tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6603308267395171861..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: A response to Ravi Zacharias’ “Six Questions to Ask an Atheist”-Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24274107652615556422011-04-05T12:10:16.700-05:002011-04-05T12:10:16.700-05:00will: Martin here. For my part, I would answer Zac...will: Martin here. For my part, I would answer Zacharias in person exactly the same way. And I'm sure Matt, who studied to become a Christian minister earlier in his life, and who has since formally debated clergymen, would as well. Why wouldn't we? Despite what you might think, possession of academic degrees is not a form of magical inoculation against irrational beliefs. And to imply that it is — in addition to name-dropping guys like Flew and Lewis — is nothing more than the argument from authority fallacy.<br /><br />You missed a salient detail: These were Matt's responses to Zacharias's "Six Questions to Ask an Atheist." In other words, <i>he's</i> coming to <i>us</i> with these, and nowhere in these questions does he insist that only atheists with a wall full of diplomas answer him.<br /><br />You also imply rather strongly that Matt's responses to Zacharias are dishonest, and to this I must take strong exception. Did you even read the post in detail? Do you think his answers are really shallow and trivial, reflecting a desire not to know? Or are you willing to at least concede that Matt did in fact put a great deal of thought into them? Did he make gross factual errors? If so, where? In your whole comment, you protest that his responses are somehow insincere, but you offer no specific criticisms of <i>anything he actually wrote</i>. You merely insist that we kowtow to academic credentials and treat those who have lots of them as more enlightened, if not outright infallible.<br /><br />I would suggest you are the dishonest one, that you did not read Matt's post in detail, and that your accusations of arrogance and dishonesty on his part are simply the routine rhetorical defense mechanisms we often hear believers fall back on when confronted by an atheist who responds to Christian claims with effective rebuttals.<br /><br />You would do much better in defense of your "Christian truth" if you actually provided some evidence for it, rather than insisting that academic authorities must be genuflected to and revered as oracles from on high. So far, it's woefully obvious you're just hand-waving in order to avoid addressing Matt's actual points.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12461585690419839942011-04-05T02:30:56.470-05:002011-04-05T02:30:56.470-05:00Can someone who commented on this post, including ...Can someone who commented on this post, including you Matt, please lay out a degree list longer that Ravi's...It seems pretty arrogant that anyone can make such passing comments about someone so educated. I wonder if you would say your responses to Ravi in person? <br /><br />Matt, without tooting my own educational horn, you miss so much of what Ravi is saying, not to mention what other SCHOLARLY people say about the Christian faith. Its because you really dont want to know...Use your desire for truth and reason to contemplate how there can be so many WELL educated Christians out there who are just all "delusional". You can actually say with all honesty that the "truth" claims of their faith are all false without ever trying to see it from their side? I think you need to reconsider your hard-line of Christian truth and honestly search for the real truth, and if it leads you back to atheism then so be it. Anthony Flew, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias etc... they did.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15277235085944816256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18103081800733203942010-12-26T06:36:01.831-06:002010-12-26T06:36:01.831-06:00Zacharias gets all that hype from Christians becau...Zacharias gets all that hype from Christians because he preaches to the choir. The problem is, pandering to their prejudices and ignorance is hardly going to impress the thinking population.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020505204376804741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16521376986121468052010-07-26T17:40:34.166-05:002010-07-26T17:40:34.166-05:00Actually, Schnoodle is accusing me of shifting the...Actually, Schnoodle is accusing me of shifting the burden of proof, and he does it by mischaracterizing my position as "stating in absolute terms that a god does not exist."<br /><br />YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE MORE WRONG. <br /><br />I know Christians like to define atheism as that, but you're on our turf, so we get to define the terms.<br /><br />I do not, and have never, and never could state outright that no gods exist. But that is not the same thing as not believing in theistic claims that God exists. <br /><br />They've used this on the show several times: The prosecution in a courtroom asserts that the defendant is "guilty." If I don't believe them, I vote "not guilty." It doesn't matter whether or not he has been proven "innocent," because the person who is making the claim has the burden of proof.<br /><br />--I would never say I know no gods exist.<br />--I doubt that gods exist. <br />--I am skeptical of the claims I've seen. <br />--I believe it's <i>likely</i> that we live in a nontheistic universe, but I don't claim to know. <br /><br />All that's necessary to be an atheist is, when some Christian argues that god exists, is to say "I don't believe you." It has nothing to do with making any kind of counterclaim.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56262312847895081032010-07-26T15:21:17.095-05:002010-07-26T15:21:17.095-05:00Schnoodle: Logical fallacy — Shifting the burden o...Schnoodle: Logical fallacy — <a href="http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm" rel="nofollow">Shifting the burden of proof.</a>Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83503052382705181302010-07-26T14:46:36.327-05:002010-07-26T14:46:36.327-05:00This is in response to Skeptical Atheist. You end ...This is in response to Skeptical Atheist. You end each response by saying, “Please prove that a god of any kind exists.” However, according to you own standard you would have to reject atheism first and foremost because atheism cannot be proven either. Remember, whatever position we postulate in an argument we must be willing to live up to that same standard as well. For example, if a Christian “proves” that Islam is false it still does not “prove” Christianity correct. Even if you succeed in showing that theism, and Christianity in particular, is wrong you still have not proven atheism correct. When it comes to making absolute statements concerning the same reality, “there is no god” “there is a god”, you are stating opposites indeed but not of the same nature that can be applied to other things. For example, I can state a belief about reality that may stand in opposition to your view. While we both can be wrong we both cannot be right. When it come to the existence of god, the theist is merely stating that he or she believes that a god exists among everything that exists. However, for the atheist he or she is stating in absolute terms that a god does not exist. A most powerful statement indeed because it cannot be proven under any circumstances because no one possesses complete knowledge of all things in all times and in all dimensions to make such a statement that a god does not exist. Your only hope is to show that god does not exist by definition; that is, it is like showing that there are no square circles or round squares. Nevertheless, please show me that a god does not exist and thus prove your position from the positive rather than the negative. Again, even if you show that theism in some form is incorrect it still does not prove your position to be the correct one.Schnoodlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16327384386258621856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48019300520844454502010-07-19T22:09:20.471-05:002010-07-19T22:09:20.471-05:00Skeptical Rationalist- I did give him a break by q...Skeptical Rationalist- I did give him a break by qualifying it with "very probably". If he is going to accuse us of attacking a strawman, he might want to find out what has actually been said.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802892952926113605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27948319918279091642010-07-19T15:47:33.785-05:002010-07-19T15:47:33.785-05:00That you did not acknowledge this means that you h...<i>That you did not acknowledge this means that you have either not actually read the posts in this thread or have simply dismissed them. This means that your post is very probably a strawman.</i><br /><br />Where is it written that one MUST read every word in a thread before commenting on the <i>original post?</i> Give him a break.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20901077206887263072010-07-19T11:52:53.754-05:002010-07-19T11:52:53.754-05:00There seem to be a lot of comments here along the ...<i>There seem to be a lot of comments here along the lines of "I find this unconvincing". It seems to me that it wasn't Zacharias' goal with these assertions/questions to convince anybody of anything. </i><br /><br />You're right in that the questions are not meant to convince, at least not directly. Instead they are meant to distract and sidetrack the atheist from asking questions that will likely get the theist to question the existence of their god. In fact, Zacharias is pretty straight- forward about that in the opening paragraph. Well, as straight- forward as Zacharias can be.<br /><br /><i>None of the classic philosophical "proofs" of theism are not even mentioned, let alone argued.</i><br /><br />I don't know if they are classic philosophical "proofs" but every one of the 6 questions are trotted out by theists, in one form or another, almost every time they talk to an atheist. Could you give us an example of one of these classic philosophical "proofs"?<br /><br /><i>But Zacharias is a doctor of philosophy, so one would have to assume he is intimately familiar with formal logical fallacies.</i><br /><br />Jonathon Wells has a PHD in biology but that doesn't stop him from spouting tired creationist nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times over. In other words, not necessarily. Having seen Zacharias in action on many occasions, I would have to say his only familiarity with logical fallicies is in consistently making them.<br /><br /><i>My guess is that an appeal to emotion rather than reason is exactly his intent here.</i><br /><br />No need to guess. An appeal to emotion is precisely what Zachariaas is doing because that is ultimately all he has. Which makes the phrase "as you engage them in honest conversation" very mendacious since he is about to tell the reader how to engage in intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br /><i>The dismissive attitude of many posters seems then like attacking a straw man, accusing Zacharias of not understanding logic rather than dealing with the issue he is actually trying to get at (that being existentialism).</i><br /><br />Not at all. Zacharias' intent may be one thing but we are not obligated to go cheerily bounding down any path he wants to take us. His bag is very presuppositionalist and these 6 questions are a demonstration of that. Addressing that issue is hardly attacking a strawman. <br /><br />As for existentialism, if addressing that was Zacharias' intent behind the 6 questions, others (Guillaume at least has) in this thread have addressed that his apparent understanding of it was found to be lacking, at best. That you did not acknowledge this means that you have either not actually read the posts in this thread or have simply dismissed them. This means that your post is very probably a strawman.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802892952926113605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8704598198725604502010-07-19T05:26:28.074-05:002010-07-19T05:26:28.074-05:00There seem to be a lot of comments here along the ...There seem to be a lot of comments here along the lines of "I find this unconvincing". It seems to me that it wasn't Zacharias' goal with these assertions/questions to convince anybody of anything. They seem purely existential, primarily intended to provoke thought at the level of "can I really live with this? what gut reaction does this actually cause?" Rather than "where does the evidence point?"<br /><br />Whether this actually helps his cause is a question I leave to the reader, but it may be a bit hasty to dismiss his questions as not proving anything, given that proving things doesn't seem to be his primary concern. None of the classic philosophical "proofs" of theism are not even mentioned, let alone argued.<br /><br />Though I am a christian (and generally a fan of Zacharias), I agree completely that his "6 questions" article is mostly logically fallacious. In essence, it is an appeal to emotion. But Zacharias is a doctor of philosophy, so one would have to assume he is intimately familiar with formal logical fallacies. My guess is that an appeal to emotion rather than reason is exactly his intent here. The dismissive attitude of many posters seems then like attacking a straw man, accusing Zacharias of not understanding logic rather than dealing with the issue he is actually trying to get at (that being existentialism).Nick Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00387170217254063445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81835125144513726382010-06-12T11:16:36.391-05:002010-06-12T11:16:36.391-05:00And this is you're argument that objective, un...<i>And this is you're argument that objective, universal morality (ie. an objective standard of good and bad morals) doesn't exist? - that the statement is based on whether it has good effects morally?</i><br /><br />Ah, I see the problem. I'm not trying to prove that Theistically Objective Morality (TOM) doesn't exist--I'm trying to answer the question that "If TOM doesn't exist, where do we get morals from?" <br /><br />Your confusion over the Argument From Consequences fallacy arises because you're lumping together two different definitions of "good and bad": the Moral definition, and the definition that covers what one would or wouldn't desire. Let me rephrase and see if this helps you. (Or you could GOOGLE IT and actually educate yourself, but, that would never happen.)<br /><br />1. If God does not exist, then TOM does not exist. (The consequence of the statement)<br />2. I don't want to live in a world where TOM does not exist. (the desire)<br />3. Therefore God exists.<br /><br />Do you see the problem? What one wants doesn't enter into it. Like Austin Powers said to Ivana Humpalott, "and I want a solid gold toilet, but it's just not in the cards, baby."<br /><br /><br /><i>I see your argument against it is likewise based on a consequence and it is as follows:<br /><br />1. Objective morality results in the consequence of an objective moral law giver.<br />2. I don't believe in an objective law giver exists.<br />3. Thus objective morality doesn't exist. <br /><br />How would you defend this argument about your logic?</i><br /><br />I'd say that you've shoehorned your bogus perception of my argument into your bogus perception of the Argument from Consequences. The sole purpose is to say "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" The fact that you couldn't possibly be more wrong about it is almost not worth pointing out, simply because being attacked by an argument that isn't legit past the 2nd Grade doesn't deserve a response.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34889780165521375962010-06-12T00:12:38.440-05:002010-06-12T00:12:38.440-05:00Are you serious Tim?
You completely misunderstood ...Are you serious Tim?<br />You completely misunderstood what skeptical rationalist saidJohnboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428622628537697916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23411894702740747562010-06-11T09:03:07.651-05:002010-06-11T09:03:07.651-05:00And this is you're argument that objective, un...And this is you're argument that objective, universal morality (ie. an objective standard of good and bad morals) doesn't exist? - that the statement is based on whether it has good effects morally? - <br />How would one know if it does without defining what good and bad morals are - which is the basis of the argument (ie. that there is such objective absolutes - good morals and bad morals)? <br />You are implying there is such an thing as "good morals" (ie. an objective standard) to which I am measuring the statement about objective morality to.<br /><br />I see your argument against it is likewise based on a consequence and it is as follows:<br /><br />Objective morality results in the consequence of an objective moral law giver. I don't believe in an objective law giver exists.<br />Thus objective morality doesn't exist. How would you defend this argument about your logic?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256697486286455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27027114560542972672010-06-09T22:12:52.966-05:002010-06-09T22:12:52.966-05:00No, I'm saying you're an idiot who doesn&#...No, I'm saying you're an idiot who doesn't understand the Argument ad Consequentiam fallacy, and has <i>repeatedly missed the point.</i><br /><br />The fallacy, in this instance, goes like this: <br />1. If god does not exist, then absolute objective morality does not exist. (your view.)<br />2. This is a bad thing.<br />3. Therefore god must exist.<br /><br />Whether a statement would have good or bad effects is completely unrelated to the truth value of that statement.<br /><br />So, when you whine about:<br /><i>"you can't say logically that any action is really immoral"</i> and <br /><i>"the only way you could argue against somebody sacrificing a baby would be if that action is objectively wrong based on an immutable moral standard,"</i><br />you are engaging in <b>bogus reasoning.</b><br /><br />Just because one can argue that a supposedly objective, universal morality might be a good thing to have (and I'm far from convinced that any God I've ever seen described would qualify) it has <b>absolutely zero relevance</b> to the question of that deity's existence or nonexistence.<br /><br />Positing this or that moral dilemma--slavery, baby sacrificing, etc. doesn't do anything except make you look like a fool with no good argument to bring to the discussion.<br /><br />It also shows you <b>can't read the original goddamned post</b> where Matt addressed this very point, saying:<br /><br /><i>Once again, we have an implied argument that has nothing to do with the actual existence of god but rather on the purported benefits of believing that a god exists; if people stop believing in gods, bad things will happen, so don’t stop believing.</i>MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48272843868999531712010-06-09T09:16:29.262-05:002010-06-09T09:16:29.262-05:00I wasn't asking for a definition of the "...I wasn't asking for a definition of the "consquences fallacy" - i was just asking you a question in light of your conclusion - that its a fallacy that Not believing in God results in a consequence of there being no absolute morality.<br />Is that your conclusion?<br />If that is your conclusion -you're implying that there is such a thing as absolute morality and that it exists whether you believe in God or not.<br />Is that what your saying?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256697486286455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12387195993211915302010-06-08T16:00:30.737-05:002010-06-08T16:00:30.737-05:00You're asking questions that have already been...You're asking questions that have already been answered. Reread the thread.<br /><br /><i>Consequences fallacy...<br />Are you saying that there is such a thing as "absolute morality" just no God behind it?</i><br /><br />I am not your Google. "Argument from Consequences." Look it up.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60179766753602490612010-06-08T14:03:40.712-05:002010-06-08T14:03:40.712-05:00There was a time in England (and places currently ...<b>There was a time in England (and places currently today) that the majority of society thought slavery was acceptable morally - so was slavery at one time moral since the majority accepted it? </b><br /><br />wtf man. How can someone write the above as an argument for absolute morality and not see the absurdity. You said it yourself, slavery was perfectly normal and accepted once... But IT CHANGED.<br /><br />Even if you travel the world today, what you will see is obvious. different cultures have different values and different moral codes.Johnboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428622628537697916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72856259585002918422010-06-08T07:15:41.948-05:002010-06-08T07:15:41.948-05:00Skeptical Rationalist said: You ask whether morali...Skeptical Rationalist said: You ask whether morality is a matter of opinion. I wonder how anyone could fail to realize that....<br /><br />Good point, but on what basis should a moral opinion be formed - or does it matter if personal opinion plus majority consensus is the ultimate standard? <br />Is a moral opinion based on self pleasure just as valid as one based on unselfishness as long as the majority of people would agree with that, it just so happens that they don't? <br />There was a time in England (and places currently today) that the majority of society thought slavery was acceptable morally - so was slavery at one time moral since the majority accepted it? <br /><br />Consequences fallacy...<br />Are you saying that there is such a thing as "absolute morality" just no God behind it?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256697486286455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43717536607886846832010-06-04T20:22:10.158-05:002010-06-04T20:22:10.158-05:00to the one who doesn't share in the "shar...<i>to the one who doesn't share in the "shared values" of long term societal health" the one child policy wouldn't be immoral, it's only immoral to those who embrace those shared values?</i><br /><br />Was there ever a doubt in your mind? Nobody ever thinks themself a villain, no matter how "evil" others might view them as. I'm not necessarily saying that's a <i>good</i> thing. If people didn't have their own standards of what they were and were not willing to do, we wouldn't need laws or a justice system.<br /><br />To argue that, without a god, there is not absolute morality is an argument from consequences fallacy. In antiquity, there was no distinction between religious rule and judicial practice--it's why the Torah was called <b>The Law.</b><br /><br />Now we make our own laws, based on what we collectively decide should and should not be allowed. We disagree, we have knock-down, smash-mouth fights about what the law should be, we vote people in to represent us and throw them out just as frequently. You ask whether morality is a matter of opinion, I wonder how anyone could fail to realize that.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59088725751372033992010-06-04T10:08:34.960-05:002010-06-04T10:08:34.960-05:00Thanks - small words work well for me -
So based ...Thanks - small words work well for me - <br />So based on the "relative" reference in your point #2 and applying it ot point #3 - to the one who doesn't share in the "shared values" (ie. "first principles") of long term societal health" - <br />(say China's policy makers) - the one child policy wouldn't be immoral, its only immoral to those <br />who embrace those shared values?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256697486286455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24499208842724294852010-06-03T16:07:31.989-05:002010-06-03T16:07:31.989-05:00You seem to have confused "grasping my point&...You seem to have confused "grasping my point" with "making a counterargument." I'll explain, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand.<br /><br />1. Because I do not believe that their god does not exist, I also do not believe that the objective morality which theists appeal to exists either.<br /><br />2. Any moral system is relative to the values it takes as its first principles. Those first principles are necessarily a matter of opinion. If you want to call that moral relativism, I can't stop you.<br /><br />3. I was not calling you immoral, stupid, antisocial or harmful. I was using those words as an alternative to "evil," which is a loaded term with religious overtones. To wit: if you have a goal of societal health, well-being, and posterity, the one-child policies of China are immoral, for the reasons I stated. They are antisocial. They are harmful. They are in the final analysis <i>stupid</i> because they undermine the shared values of long-term societal health.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32069894216565746952010-06-03T07:17:22.700-05:002010-06-03T07:17:22.700-05:00Skeptical Rationalist said: "Its immoral stup...Skeptical Rationalist said: "Its immoral stupid ...." - but its not an objective truth? <br />So how can you say somebody is stupid for believing otherwise (i don't btw but my reason other <br />than an inner feeling is that it is also objectively true) - if its relative - its relative - <br />one could say you are just seeing it from your relative frame of reference - go to another frame <br />of reference and you'll see it another way. Give any reasons you want - antisocial, harmful, <br />shared whatever but if its relative those very reasons are all based on ones relative position. <br />(btw I'm not defending relativism I'm just saying this is the logical conclusion of it).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256697486286455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37061091511025033332010-06-01T20:47:50.263-05:002010-06-01T20:47:50.263-05:00If he is who I think he is, Jer, then deliberate m...If he is who I think he is, Jer, then deliberate misunderstandings are par for the course.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79407111679409819222010-06-01T18:55:25.070-05:002010-06-01T18:55:25.070-05:00Tim said: In reference to mutable gods - I'd a...Tim said: <i>In reference to mutable gods - I'd agree there too - in fact if you wanted to <br />validate your own relative morals - believing in a mutable god would probably<br />make you "feel" better but the only way you could argue against say<br />somebody sacrificing a baby would be if that action is objectively wrong<br />based on an immutable moral standard that actually exists, otherwise all I can<br />do is shrug my shoulders and say - Oh well to each his own - some sacrafice babies<br />some don't. <br /></i><br /><br />Actually, you could argue against sacrificing babies by pointing out its complete uselessness in any endeavor except in killing babies. <br /><br />Beyond that, you missed the point of my post to the extent that it must have been intentional. If you are worried about rampant moral relativism, belief in a god or gods does not help. The consistent mutablity of all gods* render their function in regards to morality only as an authoritative mouthpiece for those looking to impose their judgements on society without getting mired in trifles like critical examination, facts or reality.<br /><br />* This means every god that has been claimed to exist throughout history, not just a few of them. This includes even those that are believed in today.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802892952926113605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70619004713009031122010-06-01T16:19:14.454-05:002010-06-01T16:19:14.454-05:00Is that you, Schaertel?
The fact that they are sh...Is that you, Schaertel?<br /><br /><i>The fact that they are shared with others begs the question (at least for me) - why do we all agree on the same basic principles of morality? </i><br /><br />I'm not usually this pedantic, but in this crowd, I'll go there: "begs the question" is a logical fallacy in which your conclusion is an unstated premise of your argument. What you mean is "raises the question." The short answer is "Evolution." We are social animals, and we exhibit behaviors which have adaptive significance within that environment--this does get into some problematic philosophical territory with the is/ought distinction, Naturalistic Fallacies, etc., but we're still in that neighborhood.<br /><br /><i>if you say we base the definition of good and evil based on the outcome, I'd ask how do you define or recognize a "good" versus an "evil" outcome?</i><br /><br />By how well they fulfill the shared standard, whatever that may be. Some societies prize low crime rates, prosperity, domestic tranquility, freedom of expression, some societies prize dedication to a religious ideal--there are innumerable factors. By my own measure, censorship would be "evil." As would "theft," and "murder." But circumstances could make those actions necessary to serve a greater good, so one has to evaluate one's choices based on what you believe and what you value.<br /><br /><i>the only way you could argue against say somebody sacrificing a baby would be if that action is objectively wrong based on an immutable moral standard that actually exists, otherwise all I cando is shrug my shoulders and say - Oh well to each his own - some sacrafice babies some don't. </i><br /><br />BULLSHIT. This is the point where you've tipped your hand and are <b>begging the question</b> that any such "objective" morality exists. Good and Evil are words we apply to actions which either support or defy our shared values. If we value the continued existence of our society, we will protect its youngest and most vulnerable members from harm. Some societies do sacrifice babies--China's one-child policy comes to mind, and it's a great "evil" because the confluence of their society's gender and family roles, overpopulation, and oppressive government have created a set of circumstances in which female infants are so much less desirable that they are discarded--to international adoption agencies if they're lucky, to a weighted sack if they're not. This is harming their society--it's corroding the demographics of the younger generations, such that young men now of marriageable age have often difficulty in finding a spouse, in order to have children of their own. It's harming their ability to provide for their older generations, because the care of those elderly rests on the shoulders of fewer working adults. This is ironic, because it is the ability to be cared for in old age which traditionally falls to male children, which is why males are prized over females in the first place.<br /><br />We call this sacrifice of children "evil." I actually don't care for the label, because the words "good and evil" are rooted in a religious moral tradition that <b>begs the question</b> that any such objective morality actually exists. It's immoral, stupid, antisocial and harmful, based on the basic goal of having a stable society with a viable future. If that's not something you prize in your chosen society, all I can say is see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.com