• In total there are 46 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 46 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

"Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "

Unread post

Robert wrote:

It was just a surmise about the source of the idea in the opening post, not an allegation that ant is paid to post here. But naturally ant has since blown it up into a fanciful exaggerated claim, completely ignored the content, and even feels free to invent purely spurious claims such as his/her entirely false statement about youkrst being paid by me, with cavalier disregard for facts.

I do find it hard to imagine that anyone could continue to troll the board with such random religious rubbish as ant spouts just out of personal interest. But it takes all kinds I suppose.
Oh, it was just a surmise?
That's really odd..,
sur·mise
verb
sərˈmīz/
1.
suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it
Do you have any evidence to confirm your guess, Robert??
Was that based on reason PLUS evidence?


I would have thought your ethical system would have reasoned that in order to avoid the torture of a truly innocent person (the girl in this thought experiment) you would have allowed the freedom fighter/terrorist to be tortured to any degree necessary.

Isn't there enough evidence in for that decision?
Would't that be a reasonable decision here?

Maybe you wouldn't have allowed any degree of torture to be done?

Or is your ethical position that because there are two evils here, you'd rather remain indifferent to the death of thousands of innocent people after the bomb goes off because you refrain from getting your hands dirty?

Or could it be that you want to continue to argue about what's in the Bible?

It's safer to condemn people that read the bible and are religious, huh?


By the way,
I dismiss anyone who claims I am vilifying you when a large part of your existence here on BT is to vilify religious people - especially if they're creationists.
You love to let loose on those "ignorant theists" but when someone fires back hard you play a sand song for us, and have background vocals to support you.
Last edited by ant on Sun Nov 30, 2014 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "

Unread post

ant wrote:
Nerd wrote:

But throughout several threads you've maintained morality cannot exist without God,
Do you want to link us all to where I said morality cannot exist without God or are you going to continue to mischaracterize me here on Booktalk?

It's one thing to immediately become a groupie and pick sides when joining a forum.
it's an entirely different matter when you blatantly mishcharacterize those you who wish to oppose.

Not only that, but Lanroid thanked you for your post.
Ask his help and link us all to where I said morality cant exist without God in "several threads"
Look, I'm not out to mischaracterize you or to continue any feud with you. When you get a chance, please go to the evolution thread and respond one of my recent posts on there; I have made an attempt to reconcile with you, and I would like the matter settled.

As I said, I was not trying to mischaracterize you, and in fact I worded what I was trying to say wrong. Let me clarify: what I meant to say way that, based on what I've read of your posts on several threads, I have been led to believe that you are a creationist and a Christian. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it looks like you are.

Also, you started this particular thread as a critiques of...I believe it was Robert or Gnostic Bishop's claim on another thread that we only need reason and evidence to make morality and ethics. Once again, correct me if I am wrong.

By virtue of you posing this ethical problem as a response to the claim of reason creating morality, and by virtue of me assuming you to be a creationist and a Christian based of reading your posts, I was led to assume that you personally believe God to be the judge and creator of morality and ethics. If this is not what you believe, then I do apologize.

Hopefully this clarifies what I was trying to say. I feel that bringing up God-based morality as a parallel to the use of reason and evidence to provide ethics is a valid discussion worth exploring. It would do everyone well to explore it.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”