Mr_Anony:
that's your problem, I refuse to be drawn on tangents as you have obviously run out of things to say. You can go to bed now, big boy.

You brought Yahweh into it and I'm just following your lead. Lol if you start talking about gods, I have to reply in kind.
Anyway the night is young over here big boy.

wiegraf: @mr anony, This summarizes my view as to how to prudently go about setting up a moral code. There is an infitite chain here. I was looking for something else, but this is useful. Also, moving the other discussion here as well, so tired atm lol.

"Foundationalism
Perhaps the chain begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief. Such beliefs are called basic beliefs. In this solution, which is called foundationalism, all beliefs are justified by basic beliefs. Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori.) This would be a claim that some things (basic beliefs) are true in and of themselves.

Foundationalism is the belief that a chain of justification begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief. Thus, a belief is justified if and only if:

it is a basic/foundational belief, or
it is justified by a basic belief
it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is ultimately justified by a basic belief or beliefs.

Foundationalism can be compared to a building. Ordinary individual beliefs occupy the upper stories of the building; basic, or foundational beliefs are down in the basement, in the foundation of the building, holding everything else up. In a similar way, individual beliefs, say about economics or ethics, rest on more basic beliefs, say about the nature of human beings; and those rest on still more basic beliefs, say about the mind; and in the end the entire system rests on a set of basic beliefs which are not justified by other beliefs."


Too tired, I'll explain why despite my view of the nature of freewill we still have to respect goals, etc. But I'm pretty sure you know why and are probably just trolling me.. Later

Beautiful! We have now come full circle to foundational/basic beliefs. I must say that I actually enjoy sparring with you.....and for the record, I am not trolling you, I am merely trying to force you to logically explain your beliefs.

You see, the problem with most new atheists is that they like to ask theists the questions like: Who is God, what is he like? etc and it makes them feel somewhat mentally superior but then, immediately the tables are turned, they begin to fumble in much the same way.
I know, before I met Christ, I too used to go christian fellowships for the sole purpose of asking disruptive questions.
Irrational skepticism is what it is called when someone asks questions without seeking answers. That's by the way.

We have now come to basic/foundational beliefs.
I am a Christian Theist, this means that I believe in the existence of God and I hold that the nature of God as manifested through Jesus Christ is the perfect model for human morality. I hold that Love as defined in 1Corinthians 13 is the greatest of all good. It is on this basis that I justify my arguments. For every case, I must look at it through my christian goggles.
For me, God is a given and based on God as a foundation I view the world.

I'll let you define your basic beliefs, and then based upon that, we can tackle what is good vs what is evil. (let's face it morality is what this thread has eventually ended up in and also because I have a feeling that you will claim human rights as a foundational belief) I don't want to attack straw-men here so I'll let you define exactly what your worldview is, then we can continue.

Note: simply saying that you are an atheist does not count as a worldview because you cannot draw any further inferences from it.

The floor is now yours, define your faith (or lack of it)

.

Martian:

You brought Yahweh into it and I'm just following your lead. Lol if you start talking about gods, I have to reply in kind.
Anyway the night is young over here big boy.

then by all means knock yourself out. You have all day wherever you are, I don't have all night where I am. Have fun (whatever that means to you).

Mr_Anony:
No matter how your dictionary defines faith, it must tell us that faith is belief and trust. What your belief and trust is based on is entirely another matter and this is where reason and logic comes in to help us justify our faith. I think I made the difference between true faith and blind faith very clear.
Basically whenever you test and expect a result, you have shown faith.

Except, like I've already stated, nature does not work on faith. It doesn't need me around to test results. It doesn't even test results. With regards to nature I don't have faith, I know. No belief or trust; it is. Different things.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, for starters, there are certain constants such as the speed of light, gravity, nuclear forces e.t.c. about 30 such constants fine tuned to such precision that if any one of them is altered, life will not exist (but anyway, that's a topic for another day)

The physical constants are interesting. Figuring how they came about will be interesting. But regardless, as nature is understood atm, uncertainty is involved. And that affects just about every deterministic action. For practical reasons though we can ignore its effects on the macroscopic.

What is this you accept determinism? You also accept 'souls'?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, morality is based on the idea that a human being has certain rights by default and not the other way round. It is from the violation of these human rights that we have an evil and hence a good.

We'll get to that...

Mr_Anony:
What you are neglecting is to show how an unconscious unintelligent entity brings forth a conscious intelligent being. There is a very big gap in logic there which you are willfully ignoring.

Never have I ignored that, ever. I think there is no such thing as freewill strictly speaking, we are mechanical, that alone says a lot. Simple to complex. Evolution, evidence everywhere. What we don't have evidence for is sky tyrant or any other deity, even the benevolent ones. It can all be explained without an ID, in fact an ID complicates it. You think complex just showed up before simple?

Mr_Anony:
Lol no, last I checked, cybercookies don't taste good. Just lift the ban.

I'll let this go as you clearly don't want to discuss it without quoting the bible. Apologies if I seemed pushy about it, really, it's not my intention to trouble you.

We'll get around to the other post. And, in relation to that, I have understood your positions clearly (except for the need to quote the bible) since like forever, it's you who doesn't get mine (and many others in your debates with regards to morality) I think. It is a valid concern, but your solution is not the best imo. Yes, I know, how can I know what 'best' is if following my world view. We'll get to that...

wiegraf:

Except, like I've already stated, nature does not work on faith. It doesn't need me around to test results. It doesn't even test results. With regards to nature I don't have faith, I know. No belief or trust; it is. Different things.


The physical constants are interesting. Figuring how they came about will be interesting. But regardless, as nature is understood atm, uncertainty is involved. And that affects just about every deterministic action. For practical reasons though we can ignore its effects on the macroscopic.

What is this you accept determinism? You also accept 'souls'?


We'll get to that...


Never have I ignored that, ever. I think there is no such thing as freewill strictly speaking, we are mechanical, that alone says a lot. Simple to complex. Evolution, evidence everywhere. What we don't have evidence for is sky tyrant or any other deity, even the benevolent ones. It can all be explained without an ID, in fact an ID complicates it. You think complex just showed up before simple?


I'll let this go as you clearly don't want to discuss it without quoting the bible. Apologies if I seemed pushy about it, really, it's not my intention to trouble you.

We'll get around to the other post. And, in relation to that, I have understood your positions clearly (except for the need to quote the bible) since like forever, it's you who doesn't get mine (and many others in your debates with regards to morality) I think. It is a valid concern, but your solution is not the best imo. Yes, I know, how can I know what 'best' is if following my world view. We'll get to that...

If I respond to this properly, we will fly in many different tangents but I don't want that so lets hear what your worldview is and then we can bring up problems and see how each worldview deals with it.

As for getting your stance, I do. The problem is that there are so many logical gaps in your arguments and you fill them up by throwing "emotion", "instinct" and "nature did it" into those gaps. This I cannot let you get away with just as I suspect you will not let me get away with gaps in my logic if I claimed "I just have faith".
At least unlike a few of the other guys, you are not expecting me to be able to read your mind with my "psychic powers" and know what exactly it is you are on about. For that much I'll give you credit..... even though I suspect you sometimes wish I had such powers.

Before this thread was so spectacularly derailed, it was three things Mr anony was asking.
What are human 'rights'?
Why do we 'deserve' these rights?
Why should it be binding on other humans?

To anybody having similar questions, please go through the posts, you will find answers there.

Fundamental human rights are OUR appreciation and understanding of the human and his unique qualities. His vast/immense intellectual capabilities, his advanced goals and immense achievements. We believe there is a huge gap btw us and other beasts and we have these qualities and sentience and intellect, we believe are precious enough to be preserved hence human rights. Every government created, everybody must acknowledge the uniqueness of man and protect it.

We created human rights. Its not awarded or given per se but recognized.

One of the major catalyst for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the Holocaust and carnage of the WW2. With such experiences, we are appalled and take recorded conscious steps to prevent such from happening again.

Based on this humanitarian morality, we try offenders. And this is a classic example of how man creates morality.

Battery dying! But will be back.

Roderick Chisholm’s epistemic foundationalism a critical analysis
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/roderick-chisholms-epistemic-foundationalism-a-critical-analysis/