X-No-Archive: yes



hello playmates....

Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions regarding 
atheism.
These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th July 
2008.
[Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these questions]

From David WG  ...  regarding "Moral Laws"  (as proposed by dilv)


[QUESTION}
"What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed 
them?"


It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made to 
escape such moral dogma.
So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.  Does 
subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to be 
an atheist.
Can there be a clear, measurable  description of morality ...with examples 
that are absolutely quantifiable.




....more (un)answered questions next week.
[care of posters to this ng..]



Mark

On Jul 2, 6:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> hello playmates....
>
> Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions regarding
> atheism.
> These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th July
> 2008.
> [Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these questions]
>
> From David WG  ...  regarding "Moral Laws"  (as proposed by dilv)
>
> [QUESTION}
> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed
> them?"
>
> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made to
> escape such moral dogma.
> So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.  Does
> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to be
> an atheist.
> Can there be a clear, measurable  description of morality ...with examples
> that are absolutely quantifiable.
>
> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
> [care of posters to this ng..]
>
> Mark

Thanks you for showing that someone other than DILV (who thinks he now
owns, runs and controls this group) can propose subjects for
discussion..Ken

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:
> 
> [QUESTION}
> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed 
> them?"
> 
> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made to 
> escape such moral dogma.

Well, suppose a primitive morality is built into human nature. Don't we 
all believe in kindness, fairness, etc.?

If so, then absolute morality is a reality.

> So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.  Does 
> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to be 
> an atheist.

A completely absolute moral system would be too rigid to change with 
society.

We may have some absolute moral principles, but the details of how 
people should act vary from society to society and, to a lesser extent, 
from individual to individual.

> Can there be a clear, measurable  description of morality ...with examples 
> that are absolutely quantifiable.

No, ethics is not that kind of subject matter; it is qualitative rather 
than quantitative. I can say that a certain act is better than another, 
but I could never put a figure on by how much.

Alwyn

On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> hello playmates....
>
> Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions regarding
> atheism.
> These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th July
> 2008.
> [Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these questions]
>
> From David WG  ...  regarding "Moral Laws"  (as proposed by dilv)
>
> [QUESTION}
> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed
> them?"
>
> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made to
> escape such moral dogma.
> So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.  Does
> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to be> an atheist.
> Can there be a clear, measurable  description of morality ...with examples
> that are absolutely quantifiable.
> ue
> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
> [care of posters to this ng..]
>
> Mark

REPLY:  Good question Mark.  The answer is most definetly   YES....the
tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today  as far
as immorality  is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
(freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
Series.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> hello playmates....
>>
>> Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions
>> regarding atheism.
>> These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th
>> July 2008.
>> [Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these questions]
>>
>> From David WG ... regarding "Moral Laws" (as proposed by dilv)
>>
>> [QUESTION}
>> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what
>> proclaimed them?"
>>
>> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice
>> made to escape such moral dogma.
>> So, can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective. Does
>> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral*
>> to be an atheist.
>> Can there be a clear, measurable description of morality ...with
>> examples that are absolutely quantifiable.
>> ue
>> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
>> [care of posters to this ng..]
>>
>> Mark
>
> REPLY:  Good question Mark.  The answer is most definetly   YES....the
> tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today  as far
> as immorality  is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
> (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
> Series.

What's so terrible about freedom? Are you a bondage queen?

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

On Jul 2, 1:34 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:

REPLY:  Good question Mark.  The answer is most definetly......(it's
spelled "definitely")

WRONG.........per usual (It's ALWAYS cums down to sex with DILV)



Why do you keep evading this subject?

REPLY:  I know of no other Theist/Christian who answers questions
from the Critics as much as i do in NG's

ME" Of course, don't mean questions like those below, that I've
asked over a DOZEN times, the answers to which would provide insight
into
your mental state, not only to others but even to yourself?


Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right
and wrong?
Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
breakdown in your personal relationships?
Do you think you've ever had special messages from your god or
that your god can fix all your problems?
What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today?
How about your overt attitude of righteousness or superiority?
Do you find yourself in daily conflict with science, medicine, and
education, but spend excessive amounts of your time obsessive
praying, going to church, crusades, and quoting scripture?

Sandy

X-No-Archive: yes


 wrote in message 
news:86137b87-bb0c-4646-9f73-f00c4f96d2db@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> hello playmates....
>
> Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions regarding
> atheism.
> These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th July
> 2008.
> [Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these questions]
>
> From David WG ... regarding "Moral Laws" (as proposed by dilv)
>
> [QUESTION}
> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed
> them?"
>
> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made 
> to
> escape such moral dogma.
> So, can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective. Does
> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to be
> an atheist.
> Can there be a clear, measurable description of morality ...with examples
> that are absolutely quantifiable.
> ue
> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
> [care of posters to this ng..]


***REPLY:  Good question Mark.  The answer is most definetly   YES....***

Is it...?  "yes"  to which part of the question..?
If I were to post a moral conundrum that showed different people would make 
different judgements.....  would you accept morality as being only 
absolute..?
If I did post such moral conundrum that could ONLY be judged differently by 
different people, would that prove that all morality could NOT BE 
absolute....If not, why not..?


***the
tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today  as far
as immorality  is concerned ***

Can you give some examples of "societal (sic) ills"  that are indisputedly 
caused by *immorality*   ...


*** particularly sexual hedonism***


Can you elaborate on "sexual hedonism"...?
For example, is female circumcision part of a male sexual hedonism..?
Is sex between two consenting adults (homo and/or hetro) immoral...?   If 
so, in what way..?


Mark

On Jul 2, 2:25 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
<fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> What's so terrible about freedom? Are you a bondage queen?
>
> --http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
> Personalised Desktop Computers

I'm sure Dimwit has a closet (pun fully intended) full of leather
bondage accessories, various sex toys (with detailed instructions),
blowup dolls (human or otherwise), glossy sex magazines, and such.
Picture him (curtains pulled, doors locked, phone off the hook) and
his 250 pounds squeezed into thigh-high motorcycle boots, black
leather cap, with thong and a spiky dog collar whilst observing some x-
rated gay mpegs on his PC.

So much for dinner, eh?

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  Good question Mark.  The answer is most definetly   YES....the
> tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today  as far
> as immorality  is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
> (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
> Series.

You'd better start with explaining why religious segments of society 
appear to have no better record on these issues that less religious 
segments, then. Indeed, in some cases they appear worse.

We've already discussed how, proportionately, there appears to be 
significantly more of the religious in prison than less religious.

There appears to more violent crime in religious countries (e.g. US 
and Nigeria) than less religious (e.g. Scandinavia).

There appears to be more teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted 
disease in religious "Silver Ring Thing" communities than the less 
religious population at large.

So, in your discussions, can you start by providing some evidence 
that atheism does lead to societal ills, rather than the opposite?

Only then can we get down to a serious discussion.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-839E1D.20075302072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:
>>
>> [QUESTION}
>> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed
>> them?"
>>
>> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made 
>> to
>> escape such moral dogma.

> Well, suppose a primitive morality is built into human nature. Don't we
> all believe in kindness, fairness, etc.?

Ah.....  that's the holy grail of cognitive science (in the search for 
morality...) isn't it..?
There is much research that indicate it is not but I accept there are the 
two camps...


> If so, then absolute morality is a reality.


>> So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.  Does
>> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to 
>> be
>> an atheist.

> A completely absolute moral system would be too rigid to change with
> society.

What do you have in mind...?   And are those thoughts to do with the moral 
conventions of society (....and then, which ones) or the belief and 
acceptance that morality - in some sense - might be innate?



> We may have some absolute moral principles, but the details of how
> people should act vary from society to society and, to a lesser extent,
> from individual to individual.


Yes.  The case against innate morality........


>> Can there be a clear, measurable  description of morality ...with 
>> examples
>> that are absolutely quantifiable.

> No, ethics is not that kind of subject matter; it is qualitative rather
> than quantitative. I can say that a certain act is better than another,
> but I could never put a figure on by how much.


Yes.   Being unable to quantify the act  (deciding that one act is 'better' 
or 'worse' is, of course, perhaps the most obvious moral subjectivity..) in 
this way is a strong argument against any absolute morality.
However, we are starting to move into complicated cognition and pyschology 
and away from the dilv position of using religion as an *absolute* moral 
code (..and here we have dilv not understanding what is meant by absolute - 
innate - morality reducing it to merely a morality of learned convention) 
which is subjective, even, between religions. Subjective, taught and learned 
moral codes are not absolute, or innate, moral codes.
It is another area of the evangelical message that is mis-conceived and 
mis-understood in that the notion of morality, conveyed by religious 
teaching, is an absolute creed....... it isn't, but that is a whole 
different scenario to considering whether humankind has innate morality 
built in.



Mark

In article 
,
 "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:
> 
> the
> tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today  as far
> as immorality  is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
> (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
> Series.

Then why do conservative evangelicals in the U.S. (also known as 
non-denominational born-again Christians) have significantly higher 
divorce rates (34%) than atheists/agnostics (21%) according to the Barna 
Research Group in 1999?

Didn't Jesus say that divorce was a big no-no? Why don't fundamentalist 
Christians take him at his word?

Alwyn

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> Then why do conservative evangelicals in the U.S. (also known as 
> non-denominational born-again Christians) have significantly higher 
> divorce rates (34%) than atheists/agnostics (21%) according to the Barna 
> Research Group in 1999?

Because most of them are hypocrites?  If they have any absolute moral
laws they obviously do not follow them as they also top the tables for
teen aged pregnancy and crime. So atheists who are without the benefit
of the moral laws of the religionists are both more law abiding and lead
more responsible lives. Isn't that strange!
-- 
********
DavidWG
********

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-839E1D.20075302072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article ,
> > "mark"  wrote:
> >>
> >> [QUESTION}
> >> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what proclaimed
> >> them?"
> >>
> >> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice made 
> >> to
> >> escape such moral dogma.
> 
> > Well, suppose a primitive morality is built into human nature. Don't we
> > all believe in kindness, fairness, etc.?
> 
> Ah.....  that's the holy grail of cognitive science (in the search for 
> morality...) isn't it..?
> There is much research that indicate it is not but I accept there are the 
> two camps...

I can recommend the work of Richard Shweder, some of which you can read 
here:
<http://humdev.uchicago.edu/shweder-b.html>

> > If so, then absolute morality is a reality.
> 
> >> So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.  Does
> >> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* to 
> >> be
> >> an atheist.
> 
> > A completely absolute moral system would be too rigid to change with
> > society.
> 
> What do you have in mind...?   And are those thoughts to do with the moral 
> conventions of society (....and then, which ones) or the belief and 
> acceptance that morality - in some sense - might be innate?

'Family values' is a good example. Most cultures have seen 'family' in 
terms of all your family members, including grandparents, great uncles, 
cousins etc., in other words the 'extended family' as opposed to the 
'nuclear family' of husband, wife and children that has developed as the 
result of the mobility of labour required by Western capitalism. For 
instance, if you are a black African and have a good job, it is very 
hard to keep any money for yourself because less fortunate family 
members will turn up at your home expecting you to suppor them, and it 
is not considered acceptable to turn them away empty-handed. Here in the 
West, such behaviour would be considered outrageous.

Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is 
cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.

Alwyn

X-No-Archive: yes

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-5B03E4.10395603072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:

>> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
>> news:alwyn-839E1D.20075302072008@news.virginmedia.com...
>> > In article ,
>> > "mark"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [QUESTION}
>> >> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what 
>> >> proclaimed
>> >> them?"
>> >>
>> >> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice 
>> >> made
>> >> to
>> >> escape such moral dogma.
>>
>> > Well, suppose a primitive morality is built into human nature. Don't we
>> > all believe in kindness, fairness, etc.?
>>
>> Ah.....  that's the holy grail of cognitive science (in the search for
>> morality...) isn't it..?
>> There is much research that indicate it is not but I accept there are the
>> two camps...
>
> I can recommend the work of Richard Shweder, some of which you can read
> here:
> <http://humdev.uchicago.edu/shweder-b.html>


Thank you.


>> > If so, then absolute morality is a reality.
>>
>> >> So,  can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective. 
>> >> Does
>> >> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral* 
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> an atheist.
>>
>> > A completely absolute moral system would be too rigid to change with
>> > society.
>>
>> What do you have in mind...?   And are those thoughts to do with the 
>> moral
>> conventions of society (....and then, which ones) or the belief and
>> acceptance that morality - in some sense - might be innate?

> 'Family values' is a good example. Most cultures have seen 'family' in
> terms of all your family members, including grandparents, great uncles,
> cousins etc., in other words the 'extended family' as opposed to the
> 'nuclear family' of husband, wife and children that has developed as the
> result of the mobility of labour required by Western capitalism. For
> instance, if you are a black African and have a good job, it is very
> hard to keep any money for yourself because less fortunate family
> members will turn up at your home expecting you to suppor them, and it
> is not considered acceptable to turn them away empty-handed. Here in the
> West, such behaviour would be considered outrageous.

Yes.   Is this not precisely the conventional (or culturally learned) 
morality - those 'culturally learned' phenomena that suggest an innate 
morality is not there...?
I suppose the argument might be that if the morality you speak of were 
innate.. we would/could/should witness it across cultures..?
However, I had a similar thought about sex (and/or marriage) with *close* 
family members.  Close being, at least,  first or second cousins. Where, in 
some cultures,  this practice is very widely 'accepted' and certainly not 
seen or regarded as morally inept. There are other cultures, particularly 
those western christian societies that spring to mind,  where this behaviour 
is absolutely morally repugnant
It's good this, isn't it....   we're already discussing morality with 
different view points (...perhaps!) suggesting that subjectivity is the 
key...!!


> Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is
> cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.

Hmm....  innate morality or an  (innate?) evolutionary desire to ensure 
survival of the genetic 'family' perhaps..?


Mark

X-No-Archive: yes


"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:3130303031303439486CA7C104@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message 
> from Alwyn  contains these words:
>
>> Then why do conservative evangelicals in the U.S. (also known as
>> non-denominational born-again Christians) have significantly higher
>> divorce rates (34%) than atheists/agnostics (21%) according to the Barna
>> Research Group in 1999?
>
> Because most of them are hypocrites?  If they have any absolute moral
> laws they obviously do not follow them as they also top the tables for
> teen aged pregnancy and crime. So atheists who are without the benefit
> of the moral laws of the religionists are both more law abiding and lead
> more responsible lives. Isn't that strange!

Oh david.........  giving dilv *facts* is not going to impress him. He deals 
mostly with abstracts and superstition.
[having just flipped through a book called "The god who changes lives" - an 
Alpha Course diatribe - where personal stories are recounted by various 
people that, in their view, can only be explained by *miracle*.   Appeals to 
science or other explanation - chance even - is dismissed for a 
superstitious belief system]
It is interesting that certain statistics (facts..?) indicate the opposite 
of  the dilv world where christian morality is the holy grail and nirvana of 
earthy existence. Sad that this chalice of morality, then,  leads many more 
adherents to reject the absolute morality imposed upon them..


Mark

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:
> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-5B03E4.10395603072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> 
> > Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is
> > cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.
> 
> Hmm....  innate morality or an  (innate?) evolutionary desire to ensure 
> survival of the genetic 'family' perhaps..?

One set of parents goes out drinking every night and leaves the kids at 
home to fend for themselves. Another set make enormous sacrifices to 
ensure that their children get a good start in life.

Aren't we justified in saying that the second set are acting more 
morally than the first, even though one might say there were biological 
forces at work?

Alwyn

X-No-Archive: yes


"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-2D96F2.11094803072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:
>> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
>> news:alwyn-5B03E4.10395603072008@news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> > Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is
>> > cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.
>>
>> Hmm....  innate morality or an  (innate?) evolutionary desire to ensure
>> survival of the genetic 'family' perhaps..?
>
> One set of parents goes out drinking every night and leaves the kids at
> home to fend for themselves. Another set make enormous sacrifices to
> ensure that their children get a good start in life.
>
> Aren't we justified in saying that the second set are acting more
> morally than the first, even though one might say there were biological
> forces at work?


Well,  I should be sure about this... but I'm not.
In some ways agreeing with you also confirms my notion that morals are 
subjective.  So the idea that we can decide the difference in 'moral values' 
suggests rather strongly that morals are therefore not absolute..!
On the other hand, in many cultures of this world (sadly so...) getting 
children fed and watered is about the limits of parents capabilities to 
ensuring they survive... never mind a "good start"
Also, there are some cultures where children are handed over to the 
'village' community to be raised in the sense of education and cultural 
learnings and where the parents take an almost inactive role in the childs 
upbringing.
I'm sure we are saying the same thing here but I'm sort of looking for the 
evidence  that suggests morality is not an absolute...[..I'm not asking you 
to provide that, by the way..!  - just discussing it]



Mark

mark wrote:

> 
>> Well, suppose a primitive morality is built into human nature. Don't we
>> all believe in kindness, fairness, etc.?
> 
> Ah.....  that's the holy grail of cognitive science (in the search for 
> morality...) isn't it..?
> There is much research that indicate it is not but I accept there are the 
> two camps...

There is much research that indicates that it is. I'd recommend Matt 
Ridley's book "The Origins of Virtue".

regards, Ian

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:
> 
> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-2D96F2.11094803072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article ,
> > "mark"  wrote:
> >> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
> >> news:alwyn-5B03E4.10395603072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> >>
> >> > Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is
> >> > cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.
> >>
> >> Hmm....  innate morality or an  (innate?) evolutionary desire to ensure
> >> survival of the genetic 'family' perhaps..?
> >
> > One set of parents goes out drinking every night and leaves the kids at
> > home to fend for themselves. Another set make enormous sacrifices to
> > ensure that their children get a good start in life.
> >
> > Aren't we justified in saying that the second set are acting more
> > morally than the first, even though one might say there were biological
> > forces at work?
> 
> Well,  I should be sure about this... but I'm not.
> In some ways agreeing with you also confirms my notion that morals are 
> subjective.  So the idea that we can decide the difference in 'moral values' 
> suggests rather strongly that morals are therefore not absolute..!

I don't follow. Could you explain?

> On the other hand, in many cultures of this world (sadly so...) getting 
> children fed and watered is about the limits of parents capabilities to 
> ensuring they survive... never mind a "good start"

Well, the best possible start, then, given the circumstances. My point 
still holds.

> Also, there are some cultures where children are handed over to the 
> 'village' community to be raised in the sense of education and cultural 
> learnings and where the parents take an almost inactive role in the childs 
> upbringing.

Israeli kibbutz culture is like this, or was in its original form. Many 
kibbutz dwellers have now reverted to more traditional forms of child 
rearing. Even so, I would imagine that parents in all societies are 
thinking they are doing the right thing for their offspring.

> I'm sure we are saying the same thing here but I'm sort of looking for the 
> evidence  that suggests morality is not an absolute...[..I'm not asking you 
> to provide that, by the way..!  - just discussing it]

I have suggested that basic values (e.g. fairness, honesty, limitation 
of physical harm) are held across all cultures . These values are very 
basic, and in practice one encounters all sorts of elaborations that are 
determined by culture.

Alwyn

On Jul 2, 4:25 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
<fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
> >> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >> hello playmates....
>
> >> Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions
> >> regarding atheism.
> >> These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th
> >> July 2008.
> >> [Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these questions]
>
> >> From David WG ... regarding "Moral Laws" (as proposed by dilv)
>
> >> [QUESTION}
> >> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what
> >> proclaimed them?"
>
> >> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice
> >> made to escape such moral dogma.
> >> So, can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective. Does
> >> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral*
> >> to be an atheist.
> >> Can there be a clear, measurable description of morality ...with
> >> examples that are absolutely quantifiable.
> >> ue
> >> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
> >> [care of posters to this ng..]
>
> >> Mark
>
> > REPLY:  Good question Mark.  The answer is most definetly   YES....the
> > tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today  as far
> > as immorality  is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
> > (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
> > Series.
>
> What's so terrible about freedom? Are you a bondage queen?
>
> --http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
> Personalised Desktop Computers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY:  Did your Parents raise you to do as you wish , or,  did they
teach you restraint for your own good and protection from getting
hurt ?  Did they teach you to engage in whatever immorality was
worthwhile to you, or,  did they try to instill absolute moral laws to
follow because they knew how important it would be for thier Daughter
in life  ?   Would they be happy knowing you chose the Bondage Queen
route to take based on deserved entitlement ?  You know whats right
from wrong inherently ;  why choose whats wrong for yourself Sharron ?

X-No-Archive: yes

 wrote in message 
news:28290510-8ece-4a3d-8e28-07f55ccb7271@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 4:25 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
<fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
> >> X-No-Archive: yes

> >> [QUESTION}
> >> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what
> >> proclaimed them?"
>
> >> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a choice
> >> made to escape such moral dogma.
> >> So, can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective. Does
> >> subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it *immoral*
> >> to be an atheist.
> >> Can there be a clear, measurable description of morality ...with
> >> examples that are absolutely quantifiable.
> >> ue
> >> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
> >> [care of posters to this ng..]


> > REPLY: Good question Mark. The answer is most definetly YES....the
> > tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today as far
> > as immorality is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
> > (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
> > Series.



REPLY:  Did your Parents raise you to do as you wish , or,  did they
teach you restraint for your own good and protection from getting
hurt ?  Did they teach you to engage in whatever immorality was
worthwhile to you, or,  did they try to instill absolute moral laws to
follow because they knew how important it would be for thier Daughter
in life  ?   Would they be happy knowing you chose the Bondage Queen
route to take based on deserved entitlement ?  You know whats right
from wrong inherently ;  why choose whats wrong for yourself Sharron ?



Tell me something dave....  having praised me for asking a "good" 
question.....  you fail to respond to the further questions raised.....
Can you explain why you cannot, or will not, answer questions posed to 
you...?



Mark

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:25 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
> <fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
>>>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>>> hello playmates....
>>
>>>> Here are some more in the new series of unanswered questions
>>>> regarding atheism.
>>>> These are in no order of importance and are for week ending the 6th
>>>> July 2008.
>>>> [Many thanks to all the posters who have contributed these
>>>> questions]
>>
>>>> From David WG ... regarding "Moral Laws" (as proposed by dilv)
>>
>>>> [QUESTION}
>>>> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what
>>>> proclaimed them?"
>>
>>>> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a
>>>> choice made to escape such moral dogma.
>>>> So, can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.
>>>> Does subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it
>>>> *immoral* to be an atheist.
>>>> Can there be a clear, measurable description of morality ...with
>>>> examples that are absolutely quantifiable.
>>>> ue
>>>> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
>>>> [care of posters to this ng..]
>>
>>>> Mark
>>
>>> REPLY: Good question Mark. The answer is most definetly YES....the
>>> tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today as far
>>> as immorality is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
>>> (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
>>> Series.
>>
>> What's so terrible about freedom? Are you a bondage queen?
>>
>> --http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
>> Personalised Desktop Computers- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> REPLY:  Did your Parents raise you to do as you wish , or,  did they
> teach you restraint for your own good and protection from getting
> hurt ?  Did they teach you to engage in whatever immorality was
> worthwhile to you, or,  did they try to instill absolute moral laws to
> follow because they knew how important it would be for thier Daughter
> in life  ?   Would they be happy knowing you chose the Bondage Queen
> route to take based on deserved entitlement ?  You know whats right
> from wrong inherently ;  why choose whats wrong for yourself Sharron ?

The first part of that last sentance was correct to a point and in a 
personal sense; I do know what's right from wrong as afr as I am concerned, 
and as a responsible adult human being I instill that morality code in my 
being. You than ask "why choose whats wrong for yourself Sharron ?" I don't; 
in fact quite to the contrary I choose what's right for myself. Quite 
obviously what's right for me is different from what's right for you Dave: I 
don't agree with constant dishonesty such as falsifying or fabricating 
evidence and misquoting people, as well as posting faked abortion pictures 
and all the heinous decietful practices you participate in online. I also 
don't agree with your rank hypocrisy, nor your gross materialism, nor your 
sexual fascination; but each to their own: I certainly wouldn't want to live 
by your moral code: Nobody would ever trust me again, and I'd probably end 
up getting sent to jail.

-- 

http://kkomp.com - Delving beyond the comfort zone.

http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

mark wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>  wrote in message
> news:28290510-8ece-4a3d-8e28-07f55ccb7271@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 4:25 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
> <fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 8:52 am, "mark"  wrote:
>>>> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>>>> [QUESTION}
>>>> "What are these allegedly absolute moral laws? and who or what
>>>> proclaimed them?"
>>
>>>> It is alleged that morality is absolute and that atheism is a
>>>> choice made to escape such moral dogma.
>>>> So, can morality ever be absolute or is it eternally subjective.
>>>> Does subjective morality lead to decline in a society and is it
>>>> *immoral* to be an atheist.
>>>> Can there be a clear, measurable description of morality ...with
>>>> examples that are absolutely quantifiable.
>>>> ue
>>>> ....more (un)answered questions next week.
>>>> [care of posters to this ng..]
>
>
>>> REPLY: Good question Mark. The answer is most definetly YES....the
>>> tenets of atheism leads to what we see as societal ills today as far
>>> as immorality is concerned --- particularly sexual hedonism
>>> (freedom) .Im going to devote a treatise to this subject in our new
>>> Series.
>
>
>
> REPLY:  Did your Parents raise you to do as you wish , or,  did they
> teach you restraint for your own good and protection from getting
> hurt ?  Did they teach you to engage in whatever immorality was
> worthwhile to you, or,  did they try to instill absolute moral laws to
> follow because they knew how important it would be for thier Daughter
> in life  ?   Would they be happy knowing you chose the Bondage Queen
> route to take based on deserved entitlement ?  You know whats right
> from wrong inherently ;  why choose whats wrong for yourself Sharron ?
>
>
>
> Tell me something dave....  having praised me for asking a "good"
> question.....  you fail to respond to the further questions
> raised..... Can you explain why you cannot, or will not, answer
> questions posed to you...?
>
>
>
> Mark

Since Dave won't answer I'll answer on his behalf: He finds life terrifying: 
He is incapable of making any correct decisions in any way whatsoever, he 
doesn't have the intelligence to be able to cope with life, and the thought 
of freedom to act unbridled without some artificial control mechanism 
restricting his otherwise uncontrollable behavious in light of his lack of 
common-sense just plain scares him almost to death: He's immature and 
insecure. He's never had the chance to develop properly as an individual 
human being for whatever reason, and after a catalogue of failures in his 
earlier life he managed to find a corner to hide away from reality in under 
the protection of his church from the big bad world out there.


-- 

http://kkomp.com - Delving beyond the comfort zone.

http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

X-No-Archive: yes

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-B13DD4.12024803072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:
>>
>> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
>> news:alwyn-2D96F2.11094803072008@news.virginmedia.com...
>> > In article ,
>> > "mark"  wrote:
>> >> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
>> >> news:alwyn-5B03E4.10395603072008@news.virginmedia.com...
>> >>
>> >> > Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is
>> >> > cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm....  innate morality or an  (innate?) evolutionary desire to 
>> >> ensure
>> >> survival of the genetic 'family' perhaps..?
>> >
>> > One set of parents goes out drinking every night and leaves the kids at
>> > home to fend for themselves. Another set make enormous sacrifices to
>> > ensure that their children get a good start in life.
>> >
>> > Aren't we justified in saying that the second set are acting more
>> > morally than the first, even though one might say there were biological
>> > forces at work?
>>
>> Well,  I should be sure about this... but I'm not.
>> In some ways agreeing with you also confirms my notion that morals are
>> subjective.  So the idea that we can decide the difference in 'moral 
>> values'
>> suggests rather strongly that morals are therefore not absolute..!
>
> I don't follow. Could you explain?

Yes.
Your example plainly posed a moral conundrum.  The fact that we can try to 
evaluate the *correct*  morality, that we may agree, or disagree, on which 
of the behaviours is more, or less desirable -  the sheer fact that we do 
that indicates that morality is subjective.  There are no absolute right and 
wrong morals... only those we choose (subjectively) to adhere to... they are 
not inherent in our evolved being.




>> On the other hand, in many cultures of this world (sadly so...) getting
>> children fed and watered is about the limits of parents capabilities to
>> ensuring they survive... never mind a "good start"

> Well, the best possible start, then, given the circumstances. My point
> still holds.

Well perhaps..... perhaps not.



>> Also, there are some cultures where children are handed over to the
>> 'village' community to be raised in the sense of education and cultural
>> learnings and where the parents take an almost inactive role in the 
>> childs
>> upbringing.
>
> Israeli kibbutz culture is like this, or was in its original form. Many
> kibbutz dwellers have now reverted to more traditional forms of child
> rearing. Even so, I would imagine that parents in all societies are
> thinking they are doing the right thing for their offspring.
>
>> I'm sure we are saying the same thing here but I'm sort of looking for 
>> the
>> evidence  that suggests morality is not an absolute...[..I'm not asking 
>> you
>> to provide that, by the way..!  - just discussing it]


> I have suggested that basic values (e.g. fairness, honesty, limitation
> of physical harm) are held across all cultures . These values are very
> basic, and in practice one encounters all sorts of elaborations that are
> determined by culture.

... but they are not alwyn and there is much research to show that it is a 
false premise to suggest that there are universal morals that hold true for 
all cultures.
The evidence that suggests there ARE inherent moral traits are very 
unpersuasive, in my view.

Mark

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-B13DD4.12024803072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article ,
> > "mark"  wrote:
> >>
> >> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
> >> news:alwyn-2D96F2.11094803072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> >> > In article ,
> >> > "mark"  wrote:
> >> >> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
> >> >> news:alwyn-5B03E4.10395603072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Now, I think that the belief that one should support one's family is
> >> >> > cross-cultural, exactly what this means in practice is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm....  innate morality or an  (innate?) evolutionary desire to 
> >> >> ensure
> >> >> survival of the genetic 'family' perhaps..?
> >> >
> >> > One set of parents goes out drinking every night and leaves the kids at
> >> > home to fend for themselves. Another set make enormous sacrifices to
> >> > ensure that their children get a good start in life.
> >> >
> >> > Aren't we justified in saying that the second set are acting more
> >> > morally than the first, even though one might say there were biological
> >> > forces at work?
> >>
> >> Well,  I should be sure about this... but I'm not.
> >> In some ways agreeing with you also confirms my notion that morals are
> >> subjective.  So the idea that we can decide the difference in 'moral 
> >> values'
> >> suggests rather strongly that morals are therefore not absolute..!
> >
> > I don't follow. Could you explain?
> 
> Yes.
> Your example plainly posed a moral conundrum.  The fact that we can try to 
> evaluate the *correct*  morality, that we may agree, or disagree, on which 
> of the behaviours is more, or less desirable -  the sheer fact that we do 
> that indicates that morality is subjective.

Moral conundrum? I thought it was obvious to everyone which kind of 
behaviour was most desirable in the above case. It is considered 
admirable to put the children first.

> There are no absolute right and 
> wrong morals... only those we choose (subjectively) to adhere to... they are 
> not inherent in our evolved being.

So you say.

> >> On the other hand, in many cultures of this world (sadly so...) getting
> >> children fed and watered is about the limits of parents capabilities to
> >> ensuring they survive... never mind a "good start"
> 
> > Well, the best possible start, then, given the circumstances. My point
> > still holds.
> 
> Well perhaps..... perhaps not.

It is a red herring.

<snip>

> > I have suggested that basic values (e.g. fairness, honesty, limitation
> > of physical harm) are held across all cultures . These values are very
> > basic, and in practice one encounters all sorts of elaborations that are
> > determined by culture.
> 
> ... but they are not alwyn and there is much research to show that it is a 
> false premise to suggest that there are universal morals that hold true for 
> all cultures.

Did you read the Ridley book recommended by Ian? There is a review of it 
by our very own Jeffrey Goldberg and his missus here:
<http://goldmark.org/jeff/papers/ridley/ridley.pdf>
Did you also read some of the stuff by Shweder I pointed to? You might 
want to start here:
<http://web.ceu.hu/legal/ind_vs_state/Shweder_paper_2002.htm>

> The evidence that suggests there ARE inherent moral traits are very 
> unpersuasive, in my view.

I think you've already made up your mind and will not be persuaded 
otherwise. Perhaps you've spend too much time in the company of a 
certain Dave from Lake Villa.

Alwyn

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:


> ... and after a catalogue of failures in his 
> earlier life he managed to find a corner to hide away from reality in under 
> the protection of his church from the big bad world out there.

I've rumbled him!

His earlier transgressions and failures may be what gives rise to 
his claim that he was an atheist.

I suspect that his long list of "sins" may be convenient to blame on 
atheists by claiming that he was an atheist at the time.

In one easy sleight of hand he has effectively:
- excused himself, now a good christian (and hence now being 
absolved), of the sins
- blamed his sinfulness on atheism (and atheists in general)
- found a stick with which he can hit atheists

I suspect that we now have a motive for his claim to have been an 
atheist, when in fact he was just a closet christian (and a sinful 
one at that).

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-AEDC20.08554805072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:

>> The evidence that suggests there ARE inherent moral traits are very
>> unpersuasive, in my view.
> I think you've already made up your mind and will not be persuaded
> otherwise. Perhaps you've spend too much time in the company of a
> certain Dave from Lake Villa.



whoa...... hang on.
I started out saying there are two camps in the search for the innateness 
(..or absoluteness) of morality..
You are giving me the one side... that's all.
There is quite equally,  research and opinion that suggests otherwise.. 
shall I post the research/books  for that?

You may wish to access this for further understanding, for example, on the 
moral conundrums such as *harming* of innocents. Quite an obvious notion of 
genetic morality..

E Turiel (2002)  The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and 
Conflict [Cambridge University Press]
RJR Blair(1995) A cognitive developmental approach to morality,  Cognition, 
57

Another common argument for innate morality is the notion of fairness. 
Indeed, you actually used that word.
Look at the 2004 research by Athropologists lead by Henrich (..Boyd, Bowles, 
Camerer, Fehr, Gintis) Foundations of human sociality [Oxford University 
Press]
This was a survey/research into 15 small scale societies that were asked to 
play 'ultimatum' games and draws conclusions into the differences that 
culture appear to impose rather than genetic innateness..

You appear to be arguing the case from a moral nativist viewpoint - what 
Hauser called 'temperate nativism' (of whom Fiske and Shewder are 
supporters) - that depends upon, or derives from,  a more abstract moral 
competence notion.


Accusing me of being  entrenched doesn't help,   neither does it add value 
to the position your are proposing.
Of course, it is exactly your position that dilv has been asserting for a 
very long time...namely,  that morality is absolute or innate.
There is little evidence for that...  there are assertions and theories but 
there is a scholarly balance on this issue as far as I can see, at least, 
with research interpretations veering both ways.


Mark

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: yes

If you must have this line, why not put it in the headers, where it 
belongs?

> whoa...... hang on.
> I started out saying there are two camps in the search for the innateness 
> (..or absoluteness) of morality..
> You are giving me the one side... that's all.

Consider me duly chastised!

<snip>

> Accusing me of being  entrenched doesn't help,   neither does it add value 
> to the position your are proposing.

I did think you came over that way, but I take it all back.

> Of course, it is exactly your position that dilv has been asserting for a 
> very long time...namely,  that morality is absolute or innate.

I cannot speak for Dave, but I think he would say that true morality is 
dep-endent on God. For me, that is a kind of relativism.

> There is little evidence for that...  there are assertions and theories but 
> there is a scholarly balance on this issue as far as I can see, at least, 
> with research interpretations veering both ways.

Here we can agree.

Alwyn