Harvard Professor talks about Democracy and Religion

Originally posted by psmith81992
I've repeatedly asked Ush to provide me an example of what can be considered "objective" morality and have yet to receive any kind of response.

I note you keep saying this. Aside from the fact that you never actually made a reasonable request, that I noted how a full discussion there would require its own thread, but in any case I did actually give some potential ways this would work which I don't think you understood, the basic issue here remains the same, and Digi is having the same issue with you.

Your argument style is poor and I don't think for one moment you are interested in or capable of a serious discussion of a subject of that complexity.

There are other posters here I'd happily talk it over with, so if you are lucky you can watch that one day.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is presumptuous, because it assumes you've provided "something" for me to ask more of. And the last part of the sentence is a copout. You're basically stating, "there's no point on me actually backing up what I posted because he's just going to poo poo it anyways. That's not how this works.

Sorry, but it's not presumptuous when it's all you've done for two pages. I'm stating a tautology at that point, not making a great leap of logic with my prediction. It would also be hypocritical only if I wasn't trying to back my statements, which I have done. We disagree on the degree to which I've done that, is all.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't need to educate myself, it's you who needs to remain consistent about your opinions. You said your "proof" posited that atheists are not less moral than theists. But in this thread, you posted that atheists were found to be more moral than theists, so you're contradicting yourself. If you're saying the former, I think the studies, although flimsy/weak, do more to your credit than stating the latter, which begs proof.

I've never once called it proof. Or have you forgotten the quote of mine you already referenced:
It does not prove that atheism or spirituality makes one more moral than the other, but it shows irrefutable evidence that not only that atheism can be moral, but most atheists are moral.

I've said it's more likely than not, provisionally true, etc. All defensible statements, imo. If I ever used the word proof, it was a typo, and exhaustingly refuted by the numerous times I've used phrases like those listed that go out of my way to be clear on what I believe it is and isn't.

Originally posted by psmith81992
In short, I don't think you've provided much evidence to the claim that atheists are more moral than theists, and done just about enough to prove that (at least according to these studies), atheists are no less moral than theists. We can just agree to disagree.

And this conclusion is biased. Because if you think the studies are invalid, then they're invalid. But you say they prove your point, just not mine. How convenient that my studies are JUST credible enough to make one point that you already agree with, but not others that their conclusions state.

I think you're partially right, though. It shows that both statements ("more moral" and "no less moral"😉 are much more likely than not given the data.

Your argument style is poor and I don't think for one moment you are interested in or capable of a serious discussion of a subject of that complexity.

There are other posters here I'd happily talk it over with, so if you are lucky you can watch that one day.

Sorry, but it's not presumptuous when it's all you've done for two pages. I'm stating a tautology at that point, not making a great leap of logic with my prediction. It would also be hypocritical only if I wasn't trying to back my statements, which I have done. We disagree on the degree to which I've done that, is all.

And this conclusion is biased. Because if you think the studies are invalid, then they're invalid. But you say they prove your point, just not mine. How convenient that my studies are JUST credible enough to make one point that you already agree with, but not others that their conclusions state.

I think you're partially right, though. It shows that both statements ("more moral" and "no less moral"😉 are much more likely than not given the data.

My argument now is most certainly that you don't get it, but that's only because of the attitude you displayed both there and here. You are not seriously debating. There's no genuine intellectual engagement- just an offhand destructiveness.

You destroyed nothing- you can't even hope to have destroyed one iota of my argument with your clumsy, vs. style quote-warring. You weren't even on the same page to begin to make such a claim- you didn't even understand the basics, and that is a result of your bad faith.

If you ever decide to grow up and actively engage in proper debate as opposed to just asking for things not out of curiosity but to knock them down because they do not fit your world view, then maybe one day I'll engage back with you. But I very much doubt it.

They're different claims but not mutually exclusive. Both can be supported by the same evidence. If an atheist is more moral than a theist, it also follows that they are no less moral than the theist. It's not an inability to decide between them. You introduced the latter concept and I merely adopted it as another statement that the data supports.

My argument now is most certainly that you don't get it, but that's only becausw of the attitude you displayed both there and here. You are not seriously debating. There;s no genuine intellectual engagement- just an offhand destructiveness.

You destroyed nothing- you can't even hope to have destroyed one iota of my argument with your clumsy, vs. style quote-warring. You weren't even on the same page to begin to make such a claim- you didn't even understand the basics, and that is a result of your bad faith.

If you ever decide to grow up and actively engage in proper debate as opposed to just asking for things not out of curiosity but to knock them down because they do not fit your world view, then maybe one day I'll engage back with you. But I very much doubt it.

They're different claims but not mutually exclusive. Both can be supported by the same evidence. If an atheist is more moral than a theist, it also follows that they are no less moral than the theist.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Please, I destroyed your asinine and arrogant argument, and you provided absolutely nothing to the point that others had to come in and say the equivalent of "wtf". Your entire argument was "you just don't get it" and "your argument is poor" without offering anything of substance. You then high tailed it out. I made my "simple" requests on many occasions and you ignored them. Honestly, you didn't have any argument aside from criticizing mine.

You have destroyed nothing, when I was emailed about this thread by a member I had made friends with and how stupid you looked in it, I had to have a look, because you are as others no doubt have told you, "one of those people who has no self awareness." I looked and discovered it was as I had supposed, you were stating an argument was wrong without understanding what others were even talking about. You are funny because you quite simply fail to understand, the joke is how little you understand. To call others asinine and arrogant in your case is to be unable to take a step back and look at who you are. Everyone else sees it, but you.

Originally posted by Knife
You have destroyed nothing, when I was emailed about this thread by a member I had made friends with and how stupid you looked in it. I had to have a look, because you are as others no doubt have told you, "one of those people who has no self awareness." I looked and discovered it was as I had supposed, you were stating an argument was wrong without understanding what others were even talking about. You are funny because you quite simply fail to understand, the joke is how little you understand.

This coming from the guy who everyone either ignores or ridicules when he posts? You haven't said one intelligent thing in this subforum and everything else was cringe worthy. A good number of the people on this forum thought it was amusing when you claimed someone emailed you about me, and you decided to leave. I guess you really couldn't stay away from trolling.

Your words don;t mean anything to me there, Psmith. I have a genuine reputation here as a good debater, and dissent from someone like you has no effect, and you trying to say I have nothing to argue is just desperate You had all you are getting out of me of well presented and well-meaning rational argument, and you threw it away. You can pretend that you think you are better- but the insecurity is all yours, and I know you won't be able to escape that.

My offer was genuine, though. If you actually change that attitude and become interested in actual discussion, I'll engage. Consider that an open offer- and try some self-reflection instead of angry posturing. Until then the joke is always going to be on you.

Your words don;t mean anything to me there, Psmith. I have a genuine reputation here as a good debator, and dissent from someone like you has no effect, and you trying to say I have nothing toi argue is just depserate You had all you are getting out of me of well presented and well-meaning rational argument, and you threw it away. You can pretend that you think you are better- but the insecurity is all yours, and I you won't be able to escape that.

My offer was genuine, though. If you actually change that attitude and become interested in actual discussion, I'll engage. Consider that an open offer- and try some self-reflection instead of angry posturing. Until then the joke is always going to be on you.

You don't even believe that as you type it. But I am not angry- I am making a genuine offer. Your words are just wind, but there's an opportunity here if you want it. You can be better if you want to, or you can skulk it out in your non-debates.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't even believe that as you type it. But I am not angry- I am making a genuine offer. Your words are just wind, but there's an opportunity here if you want it.

It's tough to believe but your post was telling. Based on our previous argument, I'm confident arguing with you. If you choose to stay in this time and not run away, we can have a genuine debate. But I think you're going to get a lot of "wtf" as you try to explain away your entire premise (fallible beings can judge infallible beings, etc).

Nope, not with that attitude.

I'll try you in another few months- see if you can even realise what you keep doing wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, not with that attitude.

I'll try you in another few months- see if you can even realise what you keep doing wrong.

Yup, that's what I thought. You keep your reputation consistent. You couldn't debate it the first time, and you've coped out again, with the ever amusing "sorry I can't help you if you can't realize what you're doing wrong." For shame, Ush.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yet if an atheist is no less moral than a theist, it doesn't necessarily mean he's more. It's a necessary/sufficient condition issue.

Sure, but these are just logical truisms. You said I couldn't decide between the two claims and I told you why you were wrong. This statement, while entirely true, still does nothing to refute my claim.

I think both are supported, you think only one is. And I have no idea how you think the studies' conclusions, which explicitly endorse both claims, are only valid in so far as they support yours. It seems absurdly self-serving to draw the line on their credibility at exactly that point.

Sure, but these are just logical truisms. You said I couldn't decide between the two claims and I told you why you were wrong. This statement, while entirely true, still does nothing to refute my claim.

I think both are supported, you think only one is. And I have no idea how you think the studies' conclusions, which explicitly endorse both claims, are only valid in so far as they support yours. It seems absurdly self-serving to draw the line on their credibility at exactly that point.

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_theists_morality.pdf

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html

Eh I don't know what to make of that link.

This next link is something I'm going to take time to read because it seems like it has potential:
http://www.academia.edu/2922624/How_Perceived_Religiosity_Influences_Moral_Appraisal_The_Social_Cost_of_Atheism_with_Jen_Wright

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're mistaken that I had anything against the statement. It was one of the best non Tarantino dialogues I've ever seen.

😛

So being less compassionate to people because your religion says so is not a bad thing? That just doesn't come off sounding right. Saying "well it's Gods rule" is just a cop out, not a valid reason to behave in a certain way towards people.

The rules of your deity were set by men, not God. All we have to go on is the word of what people claim, and we know men are fallible.