific definition of morality.

He won't say why he so special that he doesn't need to follow those rules.

He won't follow the rules of debate, because they're bullshit.

He won't say if he's just using this thread to validate his Christian faith.

He won't accept that empirical science doesn't deal in proofs.

 

But...

 

He will hand out insults.

He will project about moronic crap, egos and fear.

He will poke fun at efforts to help him understand what science is and how it works.

He will argue for sport and do so... in his own thread.

 

 

Kudos to sdelsolray for making the the right call on page 1 about where this thread's going.  

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

Proofs are used in mathematics, not in any other science.

I disagree.  My great-grandpappy had moonshine distillation down to a pretty exact science; and proof mattered a great deal.

[midniterider]

I dont mind using the word proof. It has several meanings, one of which is 'evidence'. 

 

End:Thanks D....I've given them the option to define morality on their terms.... Not gonna happen in our lifetime...but who knows.  Take this pill and be a moral bastard......cue John Lennon...

 

Physical definition of Morality: The specific flow of electrical signals and chemicals in the brain that keep other electrical brain signals from reaching my hand, preventing me from making a fist and beating some idiot to a pulp that fails to use his blinker! See, End, it's all material. No woo! lol Just kidding.

 

If we want to use a physical model for morality, couldnt we just say it starts with learning, and learning is a process of physically changing the brain's connections and growing neurons. So morality , and any other thought processes are just physical changes in the brain. 

 

Morality: A bunch of neurons grown by your parent's teaching, making you a nice person. 

Jesus: A bunch of neurons grown for the purpose of making you guilty enough to give generously to your church.  See, it's all very simple.