# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality

## Sola_Fide

Gordon Clark:




> ...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God. 
> 
> I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people _do_; but it cannot discover what people _ought_ to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. 
> 
> Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy. Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason wants to do.

----------


## Falcon63

Religion has no monopoly on morality. In fact, morality has nothing to do with religion at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Religion has no monopoly on morality. In fact, morality has nothing to do with religion at all.


"Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."

----------


## Falcon63

> "Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."


I never said science could define morality.

Neither can religion...

----------


## robert68

If “God” does, then it just means those claiming to know “God’s will” are determining "morality". 
What's “moral” and what isn’t “moral” has to do with one’s conscience.

----------


## phill4paul

> ...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God.


  Which laws are these? As there is no _proof_ of God, only that which man has attributed to HIM, then there is no "proof" of HIS laws, only those laws which are attributed to HIM.

  If HIS laws say it is right to kill those he opposes BASED ON his MORALITY then are his laws "moral?"

  I suppose so. However, I don't ascribe to such bunk. My morals are superior or inferior to my fellow man depending on belief. So are those beliefs of mine against my fellow man based on my belief.

  Religion is a 'belief.' So is ones sense of morality. 

  There but for the sake of MYSELF, go I.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What's “moral” and what isn’t “moral” has to do with one’s conscience.


How do you know that?

----------


## robert68

I'll qualify what I wrote. It's the way the term is used by those with a conscience. For those who don't have a conscience, it can't be true. Do you have a conscience?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'll qualify what I wrote. It's the way the term is used by those with a conscience. For those who don't have a conscience, it can't be true. Do you have a conscience?


How do you know you have a conscience?  And what makes one conscience right and another one wrong?

----------


## WhistlinDave

Do I have to post the video again of the dog risking his own life to save his fellow dog from the oncoming traffic?  This is seriously ridiculous.

Sola_Fide, I challenge you to find and post a credible source with statistics showing that the percentage of prison inmates who are atheists is higher than the overall percentage of atheists in the entire population.  If you can show that, then you might have a leg to stand on here.  It still wouldn't prove causation, but it would be enough to say maybe there is something to your premise.

I'll save you the time though... You'll find atheists are severely underrepresented in prison populations.  Not by a little, but by a lot.  This suggests that atheists do a much better job of living moral lives than religious people do.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/athei...son-population

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...on-communities

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...ge_of_atheists

----------


## jmdrake

> Sola_Fide, I challenge you to find and post a credible source with statistics showing that the percentage of prison inmates who are atheists is higher than the overall percentage of atheists in the entire population.  If you can show that, then you might have a leg to stand on here.  It still wouldn't prove causation, but it would be enough to say maybe there is something to your premise.


Not taking sides in the overall debate, but ^that likely to be a skewed statistics.  Lot's of people find religion in prison.  There's little else to do.  Attending a Bible study gets you out of your cell.  It's a stressful situation.  (Like the "there are no atheists in foxholes" joke.)  You want someone to speak on your behalf at your parole hearing and having a pastor do that can't hurt.  Myriad other reasons.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Found it...  I'm probably not going to post again on this because I already said it all on this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4962756

I don't know what you hope to accomplish or gain by asserting that atheists are not capable of true morality, but it's really silly.  And simply not true.  (If it was, I'm pretty sure my atheist wife would've either killed me or left me by now.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do I have to post the video again of the dog risking his own life to save his fellow dog from the oncoming traffic?  This is seriously ridiculous.


Do I have to post a video of a dog eating another dog?  Dogs eat each other and dogs save each other (according to your video).  Who cares?  It doesn't matter anyway, because:




> sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.


All that your observations do (at best) is show you _what behavior is_, it cannot tell you _how one ought to act._  Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality.

----------


## tttppp

> Gordon Clark:


The science of economics can tell you a whole lot about what people should and shouldn't do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The science of economics can tell you a whole lot about what people should and shouldn't do.


No it doesn't.

----------


## tttppp

> No it doesn't.



Yes it does. It can tell you what major decisions policy makers should and shouldn't make and won't even have to open their Bibles.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes it does. It can tell you what major decisions policy makers should and shouldn't make and won't even have to open their Bibles.


No it it doesn't.  Economics is the study of human action.  It is value-free.

----------


## TheTexan

If morality comes from God, where does immorality come from?  The lack of God?  I am an atheist, and consider myself a moral (and good) person.

----------


## TheGrinch

> If morality comes from God, where does immorality come from?  The lack of God?  I am an atheist, and consider myself a moral (and good) person.


Three choices: Satan, free will, or it doesn't $#@!ing matter because it's pretty much determined (whether thru god or genetic/environmental factors) whether you'll be a scumbag or not.

I personally believe in free will in much the same the way that you cannot definitively prove God.  True free will has been very difficult to prove, but even if an illusion is an extremely important one when it comes to morality.  

So in answer to your question, I believe in a sort of buddhist perspective that man must have a capacity for evil to have a capacity for good, but it's completely possible that you being moral was not a conscious decision at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If morality comes from God, where does immorality come from?


Immorality is the transgression of the law of God.  It comes from our sinful heart.  You couldn't have immorality without morality.  This is the problem with atheistic worldviews.  And even in the attempt to assert morality, they commit logical fallacies.





> The lack of God?  I am an atheist, and consider myself a moral (and good) person.


I'm sure you do.  But the OP (which I really think you should read and understand because it is an invincible argument) speaks more about logic and valid argumentation as opposed to feelings.

----------


## TheTexan

> But the OP (which I really think you should read and understand because it is an invincible argument) speaks more about logic and valid argumentation as opposed to feelings.


The argument in the OP is circular in nature.

"Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality for there is no morality apart from the laws of God."

This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.  Such circular reasoning is prevalent throughout all religious debate, because religion is based on faith, not reason.

God is, because he is.  And so on.

----------


## robert68

> How do you know you have a conscience?


The same way you know you have feelings or thoughts.




> And what makes one conscience right and another one wrong?


One only experiences their own conscience, so a direct comparison cant be made. 

And to be clear, none of this is to say the conscience cant be ignored.

----------


## bolil

I've often thought one of the most tragic afflictions, or combinations, is to have a liar's heart and an honest conscience.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Do I have to post a video of a dog eating another dog?  Dogs eat each other and dogs save each other (according to your video).  Who cares?  It doesn't matter anyway, because:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.
> 			
> ...


I'll bet I can find historical record of a few million more people throughout history who have been slaughtered/tortured/pillaged by Christians on a Christian quest or in a Christian war than you can find instances of dogs eating dogs.  So who cares?  I wasn't asserting that dogs are always moral any more than you can claim religious people are always moral!  You're trying to evade your own point.

Your claim is that it's impossible to know how one ought to act without subscribing to "laws of God."  Clearly, this is not the case.

I already completely answered this in that other thread, and you simply are not willing to consider anything outside your world view, in spite of evidence that proves you're wrong.  (Unless we are to assume the dog in that video is a Christian and that's why he was displaying such good moral behavior.)

The atheists' morality is actually far more pure than the Christian's morality, because the atheist takes personal responsibility and does the right thing out of genuine respect and concern for others, whereas the Christian puts responsibility for good and evil on external spiritual influences (the devil made me do it, or all good comes from the glory of God), and the Christian acts in a moral manner not because it's the right thing to do, but because "those are the rules" and one must follow the rules in order to avoid punishment.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?

----------


## Danan

> "Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."


The world doesn't consist of science and religion only.

You can derive morality in a secular manner similarily to how religious people do it. Establishing first principles that one holds to be true and deriving what follows to be moral/ethical. Of course you can't prove those first principles and you can't even falsify them, because they are entirely subjective. But the same is true for every form of religious morality. You can claim that your god's laws are universal, absolute and objective but that doesn't make it true. It has just as much value as if I claim that my morality is universal, absolute and objective (which in fact I do).

----------


## Danan

> Three choices: Satan, free will, or it doesn't $#@!ing matter because it's pretty much determined (whether thru god or genetic/environmental factors) whether you'll be a scumbag or not.
> 
> I personally believe in free will in much the same the way that you cannot definitively prove God.  True free will has been very difficult to prove, but even if an illusion is an extremely important one when it comes to morality.  
> 
> So in answer to your question, I believe in a sort of buddhist perspective that man must have a capacity for evil to have a capacity for good, but it's completely possible that you being moral was not a conscious decision at all.


I don't believe that determinism is ruling out free will in the traditional sense. It only establishes that whatever your choices are going to be is determined by past events. Nobody (save some leftist sociologists) would argue that you don't have free will because you only act the way you do because of your upbringing, your childhood, your genetic disposition, etc.

Physical determinism is only adding another layer of explaination of your behaviour. You have free will as long as you are always able to choose those available alternatives that benefit you the most (or yield the highest utility) and in fact base your choices on that consideration. Determinism doesn't really collide with that idea. It only tells us which of your options you are going to favor the most and subsequently be choosing, based on the past.

----------


## Falcon63

> Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?


Like one of the comments said, it kind of irked me that the dog was more human than the humans not even trying to help the dog.

----------


## jmdrake

> Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?


I dunno.  But it does bring some Bible verses to *my* mind.

_Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:_

_Romans 8:19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are._

_Proverbs 30:24 - 28
24 There are four things which are little on the earth, But they are exceedingly wise:
25 The ants are a people not strong, Yet they prepare their food in the summer;
26 The rock badgers[b] are a feeble folk, Yet they make their homes in the crags;
27 The locusts have no king, Yet they all advance in ranks;
28 The spider[c] skillfully grasps with its hands, And it is in kings’ palaces._

And here's one frog saving another from a snake.  It's at 8:30 in.  If you blink you miss it.




And the story of Balaam's donkey illustrates that God communicates with the lower creatures.

Numbers 22:21-32
_21 Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. 25 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.

26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The argument in the OP is circular in nature.
> 
> "Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality for there is no morality apart from the laws of God."


That is not the argument of the OP.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?


Which Bible verse were these dogs reading when they did this?



The argument from the OP has still not sunk in for you.  It doesn't matter that you can observe dogs eating each other or being nice to each other, because your observations at best can tell you what behavior is, not what behavior should be.  Or in other words:

"Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The world doesn't consist of science and religion only.
> 
> You can derive morality in a secular manner similarily to how religious people do it. Establishing first principles that one holds to be true and deriving what follows to be moral/ethical. Of course you can't prove those first principles and you can't even falsify them, because they are entirely subjective. But the same is true for every form of religious morality. You can claim that your god's laws are universal, absolute and objective but that doesn't make it true. It has just as much value as if I claim that my morality is universal, absolute and objective (which in fact I do).


No you cannot.  Morality is not subjective.  If a "first principle" is used, it must apply universally or we are not talking about morality.

----------


## mczerone

Those who don't understand the al dente nature of the FSM's 14th Noodly Apendage can't understand Pythagoras' Theorem.

If you have truly felt the resistance on your tongue or between your teeth, only then can you appreciate the universal statements about triangular shapes!

----------


## tttppp

> No it it doesn't.  Economics is the study of human action.  It is value-free.



Every policy decision can be made using economics. You just don't understand it well enough.

----------


## Falcon63

> No you cannot.  Morality is not subjective.  If a "first principle" is used, it must apply universally or we are not talking about morality.


Do you believe the Bible is God's word? I'm asking for a reason.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> The argument from the OP has still not sunk in for you.  It doesn't matter that you can observe dogs eating each other or being nice to each other, because your observations at best can tell you what behavior is, not what behavior should be.  Or in other words:
> 
> "Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."


No, it's sunk in just fine, it's just that it's not true.  I've known plenty of atheists, and they are just as capable of knowing how they "ought" to act as people who have a religious rule book to follow.  They're nice, caring, honest, moral people who have no desire to hurt anyone or compromise anyone's property rights.  The only thing they're doing differently that you and I aren't doing is, they're simply not expending any mental or emotional energy on a Creator, and they are not motivated by any notion of a Creator or God.

Since you didn't respond to it, I'm going to repeat what I said in my post above because I think it bears repeating, even if it's a little bit of an overgeneralization:

The atheists' morality is actually far more pure than the Christian's morality, because the atheist takes personal responsibility and does the right thing out of genuine respect and concern for others, whereas the Christian puts responsibility for good and evil on external spiritual influences (the devil made me do it, or all good comes from the glory of God), and the Christian acts in a moral manner not because it's the right thing to do, but because "those are the rules" and one must follow the rules in order to avoid punishment.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I dunno.  But it does bring some Bible verses to *my* mind.
> 
> _Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:_
> 
> _Romans 8:19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are._
> 
> _Proverbs 30:24 - 28
> 24 There are four things which are little on the earth, But they are exceedingly wise:
> 25 The ants are a people not strong, Yet they prepare their food in the summer;
> ...


Thanks, that's pretty interesting.  I wasn't aware of the story of Balaam's donkey.  Doesn't change my opinion much, because I don't really believe in the Bible to begin with, but I appreciate your effort to actually address the point I was making instead of just saying, "Yes, but animals also act immorally so it doesn't mean anything that they occasionally do act morally."  (The same can be said of people, both religious and atheist.)

I find the whole subject really interesting.... I've just known too many atheists too well to believe that you have to believe in God in order to be able to determine morality.  It just isn't true.

----------


## Danan

> Every policy decision can be made using economics. You just don't understand it well enough.


No, you need to define objectives. That's a normative task and economics can't tell you anything about it. You can ask an economist how to increase output, how to create more efficiency or how to maximize utility. You can't ask him if any of those objectives are "good" or "desired" (or at least he can't answer you as an economist).

Sola_fide is right, economics is value free.

----------


## Danan

> No you cannot.  Morality is not subjective.  If a "first principle" is used, it must apply universally or we are not talking about morality.


Everybody uses different first principles in establishing their own morality. And there is no way to "prove" the truth of those principles.

As I said, I believe my morality to be universal and absolute. The problem is, many people think that way. You do too. And there is no way to prove that my first principles are true or to falsify yours.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, you need to define objectives. That's a normative task and economics can't tell you anything about it. You can ask an economist how to increase output, how to create more efficiency or how to maximize utility. You can't ask him if any of those objectives are "good" or "desired" (or at least he can't answer you as an economist).
> 
> Sola_fide is right, economics is value free.



Correct.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Everybody uses different first principles in establishing their own morality. And there is no way to "prove" the truth of those principles.
> 
> As I said, I believe my morality to be universal and absolute. The problem is, many people think that way. You do too. And there is no way to prove that my first principles are true or to falsify yours.


Yes there most certainly is a way to prove the validity of first principles.  Every worldview has first principles.  One way to immediately show the validity of your first principles is to show that they don't commit any logical fallacies.  If your starting point is not the Scriptures, you will commit one of these fallacies.

----------


## mczerone

> Everybody uses different first principles in establishing their own morality. And there is no way to "prove" the truth of those principles.
> 
> As I said, I believe my morality to be universal and absolute. The problem is, many people think that way. You do too. And there is no way to prove that my first principles are true or to falsify yours.


But there is, and Sola_Fide has heard them repeated many times. I'm through arguing this point to him/her.

Here's the basics:

(1) Cogito ergo sum.

(2) Actors that can argue must be given reciprocity with Hoppe's argumentation ethics.

=> (3) all people that are observed to be conscious actors must be extended universal privilege of reciprocity of rights.

(4) Universal rights, ethics, morality can be discovered rationally by asking "Is X universalizable?"

=> (5) Natural rights (rights to the self, property, and free action) are universal, and transgressing those is immoral.

=> (6) "Positive" rights (rights to education, health care, good food/water) are not universal, because you can't demand these for all without imparting immoral actions on those who are reluctant.

So you're left with a set of universal morals that are well defined and bounded, that to argue against is to contradict the reciprocity of allowing others to argue.

----------


## mczerone

> Yes there most certainly is a way to prove the validity of first principles.  Every worldview has first principles.  One way to immediately show the validity of your first principles is to show that they don't commit any logical fallacies.  *If your starting point is not the Scriptures, you will commit one of these fallacies.*


Can you prove this assertion from undeniable first principles?

----------


## Danan

> But there is, and Sola_Fide has heard them repeated many times. I'm through arguing this point to him/her.
> 
> Here's the basics:
> 
> (1) Cogito ergo sum.
> 
> (2) Actors that can argue must be given reciprocity with Hoppe's argumentation ethics.
> 
> => (3) all people that are observed to be conscious actors must be extended universal privilege of reciprocity of rights.
> ...


I don't really agree with Hoppe. Granted, I've not invested as much time into that topic as I maybe should or would like to. Can you explain to me why I have to agree that someone has the right to command their own body or even owns their mind just because I happen to argue with them? (At least that's how I understand it)

If I argue with my dog, does that give him universal human rights?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The same way you know you have feelings or thoughts.
> 
> One only experiences their own conscience, so a direct comparison cant be made. 
> 
> And to be clear, none of this is to say the conscience cant be ignored.



Morality cannot be based on your subjective feelings or the dictates of subjective consciences.  If this was the case, then there would be no standard by which to judge if anything was moral or immoral.

----------


## Danan

> Morality cannot be based on your subjective feelings or the dictates of subjective consciences.  If this was the case, then there would be no standard by which to judge if anything was moral or immoral.


Of course there would. There would be many standards. There are many standards right now, too, because almost no two people agree on the very same first principles, or draw exactly the same conclusions.

And I would of course be using my own standard and advocate for others to adopt it by showing them that it is superior to theirs, as it is more consistent with their consience, more just (intuitively), as well as better suited to reach their own goals.

----------


## mczerone

> I don't really agree with Hoppe. Granted, I've not invested as much time into that topic as I maybe should or would like to. Can you explain to me why I have to agree that someone has the right to command their own body or even owns their mind just because I happen to argue with them? (At least that's how I understand it)
> 
> If I argue with my dog, does that give him universal human rights?


If you honestly expect them to argue a point and you expect to consider their argument on it's merits, then you are granting them agency and rationality. This is a reciprocal relation.

If you, OTOH, don't expect them to rationally hear your argument, or expect them to enforce their argument by violence, then there is no reciprocal acknowledgement of agency.

If you expect your dog to be able to peacefully debate with you and understand the outcome, then you should grant the rights to him that you expect him to grant to you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But there is, and Sola_Fide has heard them repeated many times. I'm through arguing this point to him/her.
> 
> Here's the basics:
> 
> (1) Cogito ergo sum.
> 
> (2) Actors that can argue must be given reciprocity with Hoppe's argumentation ethics.
> 
> => (3) all people that are observed to be conscious actors must be extended universal privilege of reciprocity of rights.
> ...


One of the problems I see with Hoppe is that just because something is assumed, it does not make it so.  It could be the case that self-ownership is assumed in our interactions, but that does not imply that self-ownership is the way one ought to view things.  It still doesn't rise past the is/ought problem.  It still is attempting to make an observation about behavior and then extrapolating from that a moral ought.  This is a logical fallacy.

----------


## Danan

> If you honestly expect them to argue a point and you expect to consider their argument on it's merits, then you are granting them agency and rationality. This is a reciprocal relation.
> 
> If you, OTOH, don't expect them to rationally hear your argument, or expect them to enforce their argument by violence, then there is no reciprocal acknowledgement of agency.
> 
> If you expect your dog to be able to peacefully debate with you and understand the outcome, then you should grant the rights to him that you expect him to grant to you.


So to people who don't feel the need to argue with me it is perfectly fine not to assume that I own my body? Only if others care to get into an argument with me I suddenly become the owner of my body, and than only to them, not universally, since not everbody cares to argue with me. Am I understanding this correctly?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course there would. There would be many standards. There are many standards right now, too, because almost no two people agree on the very same first principles, or draw exactly the same conclusions.
> 
> And I would of course be using my own standard and advocate for others to adopt it by showing them that it is superior to theirs, as it is more consistent with their consience, more just (intuitively), as well as better suited to reach their own goals.


What you are speaking of is not morality.  Morality cannot be subjective.  It cannot be right to murder an innocent person in China and wrong to murder an innocent person in Canada.  It must be wrong in all places, everywhere, to everyone, to murder innocent people, or else what you are talking about is not morality.  It has to be universal.

----------


## mczerone

> One of the problems I see with Hoppe is that just because something is assumed, it does not make it so.  It could be the case that self-ownership is assumed in our interactions, but that does not imply that self-ownership is the way one ought to view things.  It still doesn't rise past the is/ought problem.  It still is attempting to make an observation about behavior and then extrapolating from that a moral ought.  This is a logical fallacy.


You're observation that the assumption doesn't create reality is well founded.

But that's not what the assumption of agency is meant to do. Instead, it's meant to guide the individual as to the best course of action.

If we drop the assumption that other people are their own conscious agents, then we have no empathy toward them and have no way to either predict how they will act or how to treat them. Assuming anything else (e.g. that they are all "ghosts in the machine") leads to no predictions. And if the assumption that they are agents themselves is wrong, then our whole reality is nothing but a simulacrum and none of our observations can be trusted, for they are all created by some unknowable "other" that has no objective meaning.

So you're right that the assumption doesn't MAKE reality. The assumption IS THAT we observe reality.

----------


## tttppp

> No, you need to define objectives. That's a normative task and economics can't tell you anything about it. You can ask an economist how to increase output, how to create more efficiency or how to maximize utility. You can't ask him if any of those objectives are "good" or "desired" (or at least he can't answer you as an economist).
> 
> Sola_fide is right, economics is value free.


You both a completely wrong. Economics can tell you to end the drug war. Economics will tell you the minimum amount of laws the better. And so on. If you know how to use economics, it can answer your questions on how to manage people.

----------


## mczerone

> What you are speaking of is not morality.  Morality cannot be subjective.  It cannot be right to murder an innocent person in China and wrong to murder an innocent person in Canada.  It must be wrong in all places, everywhere, to everyone, to murder innocent people, or else what you are talking about is not morality.  It has to be universal.


Okay, let's assume you are right.

Then how do we, fallible humans, discover the objective universals? Through logic, reason, science, and basic trial and error. We may never know the *exact* objective universal, all we can do is apply our subjective experience and objective reason to get closer and closer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're observation that the assumption doesn't create reality is well founded.
> 
> But that's not what the assumption of agency is meant to do. Instead, it's meant to guide the individual as to the best course of action.
> 
> If we drop the assumption that other people are their own conscious agents, then we have no empathy toward them and have no way to either predict how they will act or how to treat them. Assuming anything else (e.g. that they are all "ghosts in the machine") leads to no predictions. And if the assumption that they are agents themselves is wrong, then our whole reality is nothing but a simulacrum and none of our observations can be trusted, for they are all created by some unknowable "other" that has no objective meaning.
> 
> So you're right that the assumption doesn't MAKE reality. The assumption IS THAT we observe reality.


Right, but from observations of behavior, you cannot make a valid ought argument.  This was the point of the op.  It said:




> Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. _From observational premises no normative conclusion follows._ Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.


From an observation about nature, no valid argument of morality can be made.

----------


## robert68

> You both a completely wrong. Economics can tell you to end the drug war. Economics will tell you the minimum amount of laws the better. And so on. If you know how to use economics, it can answer your questions on how to manage people.


Not if the consequences of the drug war are a value you consider _good_.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not if the consequences of the drug war are a value you consider _good_.


Exactly.  Economics is a vital study of human behavior, but how one ought to act is not something it can answer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And if the assumption that they are agents themselves is wrong, then our whole reality is nothing but a simulacrum and none of our observations can be trusted, for they are all created by some unknowable "other" that has no objective meaning.


What is the basis for your trust in the senses? Blind faith?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay, let's assume you are right.
> 
> Then how do we, fallible humans, discover the objective universals? Through logic, reason, science, and basic trial and error. We may never know the *exact* objective universal, all we can do is apply our subjective experience and objective reason to get closer and closer.


That's a good question, but it is a different issue entirely than the one I was proposing in the OP.  

In the OP, what was asserted was that arguments about morality that come from observations about behavior are logically fallacious.  Atheistic worldviews, because they are empiricist, can only make fallacious moral arguments.

----------


## Falcon63

> What is the basis for your trust in the senses? Blind faith?


No theist/deist can talk bad about blind faith...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No theist/deist can talk bad about blind faith...


It's not so much that we should talk bad about it.  But you need to understand as an atheist that you have blind faith in the senses.  And when you construct arguments about morality from observations that comes from your blind faith in the senses, you commit logical fallacies.

----------


## tttppp

> Not if the consequences of the drug war are a value you consider _good_.



I am assuming the person in charge is an intelligent person and not a sick $#@!.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am assuming the person in charge is an intelligent person and not a sick $#@!.


Why?  The history of government has shown that they value making slaves of the people.

----------


## mczerone

> What is the basis for your trust in the senses? Blind faith?


Because there is no other option that allows for an individual to function in the real world. If you don't assume that your senses relay an objective reality, you are left with a bunch of meaningless data that tells no causal story, that informs no action, and that can't predict consequences.

Besides, if you make the hypothesis: "What I observe behaves as I expect real things to behave" - you can test it by acting - and all tests carried out by this actor have resoundingly supported the hypothesis.




> That's a good question, but it is a different issue entirely than the one I was proposing in the OP.  
> 
> In the OP, what was asserted was that arguments about morality that come from observations about behavior are logically fallacious.  Atheistic worldviews, because they are empiricist, can only make fallacious moral arguments.


There's "observations _about_ behavior" and then there's "observations _of_ behavior." The empiricist will look at what humans have done, observations of behaviors, and can draw conclusions about the morals _of those actors_. It won't be a universal morality, it will only be a "historical" morality of particular actors.

OTOH, you can make logical, rational observations _about_ behavior that is a meta-analysis of how people act in general. From that axiomatic ontology, you can draw conclusions about morality that can be universal.

And your logic that "arguments formed from X are logically deficient => people that use arguments formed from X can only be wrong" is itself wrong. If you assume that 2+2=5, you can "prove" ALL things - right and wrong. So if you have a worldview that accepts that 2+2=5, you can still use that to prove _correct_ things, like 5+5=10, while dismissing _incorrect_ things for different reasons (e.g. "we know that 4+4 doesn't equal 10, because we have five fingers on each hand for ten total. 2+2+2+2=10 must be wrong for some reason, even though we admit 2+2=5").




Lastly, how can you prove that _your_ "god-inspired" morality is the correct one? Can you prove universality? What if another person, with a theistic-ally distinct "god", has a different set of universal morals - how do you choose which is better?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because there is no other option that allows for an individual to function in the real world. If you don't assume that your senses relay an objective reality, you are left with a bunch of meaningless data that tells no causal story, that informs no action, and that can't predict consequences.


What is "objective reality" and how did you come to know it?  

How do you test what "objective reality" is?  By your senses?  How do you test that those senses are accurate?  By more of your senses?  How do you test those senses? By more of your senses? How do ever get out of that circularity to the "real world"? 

The answer is: you can't ever get out of your circularity to the world.  David Hume pointed this out.






> Besides, if you make the hypothesis: "What I observe behaves as I expect real things to behave" - you can test it by acting - and all tests carried out by this actor have resoundingly supported the hypothesis.


^^^This commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent.  Correlation does not imply causation.  










> There's "observations _about_ behavior" and then there's "observations _of_ behavior." The empiricist will look at what humans have done, observations of behaviors, and can draw conclusions about the morals _of those actors_. It won't be a universal morality, it will only be a "historical" morality of particular actors.
> 
> OTOH, you can make logical, rational observations _about_ behavior that is a meta-analysis of how people act in general. *From that axiomatic ontology, you can draw conclusions about morality that can be universal.*


No you can't.  This is the is/ought fallacy.  You cannot derive a prescription for behavior from a description of nature.  Ought cannot validly be derived from is.







> And your logic that "arguments formed from X are logically deficient => people that use arguments formed from X can only be wrong" is itself wrong. If you assume that 2+2=5, you can "prove" ALL things - right and wrong. So if you have a worldview that accepts that 2+2=5, you can still use that to prove _correct_ things, like 5+5=10, while dismissing _incorrect_ things for different reasons (e.g. "we know that 4+4 doesn't equal 10, because we have five fingers on each hand for ten total. 2+2+2+2=10 must be wrong for some reason, even though we admit 2+2=5").


I didn't quite understand what you meant to say here.  Could you clarify?







> Lastly, how can you prove that _your_ "god-inspired" morality is the correct one? Can you prove universality? What if another person, with a theistic-ally distinct "god", has a different set of universal morals - how do you choose which is better?


That's another great question...unrelated to what we are talking about here.  But the short answer is that you have to look at the internal consistency of the systems in question.

----------


## Natural Citizen

David is a philosopher, S_F.

----------


## Falcon63

> It's not so much that we should talk bad about it.  But you need to understand as an atheist that you have blind faith in the senses.


No, you do not. You have demonstrated numerous times that you don't understand what an Atheist is (or an Agnostic, for that matter).

----------


## robert68

> I am assuming the person in charge is an intelligent person and not a sick $#@!.


The facts show that low income neighborhoods are affected very differently than the others by the drug war. And more than a few sick $#@!s who know that, and don't live in them, simply dont care and support the drug war.

----------


## robert68

> What is the basis for your trust in the senses? Blind faith?


And the Bible is read without use of the senses?

----------


## Danan

> I am assuming the person in charge is an intelligent person and not a sick $#@!.


Physics tells you that if I throw someone off a cliff he will fall down and be smashed. Medicine tells us that being smashed will result in death.

Neither science can tell me if I _should_ throw a guy off a cliff. Am I ever allowed to do that? What if he is about to kill someone else? What I simply don't like him?

Science can only tell you what the consequence of a certain action will be. It can't tell you what objectives you should have. That's what morality is there for.

An economic example would be redistribution of wealth. You can easily construct a case where this doesn't result in economic inefficiency. It's still wrong, though, from a moral perspective.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Physics tells you that if I throw someone off a cliff he will fall down and be smashed. Medicine tells us that being smashed will result in death.
> 
> Neither science can tell me if I _should_ throw a guy off a cliff. Am I ever allowed to do that? What if he is about to kill someone else? What I simply don't like him?
> 
> Science can only tell you what the consequence of a certain action will be. It can't tell you what objectives you should have. That's what morality is there for.
> 
> An economic example would be redistribution of wealth. You can easily construct a case where this doesn't result in economic inefficiency. It's still wrong, though, from a moral perspective.


^^^Absolutely correct.  Although, my only question would be for the last sentence.  You can't get universal standards of morality from an atheistic worldview, so theft can not be said to be wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And the Bible is read without use of the senses?


The wheels are turning now.  First, you are begging the question.  Your question assumes empiricism without proof of it.

Secondly...Yes, one uses the senses to read the Bible, but knowledge doesn't come from the senses.  There are millions and millions of people who have read the Bible and not known God.  That is one of the best examples of what I am talking about...that knowledge about truth is not something that can come from the senses.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> David is a philosopher, S_F.


Right, but what he did show is the solipsism that comes from empiricism.  When you take the claim that knowledge comes from the senses to its logical conclusion, it results in one not being able to know _anything_ objectively.  One can never logically get past sensation to the "real world".

----------


## Falcon63

Science cannot determine morality. Religion cannot either. Nothing can. Morality is subjective, there are no absolutes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Science cannot determine morality. Religion cannot either. Nothing can. Morality is subjective, there are no absolutes.


"There are no absolutes" is a self-refuting statement.  You are saying that something is absolutely true, while denying absolute truth.

----------


## Falcon63

> "There are no absolutes" is a self-refuting statement.  You are saying that something is absolutely true, while denying absolute truth.


What I said still stands. Morality is subjective.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What I said still stands. Morality is subjective.


What you said was irrational.  Do you care about being rational?

----------


## Falcon63

> What you said was irrational.  Do you care about being rational?


Do you believe that morality is subjective or not?

----------


## robert68

> The wheels are turning now.  First, you are begging the question.  Your question assumes empiricism without proof of it.
> 
> Secondly...Yes, one uses the senses to read the Bible, but knowledge doesn't come from the senses.  There are millions and millions of people who have read the Bible and not known God.  That is one of the best examples of what I am talking about...that knowledge about truth is not something that can come from the senses.


And those who “know God” know "God" how?

----------


## tttppp

> Why?  The history of government has shown that they value making slaves of the people.


What the $#@! does that have anything to do with my argument? According to you, only God can rule because the rest of us are a bumch of idiots.

----------


## tttppp

> The facts show that low income neighborhoods are affected very differently than the others by the drug war. And more than a few sick $#@!s who know that, and don't live in them, simply dont care and support the drug war.



What the $#@! is your point? I argued if you simply follow economics, there would be no drug war as an example. I am sick of this bul$#@! where every moron assumes the person in charge must be incompetent.

----------


## tttppp

> Physics tells you that if I throw someone off a cliff he will fall down and be smashed. Medicine tells us that being smashed will result in death.
> 
> Neither science can tell me if I _should_ throw a guy off a cliff. Am I ever allowed to do that? What if he is about to kill someone else? What I simply don't like him?
> 
> Science can only tell you what the consequence of a certain action will be. It can't tell you what objectives you should have. That's what morality is there for.
> 
> An economic example would be redistribution of wealth. You can easily construct a case where this doesn't result in economic inefficiency. It's still wrong, though, from a moral perspective.



You are reading economics innaccurately.

----------


## mczerone

> What is "objective reality" and how did you come to know it?  
> 
> How do you test what "objective reality" is?  By your senses?  How do you test that those senses are accurate?  By more of your senses?  How do you test those senses? By more of your senses? How do ever get out of that circularity to the "real world"? 
> 
> The answer is: you can't ever get out of your circularity to the world.  David Hume pointed this out.


I agree. But until there is evidence - in whatever form - that senses can't be trusted, it makes sense to trust the senses.

Even if the world is a simulacrum, it makes sense to assume that it's real, because to do otherwise is to admit impotence.





> ^^^This commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent.  Correlation does not imply causation.


I wasn't talking about "causation" - I was talking about trusting correlation.




> No you can't.  This is the is/ought fallacy.  You cannot derive a prescription for behavior from a description of nature.  Ought cannot validly be derived from is.


I'm not describing nature using physical observations of nature. I'm taking the praxeological approach of defining irrefutable axioms and deducting conclusions that logically follow. And our logic is part of the first axiom above: cogito ergo sum, so it does escape the circularity of the external.




> I didn't quite understand what you meant to say here.  Could you clarify?


If you assume that something incorrect is true, you can use it to prove anything. If I assume that dogs breathe nitrogen, I can correctly predict that suffocating a dog will kill it. But I would also incorrectly predict that if I exposed the dog to air with high nitrogen levels and low oxygen levels it would remain alive.

The mathematical notion is that if you assume 1+1=3, you can then prove any mathematical statement.




> That's another great question...unrelated to what we are talking about here.  But the short answer is that you have to look at the internal consistency of the systems in question.


It's not unrelated. I'm saying that there exists an atheistic universal morality that is internally consistent. You get all hung up on minutia and debate things that don't address the universality or internal consistency of the system. So instead of an atheistic worldview, I substituted a rival theistic morality that, for the sake of argument, is universal and internally consistent.

And you responded by saying you'd need to question the internal consistency of a system that I've told you is internally consistent as part of the argument.

I don't have infinite time to debate you, but I want to leave now with my observations of your position. You have an emotional attachment to your religion, and you've been told that people that don't hold it can't be moral. Rather than question these ingrained beliefs, you lash out and attack those who want to peacefully coexist with you without submitting to your god. You have a certain level of theistic and philosophical background, and you use that to sieve out the novices that you face, bolstering your own ego and leaving your opponent no more enlightened to your philosophy and no less enthralled with their own. When you face someone that has intellectual honesty and philosophical rigor, you perform a Gish Gallop and you require 100% elucidated precision from people on an internet forum while you give vague arguments and appeals to authority.

You "win" debates simply by draining people's time until they decide it's not worth replying anymore. You don't convince anyone that's outside of your sphere, and, in fact, polarize those who may have been close to your thinking away from accepting your argument.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> ^^^Absolutely correct.  Although, my only question would be for the last sentence.  You can't get universal standards of morality from an atheistic worldview, so theft can not be said to be wrong.


Why can't you get universal standards of morality from an atheistic worldview?  I still don't understand why making this statement somehow makes it automatically true.  

Also, if one does buy into the notion that only religious belief can give you a universal standard of morality, then by what method would one determine which "universal" set of morality is correct when choosing from those offered by various religions, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Sikh, Zoroastrian, etc...  

When each religion claims to be the one, only true path, and has scriptures to prove it, then how does an individual determine which one is the right one?  The "universal" morality prescribed by each one is different from the others.  This presents quite a conundrum for any honest, thinking person who is inclined to seek their guide to proper morality through religion.

----------


## Danan

> You are reading economics innaccurately.


That's one of the very few things Austrian Economists as well as almost all other schools of economics agree on. Economics is value-free.

----------


## tttppp

> That's one of the very few things Austrian Economists as well as almost all other schools of economics agree on. Economics is value-free.


Economics is based on efficiency. If you understannd efficiency you can answer almost any question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why can't you get universal standards of morality from an atheistic worldview?  I still don't understand why making this statement somehow makes it automatically true.


Uh...Its certainly not true just "because I say it".  You can't get universal standards from atheistic worldviews because atheistic worldviews are trapped into trying to make observations about nature and then attempting to draw oughts from those observations.

As the OP shows, this is a logical fallacy.  Oughts cannot be derived from ises.

This is a great thread if you read it from beginning to end.  I hope people here do it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Why can't you get universal standards of morality from an atheistic worldview?  I still don't understand why making this statement somehow makes it automatically true.  
> 
> Also, if one does buy into the notion that only religious belief can give you a universal standard of morality, then by what method would one determine which "universal" set of morality is correct when choosing from those offered by various religions, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Sikh, Zoroastrian, etc...  
> 
> When each religion claims to be the one, only true path, and has scriptures to prove it, then how does an individual determine which one is the right one?  The "universal" morality prescribed by each one is different from the others.  This presents quite a conundrum for any honest, thinking person who is inclined to seek their guide to proper morality through religion.


That's it.  Start your own religion. Than you can authoritatively say anything you do is moral.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Not taking sides in the overall debate, but ^that likely to be a skewed statistics.  Lot's of people find religion in prison.  There's little else to do.  Attending a Bible study gets you out of your cell.  It's a stressful situation.  (Like the "there are no atheists in foxholes" joke.)  You want someone to speak on your behalf at your parole hearing and having a pastor do that can't hurt.  Myriad other reasons.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> What you said was irrational.  Do you care about being rational?


And your leap of faith is?

----------


## Danan

> Uh...Its certainly not true just "because I say it".  You can't get universal standards from atheistic worldviews because atheistic worldviews are trapped into trying to make observations about nature and then attempting to draw oughts from those observations.
> 
> As the OP shows, this is a logical fallacy.  Oughts cannot be derived from ises.
> 
> This is a great thread if you read it from beginning to end.  I hope people here do it.


I can still formulate ethical principles categorizing actions in "good" and "bad" without the need of a deity. Yes, that would make *me* the final arbiter of morality... _to me_. If your subjective morality disagrees with mine I'd have to persuade you if that bothers me.

Of course that kind of morality is founded in nothing but my own individual view of the world - but so is God's view of morality, if we assume he exists. I don't see why I should accept that his views on morality should trump mine - *even if* we were to accept the *imho* ridiculous assumption that the God of the Bible exists. Quite frankly, I find the morality laid-out in the Bible to be mostly horrific and far from moral.

And don't come with that "he is divine and everything he does or wants is therefore good and moral" reasoning. Says who? God? That's no different from me claiming to be divine and everything I do or want is therefore moral.

----------


## matt0611

> And don't come with that "he is divine and everything he does or wants is therefore good and moral" reasoning. Says who? God? *That's no different from me claiming to be divine and everything I do or want is therefore moral.*


Of course its different. You're not perfectly holy and divine like God is. Just because you claim you are doesn't make it true.

Huge difference.

No one is denying you can construct your own subjective system of morality. But it will always be just that, what is "good" or "bad" according *to you*.

----------


## otherone

> Of course its different. You're not perfectly holy and divine like God is. Just because you claim you are doesn't make it true.


Actually, Danan is God.  He told me so.  He inspired me to write a lengthy, superannuated, scripture about it, so it must be true.

----------


## Danan

> Actually, Danan is God.  He told me so.  He inspired me to write a lengthy, superannuated, scripture about it, so it must be true.


How dare you tell the world! You'll burn for eternity for this betrayal (which I admittedly should have seen coming, being omniscient and so...)!




> Of course its different. You're not perfectly holy and divine like God is. Just because you claim you are doesn't make it true.
> 
> Huge difference.
> 
> No one is denying you can construct your own subjective system of morality. But it will always be just that, what is "good" or "bad" according to you.


My point was, and otherone was going into that direction, how is God's *claim* to be divine different from my *claim* to be divine? It's true, just because I say so doesn't make everything I say or do moral. But the same is true for God. Just because he says so doesn't mean it is true - whether or not it's actually true.

Is it conceptually possible that the Bible lays out what's moral and what not because it's the word of a perfectly good and divine being? Maybe. Is it conceptually possible that I am in fact a divine being and the sole arbiter of morality? Just as possible.

Sola_Fide claims there can be no morality without a deity and that's balony. Of course there can be. Morality is just the categorization of actions in "good" and "bad". You don't need a god for that. If you want to give it some divine metaphysical justification, then maybe you do. But not only is that not necessary, there are also a ton of problems with that approach.

----------


## otherone

> My point was, and otherone was going into that direction, how is God's *claim* to be divine different from my *claim* to be divine? It's true, just because I say so doesn't make everything I say or do moral. But the same is true for God. Just because he says so doesn't mean it is true - whether or not it's actually true.


When the "authority" for human behavior is supernatural, the responsibility for atrocities is removed from that supernatural entity's meat puppets.  God never speaks on his own behalf without someone having to be his interpreter.  God doesn't make a claim of his own authority....people do....and their claims are as valid as yours or mine. 
"You're Squidward? He's Squidward?  I'M SQUIDWARD!  We're ALL Squidward!"

----------


## matt0611

> Sola_Fide claims there can be no morality without a deity and that's balony. Of course there can be. Morality is just the categorization of actions in "good" and "bad". You don't need a god for that. If you want to give it some divine metaphysical justification, then maybe you do. But not only is that not necessary, there are also a ton of problems with that approach.


I believe he means some objective morality. Without God all you have is your own subjective ideas of morality.

----------


## matt0611

> Actually, Danan is God.  He told me so.  He inspired me to write a lengthy, superannuated, scripture about it, so it must be true.


Sure, you can claim anything you want. You can claim he is God and then you have your objective morality given to you by God (Danan). Then I guess you concede the point? Because that's the only way you can come up with some system of objective morality. But we both know you don't actually believe your basis for it anyway.

----------


## otherone

> Sure, you can claim anything you want.


As do you.  One guy's claims are as valid as the next's.  Your claim of objectivity is just as subjective as my claim.  Can't you see that?   Pointing up at the sky and saying a magic being doesn't think it's cool for me to be fantasizing about my neighbor's wife is simply YOU imposing YOUR morality, citing an unproven supernatural authority.  Frankly, all this "morality" talk smells a lot like the Bible crowd infringing on my Liberty.  I'm more concerned about my Rights than your Deuteronomy.

----------


## matt0611

> As do you.  One guy's claims are as valid as the next's.  Your claim of objectivity is just as subjective as my claim.  Can't you see that?   Pointing up at the sky and saying a magic being doesn't think it's cool for me to be fantasizing about my neighbor's wife is simply YOU imposing YOUR morality, citing an unproven supernatural authority.  Frankly, all this "morality" talk smells a lot like the Bible crowd infringing on my Liberty.  I'm more concerned about my Rights than your Deuteronomy.


Sure, but if I'm right then the morality I speak of is from an objective source which is eternal and perfect. Which changes everything. 

You can claim you have objective morality but of course you yourself admit that its subjective because its just your subjective opinion of what is "right" or "wrong". No more or less authority then anyone else's because you are the ultimate source of it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Could morality gradually Evolve in a literal Natural Selection process? 

I mean it seems like most of the sane modern world has moved past slavery and we aim to ensure equal human rights.  Is this from something externally imposed on people or did we figure this out ourselves through hard trial and error?

I suppose though imposing morality has been attempted and led to really stupid things like Prohibition.

----------


## James Madison

> Could morality gradually Evolve in a literal Natural Selection process? 
> 
> I mean it seems like most of the sane modern world has moved past slavery and we aim to ensure equal human rights.  Is this from something externally imposed on people or did we figure this out ourselves through hard trial and error?
> 
> I suppose though imposing morality has been attempted and led to really stupid things like Prohibition.


Sure, morality is a product of natural selection. There isn't any other way for it to exist.

Modern public opinion on slavery and human rights is scultped by a small group with tremendous power and influence on the public. The threat of social ostracization and thus the inability to reproduce forces most to adopt viewpoints that are in direct opposition to their instincts. Public opinion of homosexuals is a good example. Homophobia would be advantageous in most primitive scenarios because it ensures both larger and superior populations. At the individual level, children of parents who are not approving of homosexuality likely enjoy higher reproductive success because societal pressures force homosexual children to adopt heterosexual lives. There isn't a biological reason for parents to devote the time and resources to a pregnancy and child-rearing only for the child to not bare children. You can think of it has not getting a return on your investment. This also explains why using the images of dead children is such a powerful tool of the propaganda masters.

----------


## robert68

> Sure, but if I'm right then the morality I speak of is from an objective source which is eternal and perfect. Which changes everything. 
> 
> You can claim you have objective morality but of course you yourself admit that its subjective because its just your subjective opinion of what is "right" or "wrong". No more or less authority then anyone else's because you are the ultimate source of it.


Anyone’s subjective morality can have a source - one’s conscience can have a source - but that doesn't make that morality objective. Objective things are independently observable by others.

Also, he never claimed to have "objective morality".

----------


## matt0611

> Anyone’s subjective morality can have a source - one’s conscience can have a source - but that doesn't make that morality objective. Objective things are independently observable by others.
> 
> Also, he never claimed to have "objective morality".


I never said his system of morality "didn't have a source", just that it was his own subjective opinion of what is right or wrong.

It's impossible to have an objective system of morality coming out from an atheistic worldview so I have no points of disagreement with him in that respect.

----------


## Alex Libman

Atheistic world-views are THE ONLY ONES that can determine morality, on the basis of reason.

If a religious person hears voices in his head telling him to kill his child, well, there's precedent...

And if a religious person realizes that his religion is a lie, he'll have nothing to hold him back.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Atheistic world-views are THE ONLY ONES that can determine morality, on the basis of reason.
> *
> If a religious person hears voices in his head telling him to kill his child, well, there's precedent...
> 
> And if a religious person realizes that his religion is a lie, he'll have nothing to hold him back.


Incorrect.  The atheist worldview cannot help but rely on inductive reasoning at some point-inherently fallacious.  I suggest you read some philosophy and epistemology of science.  It will humble you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I can still formulate ethical principles categorizing actions in "good" and "bad" without the need of a deity. Yes, that would make *me* the final arbiter of morality... _to me_. If your subjective morality disagrees with mine I'd have to persuade you if that bothers me.


Yes, it is your own subjective standard, which ultimately comes down to might makes right, which is the natural progression to the most murderous tyrannies the world has ever known.  Atheism calls the most vicious kind of statism into being.  When God's court is denied, man's court becomes primary.  Collective man becomes the only echo box for values.  Atheism calls collectivism into being at its very philosophical foundation. 






> Of course that kind of morality is founded in nothing but my own individual view of the world - but so is God's view of morality, if we assume he exists. I don't see why I should accept that his views on morality should trump mine - *even if* we were to accept the *imho* ridiculous assumption that the God of the Bible exists. Quite frankly, I find the morality laid-out in the Bible to be mostly horrific and far from moral.


Well, God created you and is giving you your very breath to breathe right now.  One day He is going to end your breath and call you to account before Him.  And because He created you as a moral being who is accountable to His law in every detail, you are going to stand before Him as a law breaker.  There will be no escape from this punishment Danan.  EVERY sin will be punished eternally...it will either be punished in the sinner eternally or it will have been punished in the Son,  who rendered an eternal sacrifice. 





> And don't come with that "he is divine and everything he does or wants is therefore good and moral" reasoning. Says who? God? That's no different from me claiming to be divine and everything I do or want is therefore moral.


You already do claim to be divine in the sense that you think that you are your own ultimate standard for right and wrong.  The difference of course is that you are the creature and God is the Creator.   And the creature has no claim against the Creator.   The creature cannot question the Creator.  

Besides, we are getting away from the point of the OP.  Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality because they are trapped into the is/ought fallacy.  NO ONE in this thread has any argument against that.  Observational science can tell us what we DO, but it can never tell us what we OUGHT to do.  That is the failure of atheism.  That is why atheism cannot inform our view of liberty.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Incorrect.  The atheist worldview cannot help but rely on inductive reasoning at some point-inherently fallacious.  I suggest you read some philosophy and epistemology of science.  It will humble you.


Yes, and in regards to morality:




> I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people*do; but it cannot discover what people*ought*to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows.*
> 
> Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy. Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason wants to do.

----------


## Alex Libman

> Incorrect.  The atheist worldview cannot help but rely on inductive reasoning at some point-inherently fallacious.  I suggest you read some philosophy and epistemology of science.  It will humble you.


In your last two sentences, you were subconsciously reflecting back what I would be telling tell you (and what someone might have correctly told you in the past).

Your first two sentences are completely baseless.

----------


## malkusm

> No you cannot.  Morality is not subjective.  If a "first principle" is used, it must apply universally or we are not talking about morality.


People have invoked religion to do terrible, unspeakable things to other individuals. Were these people moral simply because they were acting on behalf of a religion? If not, does it not show that morality does not follow _universally_ from religion?

I would agree that many religious teachings are grounded in, and will provide an individual with a good basis of, morality as we know it. To me, however, morality is a study in anthropology and human history. This is evidenced by the vastly different moral codes produced by different cultures around the world through thousands of years of gradual change and teaching. If morality is _a priori_, why would it seemingly differ from place to place on this basis?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> People have invoked religion to do terrible, unspeakable things to other individuals. Were these people moral simply because they were acting on behalf of a religion? If not, does it not show that morality does not follow _universally_ from religion?
> 
> I would agree that many religious teachings are grounded in, and will provide an individual with a good basis of, morality as we know it. To me, however, *morality is a study in anthropology and human history.* This is evidenced by the vastly different moral codes produced by different cultures around the world through thousands of years of gradual change and teaching. If morality is _a priori_, why would it seemingly differ from place to place on this basis?


Morality cannot be a study in anthropology and human history. Why? Because observations about anthropology or history tells us only what men _do_.  It cannot tell us what men _ought_ to do.  Morality is about what men _ought to do._

As the OP shows, any attempt to derive oughts from ises results in this fundamental logical fallacy.   This is why atheism cannot determine morality.

----------


## malkusm

> Morality cannot be a study in anthropology and human history. Why? Because observations about anthropology or history tells us only what men _do_.  It cannot tell us what men _ought_ to do.  Morality is about what men _ought to do._


No, it shows us what men _thought they ought_ to do. Men who were religious thought they had a divine right to own slaves, forcibly take land from others, and a host of other things, which to me disproves that morality comes from religion (even if it does not come from the absence thereof). However, in more subtle ways, children are taught values at a young age. They are taught to value money more or less, family more or less, themselves more or less than others...these are value judgments which are inherently subjective and for which there is no objective, _universal_ answer (as you claim a first principal must "universally" apply).

Note, I consider there to be a higher power which directs us all, but we are left with free will to determine not only our actions, but their implications toward our moral imperatives.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, it shows us what men _thought they ought_ to do. Men who were religious thought they had a divine right to own slaves, forcibly take land from others, and a host of other things, which to me disproves that morality comes from religion (even if it does not come from the absence thereof). However, in more subtle ways, children are taught values at a young age. They are taught to value money more or less, family more or less, themselves more or less than others...these are value judgments which are inherently subjective and for which there is no objective, _universal_ answer (as you claim a first principal must "universally" apply).
> 
> Note, I consider there to be a higher power which directs us all, but we are left with free will to determine not only our actions, but their implications toward our moral imperatives.


That is just a different way of saying the same thing I was saying.  Observations about human behavior can never tell us what men ought to do.  The argument is clearly stated in the OP:




> I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people*do; but it cannot discover what people*ought*to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows.*
> 
> Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy. Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason wants to do.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I didn't read all 111 posts.  Whose god determines morality?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In your last two sentences, you were subconsciously reflecting back what I would be telling tell you (and what someone might have correctly told you in the past).


And who made you an expert on my subconscious/unconscious minds?




> Your first two sentences are completely baseless.


Let's review:



> Incorrect. The atheist worldview cannot help but rely on inductive reasoning at some point-inherently fallacious.


What's baseless here?  I'm somewhat familiar with atheist literature and philosophy.  I have never found an atheist who claimed to be omniscient.  This fact tells you that at some point, said atheist will rely on induction.  He will just say something "is" and not have an explanation _why_ it "is".  (this is not "bad"-taxonomy and nomenclature are important for scientific understanding) Remember, science to this day has only scratched the surface of everything there is to know.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't read all 111 posts.  Whose god determines morality?


From the atheistic position, there are countless gods all running around being their own ultimate authorities for morals.  The OP shows how arguments from that position are illogical.   You dont have to read all 111 posts, just read the first one.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Moral "norms" aren't particularly a natural phenomenon.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> From the atheistic position, there are countless gods all running around being their own ultimate authorities for morals.  The OP shows how arguments from that position are illogical.   You dont have to read all 111 posts, just read the first one.


The OP didn't state whose god, as far as I can tell.  Are you saying that it's your god? _edit: Or Gordon Clark's god?_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The OP didn't state whose god, as far as I can tell.  Are you saying that it's your god? _edit: Or Gordon Clark's god?_


I didn't necessarily have to state directly which conception of God I was speaking of, because the argument was against atheism.  But it is an important question you ask. The Triune God who has revealed Himself.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Sure, morality is a product of natural selection. There isn't any other way for it to exist.
> 
> Modern public opinion on slavery and human rights is scultped by a small group with tremendous power and influence on the public. The threat of social ostracization and thus the inability to reproduce forces most to adopt viewpoints that are in direct opposition to their instincts. Public opinion of homosexuals is a good example. Homophobia would be advantageous in most primitive scenarios because it ensures both larger and superior populations. At the individual level, children of parents who are not approving of homosexuality likely enjoy higher reproductive success because societal pressures force homosexual children to adopt heterosexual lives. There isn't a biological reason for parents to devote the time and resources to a pregnancy and child-rearing only for the child to not bare children. You can think of it has not getting a return on your investment. This also explains why using the images of dead children is such a powerful tool of the propaganda masters.


Well, I didn't really mean that Morality evolved out of genetics, but a process comparable to natural selection.  The best ideas may be embraced by society and a person doesn't have to reproduce to pass on such ideas.  

I'm not sure about the Homosexuality thing, but well.... regarding the idea of contributing to reproduction in the "Tribe" as a reason to be respected, that doesn't really add up to how women have been treated or denied rights in the past.  

But perhaps, while we differ in opinion maybe this is also how morality can evolve through discussion rather than having it imposed

----------


## James Madison

> Well, I didn't really mean that Morality evolved out of genetics, but a process comparable to natural selection.  *The best ideas may be embraced by society and a person doesn't have to reproduce to pass on such ideas. * 
> 
> I'm not sure about the Homosexuality thing, but well.... regarding the idea of contributing to reproduction in the "Tribe" as a reason to be respected, that doesn't really add up to how women have been treated or denied rights in the past.  
> 
> But perhaps, while we differ in opinion maybe this is also how morality can evolve through discussion rather than having it imposed


These are known as 'memes'. And no, I'm not referring to funny pictures on the internet.  The concept was proposed by Richard Dawkins in his book _The Selfish Gene_. As much as I despise Dawkins, his work on 'memes' is actually quite good.

Genes and memes, along with environmental factors, combine in what's known as a phenotype. Together they are the driving force of natural selection and thus evolution.

----------


## TheTexan

> I didn't read all 111 posts.  Whose god determines morality?


Mine

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Mine


Actually it's mine.

I'm offended you did not know this.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Actually it's mine.
> 
> I'm offended you did not know this.


Looks like only WWIII will solve this conundrum...  go to your corners, gather your forces....on your mark...get set....wait!

----------


## Sola_Fide

Bump.

----------


## otherone

Insert here:

Based on DNA evidence, the Bushmen of South Africa appear to be the direct descendants of the first **** sapiens; and all modern man from the Bushmen.  They have an intriguing  social structure...it takes little imagination to envision how people "ought" to behave based on their precedent. 
wiki:



> The San kinship system reflects their interdependence as traditionally small mobile foraging bands. The kinship system is comparable to the eskimo kinship system, with the same set of terms as in European cultures, but also uses a name rule and an age rule. The age rule resolves any confusion arising from kinship terms, as the older of two people always decides what to call the younger. Relatively few names circulate (approximately 35 names per sex), and each child is named after a grandparent or another relative.
> 
> Children have no social duties besides playing, and leisure is very important to San of all ages. Large amounts of time are spent in conversation, joking, music, and sacred dances. Women have a high status in San society, are greatly respected, and may be leaders of their own family groups. They make important family and group decisions and claim ownership of water holes and foraging areas. Women are mainly involved in the gathering of food, but may also take part in hunting.
> 
> The most important thing in San life is water. Droughts may last many months and waterholes may dry up. When this happens, they use sip wells. To get water this way, a San scrapes a deep hole where the sand is damp. Into this hole is inserted a long hollow grass stem. An empty ostrich egg is used to collect the water. Water is sucked into the straw from the sand, into the mouth, and then travels down another straw into the ostrich egg.
> 
> Traditionally, the San were an egalitarian society.[35] Although they had hereditary chiefs, their authority was limited. The San made decisions among themselves by consensus,[36] with women treated as relative equals.[37] San economy was a gift economy, based on giving each other gifts regularly rather than on trading or purchasing goods and services.[38]

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Gordon Clark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				...but science can never determine who should be killed.



Yeah, figuring out who to kill should always be left up to religious people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, figuring out who to kill should always be left up to religious people.


I think the point of the OP flew right over your head.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think the point of the OP flew right over your head.


You think wrong.

I think the entire history of the Middle Ages flew right over yours.  How can someone who spends so much time bashing everyone's religion but his own be so stubbornly resistant to the fact that organized religion has done harm to people through history?

----------


## otherone

> You think wrong.
> 
> I think the entire history of the Middle Ages flew right over yours.  How can someone who spends so much time bashing everyone's religion but his own be so stubbornly resistant to the fact that organized religion has done harm to people through history?


S-F's concept of morality is only concerned with supernatural consequences.  It has nothing to do with how people should treat each other.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> S-F's concept of morality is only concerned with supernatural consequences.  It has nothing to do with how people should treat each other.


That's not accurate at all.  The supernatural law is the very basis of how a person should treat another person.

Also,  I've never understood why this position is grouped in with "the middle ages" because the atrocities of the middle ages were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church, with has the EXACTLY same concept of law that atheists have (natural law).

This entire thread is a refutation of natural law, what Rome and atheists both use.  Instead of these little quippy zingers, let's study a little bit and understand the positions.

----------


## otherone

> That's not accurate at all.  The supernatural law is the very basis of how a person should treat another person.


Or what?  Why should anyone care what your interpretation of your canon says?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Or what?  Why should anyone care what your interpretation of your canon says?


Because to have a rational philosophy of freedom, you must have a worldview that sustains a non-arbitrary morality.  Atheistic worldviews do not provide this, which is why it astounds me that a person who espouses an atheistic worldview can contend for these moral positions of liberty.  They haven't thought through their worldview enough.

----------


## Crashland

> Because to have a rational philosophy of freedom, you must have a worldview that sustains a non-arbitrary morality.  Atheistic worldviews do not provide this, which is why it astounds me that a person who espouses an atheistic worldview can contend for these moral positions of liberty.  *They haven't thought through their worldview enough.*


Or, you don't understand their worldview enough. Morality as a product of human experience is anything but arbitrary. What is truly arbitrary is basing your morality on what is written in an ancient book instead of thinking about it for yourself.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that what I want others might want.  It's fundamental to self realization and the realization that those that I have been interacting with, from my beginning, are similar to myself.  A psychopath even understands that people do that.

Now, if I want to live, then I shouldn't piss others off, like kill one of their family members.

It's a matter of survival, plus some thought process into it.  Going beyond the "end of your nose'.

Then, you can try to imagine the art, the engineering, the enhancement of technology that you want to do...to share.

But why share?  It's because you have taken those first principals into your heart, into your being, whatever that is, and realized that the good feeling of living for others can be as important as that for yourself.  It's part of that extension that you realize when you find that others, some of them to some extent, are like yourself.

And because you want it, you want it for them, and hope that they also want it for you.  Because if they want it for you, then you are better off also.  

And then...we can live in peace together...I won't hurt you and you won't hurt me.

_edit: But, I also realize that some need a strong incentive not to hurt others.  I think Jefferson understood this._

----------


## ClydeCoulter

For some reason though, I have decided that it doesn't matter, anymore, if others don't want freedom, or to express the beauty of life for others.  I have decided that, that's what I want, and that's what I will do, with all of my heart...all of my being.

And I think that others are also coming to that conclusion, some others.

And that, my friends, makes us strong...very strong.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I think the point of the OP flew right over your head.


I think the point of my post flew right over your head.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Or, you don't understand their worldview enough. Morality as a product of human experience is anything but arbitrary. What is truly arbitrary is basing your morality on what is written in an ancient book instead of thinking about it for yourself.


Even if there was a non-arbitrary morality, the world would be full of people giving and promoting their arbitrary interpretation of it.  This is why religions support the idea of absolute morality, but the splinters off into different denominations, each with their own interpretations of scripture and moral codes.  

Maybe in a way, an atheist can seem more honest saying they have a moral code thought up from their own life experience and research, as opposed to many religious public figures who support and Absolute Morality, while on the side pushing the morality they've arrived at in much the same way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think the point of my post flew right over your head.


Please off something substantial to these threads. 

Thanks,
SF

----------


## ClydeCoulter

wooosh!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Or, you don't understand their worldview enough. Morality as a product of human experience is anything but arbitrary. What is truly arbitrary is basing your morality on what is written in an ancient book instead of thinking about it for yourself.





> It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that what I want others might want.  It's fundamental to self realization and the realization that those that I have been interacting with, from my beginning, are similar to myself.  A psychopath even understands that people do that.
> 
> Now, if I want to live, then I shouldn't piss others off, like kill one of their family members.
> 
> It's a matter of survival, plus some thought process into it.  Going beyond the "end of your nose'.
> 
> Then, you can try to imagine the art, the engineering, the enhancement of technology that you want to do...to share.
> 
> But why share?  It's because you have taken those first principals into your heart, into your being, whatever that is, and realized that the good feeling of living for others can be as important as that for yourself.  It's part of that extension that you realize when you find that others, some of them to some extent, are like yourself.
> ...



Please read through this thread from the first post.  All of these questions were answered and these positions were refuted.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Even if there was a non-arbitrary morality, the world would be full of people giving and promoting their arbitrary interpretation of it.  This is why religions support the idea of absolute morality, but the splinters off into different denominations, each with their own interpretations of scripture and moral codes.  
> 
> Maybe in a way, an atheist can seem more honest saying they have a moral code thought up from their own life experience and research, as opposed to many religious public figures who support and Absolute Morality, while on the side pushing the morality they've arrived at in much the same way.



This thread is about why atheistic worldviews cannot offer prescriptions for behaviour.   Please read from the first post to the end to understand what the argument is.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Please off something substantial to these threads. 
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


Reread my post.  Then reread your OP.  Tell me what you see.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Reread my post.  Then reread your OP.  Tell me what you see.


Please understand your own view and understand mine.  Then understand the arguments between them.  Please offer something substantial to the discussion or I don't have any reason to respond to you anymore. 

Thanks,
SF

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Please understand your own view and understand mine.  Then understand the arguments between them.  Please offer something substantial to the discussion or I don't have any reason to respond to you anymore. 
> 
> Thanks,
> SF



You did not reread your post and reread mine.  Please do so and tell me what you see.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> This thread is about why atheistic worldviews cannot offer prescriptions for behaviour.   Please read from the first post to the end to understand what the argument is.


I was suggesting that even Religious worldviews presenting themselves as non-arbitrary can often be arbitrary.  Based on that, the argument seems kind of moot to me if in fact most people peddling various Absolute Moralities are really just pushing morale views they've arrived at from personal experience and research and just cherry pick Bible verses to support their view.  

I'm sure many Atheists could do the same.  Just research writings of Philosphers and Psychologists, consider how they feel about moral issues from personal experience, and then cherry pick a Bible verse that supports their view.  

I guess looking at it this way, I'm not sure I see a real difference between the average preacher or average atheist in terms of how they've _really_ arrived at their moral stance.

----------


## Crashland

> This thread is about why atheistic worldviews cannot offer prescriptions for behaviour.   Please read from the first post to the end to understand what the argument is.


The entire OP is a misunderstanding. Science is not supposed to be prescriptive for how people ought to behave, the scientific method is only for gaining reliable information. I don't know any atheists who think that we should be using descriptive science (or evolution, as some Christians like to claim) as a prescription for moral behavior. Speculating on how we think people ought to behave falls under the realm of philosophy, not the scientific method. Our moral/ethical principles are philosophical concepts that we construct using our reason, empathy, and human experiences.

----------


## otherone

> Because to have a rational philosophy of freedom, you must have a worldview that sustains a non-arbitrary morality.  Atheistic worldviews do not provide this, which is why it astounds me that a person who espouses an atheistic worldview can contend for these moral positions of liberty.  They haven't thought through their worldview enough.


Nonsense.  Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians all BELIEVE in moral axioms.  Your notion of freedom, for instance, is a byproduct of man's innate equality.  It is only this belief that can support the idea of freedom.  It needs no other myth or supernatural authority, it stands on it's own merit.  The Golden Rule is another moral absolute, and is pretty ubiquitous.  IMO, the basis of legitimate morality is empathy.  Without it, one only has law as his behavioral governor.  Obsession with the law without empathy creates Pharisees, both religious and secular.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> This thread is about why atheistic worldviews cannot offer prescriptions for behaviour.   Please read from the first post to the end to understand what the argument is.


So, you have trouble following a train of thought.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Which laws are these? As there is no _proof_ of God, only that which man has attributed to HIM, then there is no "proof" of HIS laws, only those laws which are attributed to HIM.
> 
>   If HIS laws say it is right to kill those he opposes BASED ON his MORALITY then are his laws "moral?"
> 
>   I suppose so. However, I don't ascribe to such bunk. My morals are superior or inferior to my fellow man depending on belief. So are those beliefs of mine against my fellow man based on my belief.
> 
>   Religion is a 'belief.' So is ones sense of morality. 
> 
>   There but for the sake of MYSELF, go I.


In other words, there is no morality without God.  Glad you got the point.  

See, what you're saying is that you have no objective basis for morality.  We don't have to prove the existence of God in order to prove that objective morality can only come from Him.  The fact that there is no morality without Him is proof of concept.  If God doesn't exist, then neither does morality.  However, I think that's kind of absurd considering we do all have this thing called a conscience.  I wonder how it got there?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do I have to post the video again of the dog risking his own life to save his fellow dog from the oncoming traffic?  This is seriously ridiculous.
> 
> Sola_Fide, I challenge you to find and post a credible source with statistics showing that the percentage of prison inmates who are atheists is higher than the overall percentage of atheists in the entire population.  If you can show that, then you might have a leg to stand on here.  It still wouldn't prove causation, but it would be enough to say maybe there is something to your premise.
> 
> I'll save you the time though... You'll find atheists are severely underrepresented in prison populations.  Not by a little, but by a lot.  This suggests that atheists do a much better job of living moral lives than religious people do.
> 
> 
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/athei...son-population
> 
> ...


The whole concept is going right over your head.  Nobody said atheists couldn't act like they had morals.  But where do those morals come from in the first place?

----------


## VIDEODROME

When this topic comes up, I'm kind of curious if anyone thinks there is an Absolute Objective Immorality.  Does someone need to be a Theist to also know how to be immoral? At least by some non-arbitrary standard?  

Would an immoral Atheist be accused of not having an objective standard to support their world view?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, it's sunk in just fine, it's just that it's not true.  I've known plenty of atheists, and they are just as capable of knowing how they "ought" to act as people who have a religious rule book to follow.  They're nice, caring, honest, moral people who have no desire to hurt anyone or compromise anyone's property rights.  The only thing they're doing differently that you and I aren't doing is, they're simply not expending any mental or emotional energy on a Creator, and they are not motivated by any notion of a Creator or God.
> 
> Since you didn't respond to it, I'm going to repeat what I said in my post above because I think it bears repeating, even if it's a little bit of an overgeneralization:
> 
> The atheists' morality is actually far more pure than the Christian's morality, because the atheist takes personal responsibility and does the right thing out of genuine respect and concern for others, whereas the Christian puts responsibility for good and evil on external spiritual influences (the devil made me do it, or all good comes from the glory of God), and the Christian acts in a moral manner not because it's the right thing to do, but because "those are the rules" and one must follow the rules in order to avoid punishment.


I will concur that the point in the OP has NOT sunk in, despite your insistence to the contrary.  You just don't get it.  It's over your head.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You think wrong.
> 
> I think the entire history of the Middle Ages flew right over yours.  How can someone who spends so much time bashing everyone's religion but his own be so stubbornly resistant to the fact that organized religion has done harm to people through history?


I concur that it flew right over your head.  Nobody's talking about who is and isn't moral.  We're talking about the very essence of what morality is and where it comes from.  Every time you say Christians did something immoral, what are you comparing their actions to to judge their actions as not the best action?  There has to be an objective standard in order to determine whether anything is right or wrong.  

What's more, your baseless claim that The Crusades were some how the fault of ALL organized religion is laughable when atheism probably has way more blood on its hands.  But of course, we can't blame that on atheists because they're not a collective like "organized religion" is.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> S-F's concept of morality is only concerned with supernatural consequences.  It has nothing to do with how people should treat each other.


To say what someone should do in the first place, you have to appeal to something outside of the natural universe, or else everything is subjective.

The laws of morality that nature is subject to cannot also be derived from the very same nature which is subject to it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Or, you don't understand their worldview enough. Morality as a product of human experience is anything but arbitrary. What is truly arbitrary is basing your morality on what is written in an ancient book instead of thinking about it for yourself.


Can you hear yourself think?  You just appealed to "human experience", something which is different for EVERYONE, to say that is is "anything but arbitrary."  Are you serious right now?  Thinking about morality for YOURSELF is *inherently arbitrary*.  You demonstrate this perfectly by referring to it as thinking "for yourself."  YOURSELF IS SUBJECTIVE.  IT CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT SUBJECTIVE.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

But yet, some of you say, like Paul, that God is revealed in nature.  smh

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Even if there was a non-arbitrary morality, the world would be full of people giving and promoting their arbitrary interpretation of it.  This is why religions support the idea of absolute morality, but the splinters off into different denominations, each with their own interpretations of scripture and moral codes.  
> 
> Maybe in a way, an atheist can seem more honest saying they have a moral code thought up from their own life experience and research, as opposed to many religious public figures who support and Absolute Morality, while on the side pushing the morality they've arrived at in much the same way.


That's not the point.  The point is not to prove one morality is best; it's to prove that there must be an absolute standard in order to have an absolute morality.  All SF is trying to do is to get you to admit that your morality IS arbitrary, which you seem to imply in this post anyway.  So the point is not to prove that one is the best, but  rather to prove that you need an absolute source for any morality to be right or wrong in order for people to misinterpret it.  It's not about people, it's about the proof-of-concept that acting morally depends on the existence of absolute standards.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When this topic comes up, I'm kind of curious if anyone thinks there is an Absolute Objective Immorality.  Does someone need to be a Theist to also know how to be immoral? At least by some non-arbitrary standard?  
> 
> Would an immoral Atheist be accused of not having an objective standard to support their world view?


The whole point of this thread is that Absolute Objective Morality must exist in order for anything to be objectively right or wrong.  The argument is not that it is impossible to act in ways which seem moral to you, but that you cannot call your actions objectively right or wrong if there is no AOM.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But yet, some of you say, like Paul, that God is revealed in nature.  smh


What's your point?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What's your point?


Try reading your posts, then mine.

If it can't be gleaned from nature, but has to be some extraneous source, then how can nature reveal god?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Try reading your posts, then mine.
> 
> If it can't be gleaned from nature, but has to be some extraneous source, then how can nature reveal god?


Because nature is God's creation.

Gleaning something from nature has nothing to do with what nature reveals.  You can't glean morality from nature, but nature can reveal a concept of morality.  In other words, you can't get morality from nature, but that doesn't mean nature can't show you a natural order that seems to suggest a certain standard of morality.  This would be because nature is not derived from itself but from the absolute standard to which we are referring.  The fact that you can't get the absolute standard from nature does not mean it is not reflected in nature by the One who holds the standards and created nature to reflect the existence of those standards.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Nature is cruel.  Each thing eats another thing to survive.  Even plants.

Man, has the ability to see things differently, to think about it and make decisions against the natural.

But, Paul says that man has no excuse because nature reveals god.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> you need an absolute source for any morality to be right or wrong in order for people to misinterpret it.


Okay I'm just giving each view of morality consideration for it's practical value.  I mean finding a point to this argument for the average person on the street who could be Agnostic.  

On one hand, Atheist morality being described as at the very least not consistent.  Different Atheists, because of different life experience and knowledge, may arrive at different moral codes.  

Belief in absolute objective morality, which may be interpreted differently by humans, perhaps based on their different life experience and knowledge.  

Sometime seems like arriving at the same place different ways.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Humans were moral before man invented religion.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Humans were moral before man invented religion.


Some were, yes.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Perhaps religion was the result of co-opting a movement.

----------


## Natural Citizen

This likely goes here...







> The individual and the universe are inseparable. But the curious thing is very few people are aware of it.
> 
> We confuse ourselves as living organisms which are one with this whole universe with something we call our personality
> 
> And what is our personality?
> 
> And our fundamental self is not something just inside the skin. It's everything around us with which we connect

----------


## DamianTV

I respectfully disagree with "Atheistic Worldviews Can Not Determine Morality".  Morality exists because we exist.  The fact that we are social creatures just amplifies the existing morality that Religion adopted, then tries to claim sole ownership of.  It wont be any different than in 20 years when Monsanto claims to "Own the Patent on the Human Genome", then twist that around into "Monsanto Created Man".  Religion and Morality are NOT mutually exclusive.  Some religious people are moral, others are not.  Some atheists are moral, others are not.  Not all black people are criminals.  Not all brown people are criminals.  Not all white people are criminals.  Not all polkadot plaid flannel wearing hillbillies are criminals.  Not all black people are honest either, nor are white, polkadot, brown, indian, or people who eat ice cream while ridning a donkey backwards next to a Freeway on a Sunday, etc.  Not mutually exclusive.

Problem is the State.

State will try to Co-opt and subvert Religion.  Most will disagree with this statement: "Fools find religion to be true, the Wise find religion to be false, the Rulers find religion to be useful".  Ignore "fools" and "wise" and focus on the "Rulers", or "State".  Now compare to the current propoganda saturating the airwaves and interwebz.  "Good people obey their Governments without question".  That is basically the State hijacking Religion.  By extension, just like Monsanto, the State will claim to be the Ultimate source of Rights and Morality.  This will become more and more clear as our current situation continues to unfold.  Then you have the Atheists.  Atheists are typically demonized because the State / Govt / TPTB / Elite is unable to imposter a non-belief.  Govt needs a Monopoly of Belief to maintain control over the people.  The State will do everything in its power to masquerade as what ever your religion is, and if one has no religion, they demonize the "non believers".  It isnt for their lack of belief in anything, but the Atheists Lack of State Worship that makes them so critically dangerous.  Calling for the ostracization of Atheists is yet another application of Divide and Conquer.  American vs Middle Eastern, Browns vs Whites, Misandrists vs Misogynists, Red Skins vs Patriots, chocolate vs peanut butter, XBox vs PlayStation, pick your Division and keep dividing until your opponent stands alone against your collectivist might.

Whatever Religion you are, if any, be VERY wary and maintain your highest level of vigilance for State Co-Opted Religion.  It will NOT be your Religion, but your State wearing the Mask of your Religion, in order to manipulate and control you.  Good people should NEVER blindly obey an Evil Religion or an Evil State.  The Religion of State is the purest evil that any religion can become.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Well, I've known several professed athiests who are/were pretty big on love and the Golden Rule too. 

Jesus' greatest hits.

----------


## DamianTV

> Well, I've known several professed athiests who are/were pretty big on love and the Golden Rule too. 
> 
> Jesus' greatest hits.


I get the feeling Jesus wasnt a big fan of the State...

----------


## acptulsa

> I get the feeling Jesus wasnt a big fan of the State...


We know for an established fact that He was no fan of organized religion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Okay I'm just giving each view of morality consideration for it's practical value.  I mean finding a point to this argument for the average person on the street who could be Agnostic.  
> 
> On one hand, Atheist morality being described as at the very least not consistent.  Different Atheists, because of different life experience and knowledge, may arrive at different moral codes.  
> 
> Belief in absolute objective morality, which may be interpreted differently by humans, perhaps based on their different life experience and knowledge.  
> 
> Sometime seems like arriving at the same place different ways.


Except it affects what we all believe at our core.  Those who believe there really is an objective morality will usually behave differently from those who don't.  The point is not to tell you that Christians are better because of this, but that the concept of absolute morality is needed to form a basis for any of your beliefs, otherwise, you have no way of justifying why your beliefs should truly act as universal moral codes.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Humans were moral before man invented religion.


That all depends on what "morality" is to you.  There is no way for man to act "moral" if there is no absolute morality because that would mean there is no standard by which to judge someone's actions.

I'm not arguing in favor of religion, just showing you why your thought process is inconsistent.  If you really believed that what someone else was doing was immoral, then that would mean you believed what you view as moral should apply to everyone else and not just you.  On what basis would you make that assumption if not for the appeal to an absolute standard that is independent of nature?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I get the feeling Jesus wasnt a big fan of the State...


*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Some were, yes.


The vast majority, or we wouldn't be here having this conversation.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Perhaps religion was the result of co-opting a movement.


*"Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be."

*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *"Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be."
> 
> *


How, pray tell, does it help to control people by telling them to worship God?  I think it has the opposite effect because those who believe in God will hold no authority higher than God and no man can tell you what to do if you only obey God.

----------


## acptulsa

> How, pray tell, does it help to control people by telling them to worship God?  I think it has the opposite effect because those who believe in God will hold no authority higher than God and no man can tell you what to do if you only obey God.


You haven't paid much attention to the Peace Through Religion subforum in recent years, have you?

It is well established that getting yourself appointed the Ultimate Authority on What God Says is extraordinarily useful in that department.  It's only in the few centuries since radical laymen began translating the Bible into live languages that the tyrants have begun to promote atheism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You haven't paid much attention to the Peace Through Religion subforum in recent years, have you?
> 
> It is well established that getting yourself appointed the Ultimate Authority on What God Says is extraordinarily useful in that department.  It's only in the few centuries since radical laymen began translating the Bible into live languages that the tyrants have begun to promote atheism.


Exactly.  Religion is not a control mechanism.  The tyrants promote atheism because God gets in their way.  The Catholic church was rather clever in this regard by making themselves the authority and thereby setting themselves up as the ones to be worshiped instead of God.  It's all about who the authority is.  You cannot have God as an ultimate authority and expect to control anyone unless you pretend that you can speak for God and set yourself up as the only available authority.  There is a big difference between the church and the religion.  One is based around the following and worshiping of God, the other is based around the following and worshiping of fallible men.

And no, I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I am aware of the concepts you are relating.  I just think it's important to make the distinction between men who make themselves the authority by referencing God and those who tell people that they can directly communicate with God.  Religion itself, however, is not a control mechanism.

----------


## acptulsa

> Religion itself, however, is not a control mechanism.


Well, in all honesty, that's kind of like saying radio isn't a control mechanism.  It was created as a means of communication, and that's what it is at heart even now.  But ever since a certain rather expensive toy known as the radio-controlled airplane turned into a thing called a drone, you might have a bit of difficulty convincing some people that radio isn't a control mechanism.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Positing that there must be Absolute Morality in order to have a non-arbitrary standard by which to judge is kinda like knowing that Absolute Truth exists (assuming it doesn't exist leads to a contradiction).  But neither conclusion tells you just what Absolute Morality or Absolute Truth consists of.  Knowing that there must be rules of Absolute Morality gives you no clue as to what the rules are, much less how to apply them in particular cases.

----------


## otherone

> You haven't paid much attention to the Peace Through Religion subforum in recent years, have you?
> 
> It is well established that getting yourself appointed the Ultimate Authority on What God Says is extraordinarily useful in that department.  It's only in the few centuries since radical laymen began translating the Bible into live languages that the tyrants have begun to promote atheism.


Seems obvious, no?
Don't forget that a supernatural boogeyman who's watching you when the earthly authorities can't _may_ be useful to the state....

----------


## acptulsa

> Seems obvious, no?
> Don't forget that a supernatural boogeyman who's watching you when the earthly authorities can't _may_ be useful to the state....


+rep for reminding me of the good old days when they still couldn't without the help God didn't actually give them...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Exactly.  Religion is not a control mechanism.  The tyrants promote atheism because God gets in their way.  *The Catholic church was rather clever in this regard by making themselves the authority and thereby setting themselves up as the ones to be worshiped instead of God.*  It's all about who the authority is.  You cannot have God as an ultimate authority and expect to control anyone unless you pretend that you can speak for God and set yourself up as the only available authority.  There is a big difference between the church and the religion.  One is based around the following and worshiping of God, the other is based around the following and worshiping of fallible men.
> 
> And no, I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I am aware of the concepts you are relating.  I just think it's important to make the distinction between men who make themselves the authority by referencing God and those who tell people that they can directly communicate with God.  Religion itself, however, is not a control mechanism.


Who ever worshiped the Catholic Church?  Admittedly I haven't studied deeply into Roman Catholicism, but I have scraped more than the surface of it.  The focus of worship in the RCC is God (defined by Catholics as the Holy Trinity-each Person-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-being equally God).  The only sense in which the RCC set itself as a unique authority is in the pre-schism period, in which the Roman Patriarchate was "first among equals".

----------


## acptulsa

> Who ever worshiped the Catholic Church?  Admittedly I haven't studied deeply into Roman Catholicism, but I have scraped more than the surface of it.  The focus of worship in the RCC is God (defined by Catholics as the Holy Trinity-each Person-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-being equally God).  The only sense in which the RCC set itself as a unique authority is in the pre-schism period, in which the Roman Patriarchate was "first among equals".


Back in the pre-schism period, which is clearly what he's talking about, the RCC wouldn't even allow the Bible to be translated into non-dead languages.  Under those conditions, how are humans supposed to tell God from the idol the church sets before them and stentorially decrees to be God.

And if everyone is worshipping an idol of their creation, what's the difference between worshipping that and worshipping them?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Who ever worshiped the Catholic Church?  Admittedly I haven't studied deeply into Roman Catholicism, but I have scraped more than the surface of it.  The focus of worship in the RCC is God (defined by Catholics as the Holy Trinity-each Person-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-being equally God).  The only sense in which the RCC set itself as a unique authority is in the pre-schism period, in which the Roman Patriarchate was "first among equals".


You misunderstand me.  The RCC may not have set itself up as a "unique authority", but they still acted as middle men.  When I say people "worshiped" the church, that's my way of saying their hearts weren't in the right place.  They depended on the church for salvation, believing all the while that they were worshiping God when really they held fallible men in higher regard because of their belief that they could not directly communicate with God but through the church.  

They may not have believed that the church was a real authority, but their actions spoke louder than their words.  If you can't communicate with God except through one venue, then that venue essentially becomes God by shutting out all other possible means of deriving authority directly from God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Back in the pre-schism period, which is clearly what he's talking about, the RCC wouldn't even allow the Bible to be translated into non-dead languages.  Under those conditions, how are humans supposed to tell God from the idol the church sets before them and stentorially decrees to be God.
> 
> And if everyone is worshipping an idol of their creation, what's the difference between worshipping that and worshipping them?


Exactly.  Well said.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Positing that there must be Absolute Morality in order to have a non-arbitrary standard by which to judge is kinda like knowing that Absolute Truth exists (assuming it doesn't exist leads to a contradiction).  But neither conclusion tells you just what Absolute Morality or Absolute Truth consists of.  Knowing that there must be rules of Absolute Morality gives you no clue as to what the rules are, much less how to apply them in particular cases.


True enough, but that assumes you have no way of knowing.  This question is more philosophical than biblical, but the purpose of it is really just to get you to acknowledge what you already know to be true.  You already know that killing is wrong and it doesn't take long to find out why if you really, honestly search for the answers.  The argument is really just meant to get you to acknowledge where those moral ideals come from.  God has give you all the evidence you need to know where His laws come from, and you can choose to ignore it or you can choose to at least study it and try to understand.  Otherwise, you are left trying to make sense of your own absurd worldview.  Once you know they exist, you can't just turn your back and say that you have no way of knowing when really you're just choosing to remain ignorant.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, in all honesty, that's kind of like saying radio isn't a control mechanism.  It was created as a means of communication, and that's what it is at heart even now.  But ever since a certain rather expensive toy known as the radio-controlled airplane turned into a thing called a drone, you might have a bit of difficulty convincing some people that radio isn't a control mechanism.


That's an absurd analogy and it has no bearing on the situation at all.  You're not being spied on with religion.  You're assuming that religion is being used in the same way that radio-controlled drones and that everyone is aware of how religion is being used to control us.  Well, we're not and such a notion is frankly absurd because it is rather ineffective when people hold a higher authority than the authority you're trying to establish.

----------


## Crashland

> That all depends on what "morality" is to you.  There is no way for man to act "moral" if there is no absolute morality because that would mean there is no standard by which to judge someone's actions.
> 
> I'm not arguing in favor of religion, just showing you why your thought process is inconsistent.  If you really believed that what someone else was doing was immoral, then that would mean you believed what you view as moral should apply to everyone else and not just you.  On what basis would you make that assumption if not for the appeal to an absolute standard that is independent of nature?





> Except it affects what we all believe at  our core.  Those who believe there really is an objective morality will  usually behave differently from those who don't.  The point is not to  tell you that Christians are better because of this, but that the  concept of absolute morality is needed to form a basis for any of your  beliefs, otherwise, you have no way of justifying why your beliefs  should truly act as universal moral codes.


It is not unreasonable to apply your own subjective view of morality to everyone else. We are all human and we share a LOT of common experiences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people don't want to be stolen from and that most people don't want to be murdered. The experience of feeling entitled to keep that which you have earned is a common human experience. Constructing moral codes and laws from these things in order to apply them to everyone is perfectly reasonable.

Just think of what people do when they are debating a moral point. If I am trying to convince you that you should not steal, I will appeal to _your_ reason, _your_ emotions, in the hope that we have some kind of commonality in those things as humans. We can have a discussion about why each of us feels the way we do. I don't have to appeal to an authority, "because Confucius said so", or "because the Bible said so". Appealing to an authority is a logical fallacy and a cop-out.

----------


## Theocrat

> It is not unreasonable to apply your own subjective view of morality to everyone else. We are all human and we share a LOT of common experiences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people don't want to be stolen from and that most people don't want to be murdered. The experience of feeling entitled to keep that which you have earned is a common human experience. Constructing moral codes and laws from these things in order to apply them to everyone is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Just think of what people do when they are debating a moral point. If I am trying to convince you that you should not steal, I will appeal to _your_ reason, _your_ emotions, in the hope that we have some kind of commonality in those things as humans. We can have a discussion about why each of us feels the way we do. I don't have to appeal to an authority, "because Confucius said so", or "because the Bible said so". Appealing to an authority is a logical fallacy and a cop-out.


The problem with your statement, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people don't want to be stolen from and that most people don't want to be murdered," is that there is no consensus in our political culture today about what "theft" and "murder" truly are. It may be true that most people don't want to be stolen from, but you'll find out that some of those same people have no problem when the federal government does it via taxation. And the really disturbing and discouraging part is those people won't even agree that taxation (that is, the government deducting money from wages without consent of the earner) is, in fact, theft.

The same applies to murder. Yes, most people would not want to be murdered, but then you'll find that some of those same people have no problem with an abortionist killing an unborn child in the womb. And, once again, those who support that sort of act will not even agree that it is murder, especially if it is sanctioned by the state and federal governments.

So, in your appeal to subjective morality, you actually obliterate ethics because what one considers to be right or wrong will always be in the eye of the beholder, whether it is on an individual scale or a collective scale. Therefore, there is no "morality" that we can find commonality in if morality, itself, is just subjective, contingent on one's feelings or beliefs about the subject.

----------


## HVACTech

> Who ever worshiped the Catholic Church?  Admittedly I haven't studied deeply into Roman Catholicism, but I have scraped more than the surface of it.  The focus of worship in the RCC is God (defined by Catholics as the Holy Trinity-each Person-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-being equally God).  The only sense in which the RCC set itself as a unique authority is in the pre-schism period, in which the Roman Patriarchate was "first among equals".





> The only sense in which the RCC set itself as a unique authority is in the pre-schism period,


let me see if a can decipher that. 
this event happened between the deformation, and the reformation.  roughly 500 years?
otherwise known as the dark ages?  




> the Roman Patriarchate was "first among equals"


so, the "pope" was the "papa" of the Unilateralist church? 

care to argue my point? or simply make an adolescent remark and a "LULZ"

~hugz~

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You misunderstand me.  The RCC may not have set itself up as a "unique authority", but they still acted as middle men.  When I say people "worshiped" the church, that's my way of saying their hearts weren't in the right place.  *They depended on the church for salvation, believing all the while that they were worshiping God when really they held fallible men in higher regard because of their belief that they could not directly communicate with God but through the church. * 
> 
> They may not have believed that the church was a real authority, but their actions spoke louder than their words.  If you can't communicate with God except through one venue, then that venue essentially becomes God by shutting out all other possible means of deriving authority directly from God.


Interesting, and quite a serious claim.  Can you tell me where you heard this?  I'm not an expert at RCC belief and dogma, but it is my understanding that they did not go_ that_ far in that extreme after the Great Schism.  Catholic sacraments like confession (if that's what you consider acting as middlemen/church dependence) exist because they're in scripture.  When you go to confession (as I understand it-I have been to orthodox confession and the RC variety is based on the same commandment from Paul), the priest will admit that he is a fallible man and cannot offer forgiveness directly.  

Anyroad, to sum it up, what you consider "church dependence" is just a misunderstanding.  The RCC sees itself as the bride of Christ.  From this, the RCC believes that it follows that Christian life revolves around liturgical events(like Easter, fasts, feasts, etc).  Make sense?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Back in the pre-schism period, which is clearly what he's talking about, the RCC wouldn't even allow the Bible to be translated into non-dead languages.  Under those conditions, how are humans supposed to tell God from the idol the church sets before them and stentorially decrees to be God.


Hmmm...would not the priests have delivered the services in the living languages at the time?  If so, the scripture readings would have been understood by the laity orally.   The gospels were in fact only an oral tradition until ~40 AD when Mark wrote his gospel.




> And if everyone is worshipping an idol of their creation, what's the difference between worshipping that and worshipping them?


If my understanding is correct as I described it above, the laity understood the difference between idols and the Trinity by listening to scripture.  

That's all I've got.  Now I'll defer to RCC experts to correct any errors I made and elaborate.

----------


## Crashland

> The problem with your statement, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people don't want to be stolen from and that most people don't want to be murdered," is that there is no consensus in our political culture today about what "theft" and "murder" truly are. It may be true that most people don't want to be stolen from, but you'll find out that some of those same people have no problem when the federal government does it via taxation. And the really disturbing and discouraging part is those people won't even agree that taxation (that is, the government deducting money from wages without consent of the earner) is, in fact, theft.
> 
> The same applies to murder. Yes, most people would not want to be murdered, but then you'll find that some of those same people have no problem with an abortionist killing an unborn child in the womb. And, once again, those who support that sort of act will not even agree that it is murder, especially if it is sanctioned by the state and federal governments.
> 
> So, in your appeal to subjective morality, you actually obliterate ethics because what one considers to be right or wrong will always be in the eye of the beholder, whether it is on an individual scale or a collective scale. Therefore, there is no "morality" that we can find commonality in if morality, itself, is just subjective, contingent on one's feelings or beliefs about the subject.


Yes, and the reason we have these moral controversies is because morality is subjective. The idea that "what one considers to be right or wrong will always be in the eye of the beholder" -- why is what so horrible? Isn't that exactly what happens in this world already? You said yourself, people don't even agree on what constitutes murder under certain circumstances. You claim objective morality, yet everyone disagrees on what this objective morality is. When you have a billion individuals all claiming "I am appealing to objective morality", and yet all of their opinions contradict one another, then what is the use of even referring to it as objective? Obviously, some moral issues are more controversial than others. You can't use controversial issues where you might be outside of a prevailing moral consensus ("taxation is theft") as evidence of objective morality -- that does not follow at all. Your own subjective moral position is not evidence of an objective morality.

When debating a moral point with someone, one of the least effective debate tactics is to claim "my moral position is objectively self-evident therefore you are wrong." To them, if they are representing themselves honestly, their moral position is just as self-evident as you think yours is. We make moral progress when we actually bother to appeal to another person's reason and human experience, and to share our own, in an effort to reach a shared construction of a moral concept. If you want other people to share your view that taxes are theft, then you need to convince them to see it that way in their own eyes. Asking someone to blindly follow some standard that they don't agree with in their own eyes won't get you very far.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I'd say moral obligation fits in with the rest of reality.  Ask someone why they do good.  Ask them to trace back cause.  They'll either hit a stumbling block or cite something beyond them.

Moral obligation also fits with ultimate purpose.  Why ultimately do anything?  Trace back the reason.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

How religion got started.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is not unreasonable to apply your own subjective view of morality to everyone else. We are all human and we share a LOT of common experiences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people don't want to be stolen from and that most people don't want to be murdered. The experience of feeling entitled to keep that which you have earned is a common human experience. Constructing moral codes and laws from these things in order to apply them to everyone is perfectly reasonable.


If most people thought slavery was good, would that make it good?  It may not be unreasonable to apply your view to everyone else, but is it moral?  This is not about rationality, it's about what's objectively right.  If you can't say something is objectively wrong, then why is it okay to judge people according to your subjective view?  You can appeal to the majority to make an argument for why it's practical to enforce certain mores, but you also cannot say it is wrong if most people disagree with you on a particular issue.  I mean, you can say it, but you would have no reason to believe that if you also believe that morality depends on popular opinion.




> Just think of what people do when they are debating a moral point. If I am trying to convince you that you should not steal, I will appeal to _your_ reason, _your_ emotions, in the hope that we have some kind of commonality in those things as humans. We can have a discussion about why each of us feels the way we do. I don't have to appeal to an authority, "because Confucius said so", or "because the Bible said so". Appealing to an authority is a logical fallacy and a cop-out.


Appealing to authority is only a logical fallacy when discussing empirical evidence.  This is a philosophical debate, and the "authority" in this case is the ultimate authority, not just some guy with a degree.  If we are going to run on the assumption that God makes the rules, then it follows that His authority is ultimate and cannot be questioned because He is God.  

You cannot argue empirically about morality, so trying to find common ground is useless if we simply don't agree because there is no way to tell who is objectively right and who is objectively wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Interesting, and quite a serious claim.  Can you tell me where you heard this?  I'm not an expert at RCC belief and dogma, but it is my understanding that they did not go_ that_ far in that extreme after the Great Schism. * Catholic sacraments like confession (if that's what you consider acting as middlemen/church dependence) exist because they're in scripture.*  When you go to confession (as I understand it-I have been to orthodox confession and the RC variety is based on the same commandment from Paul), the priest will admit that he is a fallible man and cannot offer forgiveness directly.  
> 
> Anyroad, to sum it up, what you consider "church dependence" is just a misunderstanding.  The RCC sees itself as the bride of Christ.  From this, the RCC believes that it follows that Christian life revolves around liturgical events(like Easter, fasts, feasts, etc).  Make sense?


You probably know more about it than I do, but you're going to have to point out to me where that stuff is in scripture.  Are you Catholic, by any chance?  I was under the impression that it was common wisdom that Martin Luther was giving the people the power to break away from church dependence for salvation.  I don't believe for a second that I'm required to attend church, much less tithe to it and go to confession in order to be saved.  If the priest admits he is a fallible man, then why do they do it?  Why would anyone feel the need to go through such a ritual?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, and the reason we have these moral controversies is because morality is subjective. The idea that "what one considers to be right or wrong will always be in the eye of the beholder" -- why is what so horrible? Isn't that exactly what happens in this world already? You said yourself, people don't even agree on what constitutes murder under certain circumstances. You claim objective morality, yet everyone disagrees on what this objective morality is. When you have a billion individuals all claiming "I am appealing to objective morality", and yet all of their opinions contradict one another, then what is the use of even referring to it as objective? Obviously, some moral issues are more controversial than others. You can't use controversial issues where you might be outside of a prevailing moral consensus ("taxation is theft") as evidence of objective morality -- that does not follow at all. Your own subjective moral position is not evidence of an objective morality.
> 
> When debating a moral point with someone, one of the least effective debate tactics is to claim "my moral position is objectively self-evident therefore you are wrong." To them, if they are representing themselves honestly, their moral position is just as self-evident as you think yours is. We make moral progress when we actually bother to appeal to another person's reason and human experience, and to share our own, in an effort to reach a shared construction of a moral concept. If you want other people to share your view that taxes are theft, then you need to convince them to see it that way in their own eyes. Asking someone to blindly follow some standard that they don't agree with in their own eyes won't get you very far.


The argument is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be right or wrong, not necessarily that everyone has to agree on it.  I don't think anyone made such a claim.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How religion got started.


Oh, really?  Do you have historical records of this or is it just a story you have faith in?

----------


## Crashland

> The argument is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be right or wrong, not necessarily that everyone has to agree on it.  I don't think anyone made such a claim.


What you really mean is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be _objectively_ right or wrong. That's a tautology, not an argument. It would be just as valid to say that morality must be subjective in order for anything to be subjectively right or wrong.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What you really mean is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be _objectively_ right or wrong. That's a tautology, not an argument. It would be just as valid to say that morality must be subjective in order for anything to be subjectively right or wrong.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crashland again.

----------


## Crashland

> If most people thought slavery was good, would that make it good?  It may not be unreasonable to apply your view to everyone else, but is it moral?  This is not about rationality, it's about what's objectively right.  If you can't say something is objectively wrong, then why is it okay to judge people according to your subjective view?  You can appeal to the majority to make an argument for why it's practical to enforce certain mores, but you also cannot say it is wrong if most people disagree with you on a particular issue.  I mean, you can say it, but you would have no reason to believe that if you also believe that morality depends on popular opinion.


If most people thought that slavery was good, then most people would think that slavery is good. That's all it means. No one is appealing to a majority. By using this example, you correctly demonstrate that a moral consensus does not imply an objective morality. Additionally, my subjective perspective on morality does not always have to match with the prevailing moral consensus in society. That's part of what it means to have subjective morality. I don't *appeal to* the moral consensus. Instead I want to *contribute to* it with my own subjective perspective.





> Appealing to authority is only a logical fallacy when discussing empirical evidence.  This is a philosophical debate, and the "authority" in this case is the ultimate authority, not just some guy with a degree.  If we are going to run on the assumption that God makes the rules, then it follows that His authority is ultimate and cannot be questioned because He is God.  
> 
> You cannot argue empirically about morality, so trying to find common ground is useless if we simply don't agree because there is no way to tell who is objectively right and who is objectively wrong.


You are appealing to a source, like the Bible, which makes _claims_ about what God is and what God says and what God is like. That isn't the same thing as appealing to God. Even if I were to grant that you are actually appealing to a creator-God, it does not follow that this creator-God created an objective morality.  He could just as easily have created morality such that it only exists subjectively. Think of it like our senses or our thoughts and emotions. We all see,  feel, and think things subjectively, _by definition_ of subjective. Our thoughts and feelings about how we should act is another subjective human experience.

----------


## otherone

> What you really mean is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be _objectively_ right or wrong. That's a tautology, not an argument. It would be just as valid to say that morality must be subjective in order for anything to be subjectively right or wrong.


The problem with objective morality is that there are so many to choose from.

----------


## malkusm

> That all depends on what "morality" is to you.  There is no way for man to act "moral" if there is no absolute morality because that would mean there is no standard by which to judge someone's actions.


The repeated references to the Middle Ages in this thread aren't meant as an "Ah HA! Morality doesn't come from religion!" but rather, to show that maybe human understandings of morality have evolved over the past half millennium. That it was acceptable to use devices of torture liberally to induce confessions, or to treat women as de facto property in the context of marriage, suggests that if there is an "Absolute Objective Morality", then people from one generation or another were just missing it wholesale. Meaning, you're not likely to meet a lot of your ancestors at the big pearly gates.

This is why I refer to morality in anthropological terms - moral codes have varied drastically across societies and across times. The thought of an "Absolute Objective Morality" is much easier to think about today, when information has proliferated from all corners of the earth onto your computer screen. You can understand different cultures, examine their decisions, and come to the conclusion that they are acting in the interest of, and out of deference to, the same principles. But 1000 years ago, if a tribe came across a foreign tribe on land near your village and they didn't speak the language, one of them was going to be eliminated through a massacre to protect the others' interests - and neither of them had any moral qualms with it, for that was life. The point being, human understanding is the basis of morality in the modern age. We have not turned ever closer to an "Absolute Objective Morality" because we've come closer to a higher power. In fact I frequently hear from the same religious channels that we have turned away from God now more than ever.

----------


## malkusm

> People have invoked religion to do terrible, unspeakable things to other individuals. Were these people moral simply because they were acting on behalf of a religion? If not, does it not show that morality does not follow _universally_ from religion?
> 
> I would agree that many religious teachings are grounded in, and will provide an individual with a good basis of, morality as we know it. To me, however, morality is a study in anthropology and human history. This is evidenced by the vastly different moral codes produced by different cultures around the world through thousands of years of gradual change and teaching. If morality is _a priori_, why would it seemingly differ from place to place on this basis?





> No, it shows us what men _thought they ought_ to do. Men who were religious thought they had a divine right to own slaves, forcibly take land from others, and a host of other things, which to me disproves that morality comes from religion (even if it does not come from the absence thereof). However, in more subtle ways, children are taught values at a young age. They are taught to value money more or less, family more or less, themselves more or less than others...these are value judgments which are inherently subjective and for which there is no objective, _universal_ answer (as you claim a first principal must "universally" apply).
> 
> Note, I consider there to be a higher power which directs us all, but we are left with free will to determine not only our actions, but their implications toward our moral imperatives.


Interested in what anyone might have to say on these points too, which I stand behind (happily my approach has remained quite consistent for the last couple years). I actually might reword something here or there if given the opportunity. I think the post above clarifies the intent.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What you really mean is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be _objectively_ right or wrong. That's a tautology, not an argument. It would be just as valid to say that morality must be subjective in order for anything to be subjectively right or wrong.


It's not a tautology.  In order to have objectivity, we must have an objective source for that objectivity.  Just because I'm using the same word twice, that doesn't mean it's tautology.  It's a logical truth.  Without an absolute source for objective standards, there is nothing truly objective to measure our actions against to see if they are right or wrong.  If you say something is subjectively right or wrong, as you're claiming, then do you really know if it's actually right or wrong?

----------


## acptulsa

> That's an absurd analogy and it has no bearing on the situation at all.  You're not being spied on with religion.  You're assuming that religion is being used in the same way that radio-controlled drones and that everyone is aware of how religion is being used to control us.  Well, we're not and such a notion is frankly absurd because it is rather ineffective when people hold a higher authority than the authority you're trying to establish.


Absurd, is it?  Maybe you read that a little too quickly?

Let's try this again.  Radio is a means of communication.  It always was.  Even in the case of a harmless toy radio-controlled scale model of a nice old Fokker, radio is a means of communication--you communicate to the control transmitter what you want the ailerons and the rudder and elevators to do, and the little servos inside the model move them accordingly.  But that means the radio is not only a means of communication, but a means of control.  They found a new use for the communicative powers of radio that allows something to be controlled by adding servos connected to the receiver.

Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway.

Is it still an absurd analogy now that you've slowed down from ninety to nothing and actually read it, instead of skimming every third word?  Because I'd hate to be unjustly absurd.  That would just leave me feeling insulted all over.




> Hmmm...would not the priests have delivered the services in the living languages at the time?


That's not the way I heard it.  They way I heard it, if you didn't know a word of Latin you were just along for the ride.




> You probably know more about it than I do, but you're going to have to point out to me where that stuff is in scripture.  Are you Catholic, by any chance?  I was under the impression that it was common wisdom that Martin Luther was giving the people the power to break away from church dependence for salvation.


Ae you sure you're not asking him if he's _Roman_ Catholic...?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If most people thought that slavery was good, then most people would think that slavery is good. That's all it means. No one is appealing to a majority. By using this example, you correctly demonstrate that a moral consensus does not imply an objective morality. Additionally, my subjective perspective on morality does not always have to match with the prevailing moral consensus in society. That's part of what it means to have subjective morality. I don't *appeal to* the moral consensus. Instead I want to *contribute to* it with my own subjective perspective.


If most people thought that slavery was good, would they be wrong?  Why?




> You are appealing to a source, like the Bible, which makes _claims_ about what God is and what God says and what God is like. That isn't the same thing as appealing to God. Even if I were to grant that you are actually appealing to a creator-God, it does not follow that this creator-God created an objective morality.  He could just as easily have created morality such that it only exists subjectively. Think of it like our senses or our thoughts and emotions. We all see,  feel, and think things subjectively, _by definition_ of subjective. Our thoughts and feelings about how we should act is another subjective human experience.


I never once mentioned the Bible.  I'm referring to God, whatever God is to you.  However, I would like to add that, in order for God to be God, he must be the absolute standard since he is the entire basis for existence.  If God can be challenged on his rightness or his ability, then he is not God.  

Our thoughts and feelings are subjective according to our own perspectives, but that doesn't mean there is no objectivity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The problem with objective morality is that there are so many to choose from.


You mean there are so many subjective views of objective morality to choose from.  The fact that people interpret it wrong does not contradict the existence of objective morality.  The whole argument is that it exists, not that our understanding of it is particularly great.  Many people willfully blind themselves from the truth and allow themselves to think that everything is so hopelessly unclear in order to avoid seeking out the truth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The repeated references to the Middle Ages in this thread aren't meant as an "Ah HA! Morality doesn't come from religion!" but rather, to show that maybe human understandings of morality have evolved over the past half millennium. That it was acceptable to use devices of torture liberally to induce confessions, or to treat women as de facto property in the context of marriage, suggests that if there is an "Absolute Objective Morality", then people from one generation or another were just missing it wholesale. Meaning, you're not likely to meet a lot of your ancestors at the big pearly gates.


Well, now you're getting into how the Bible says God punishes people who are wrong and that is a completely different theological subject.  I've never claimed that human understanding of objective morality has been consistent, but how consistent does it have to be?  Again, that's a completely different topic.  The philosophical discussion about the existence of objective morality is completely independent of all of that and, naturally, the ones who deny objective morality are the ones who constantly bring it up as if it were relevant to the actual existence of objective morality.




> This is why I refer to morality in anthropological terms - moral codes have varied drastically across societies and across times. The thought of an "Absolute Objective Morality" is much easier to think about today, when information has proliferated from all corners of the earth onto your computer screen. You can understand different cultures, examine their decisions, and come to the conclusion that they are acting in the interest of, and out of deference to, the same principles. But 1000 years ago, if a tribe came across a foreign tribe on land near your village and they didn't speak the language, one of them was going to be eliminated through a massacre to protect the others' interests - and neither of them had any moral qualms with it, for that was life. The point being, human understanding is the basis of morality in the modern age. We have not turned ever closer to an "Absolute Objective Morality" because we've come closer to a higher power. In fact I frequently hear from the same religious channels that we have turned away from God now more than ever.


I'm not denying this, but I am skeptical of your claim of how societies acted "1000 years ago".  Are you referring to something specific that is in the historical records, or are you relying on your understanding of what the past was like?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Absurd, is it?  Maybe you read that a little too quickly?
> 
> Let's try this again.  Radio is a means of communication.  It always was.  Even in the case of a harmless toy radio-controlled scale model of a nice old Fokker, radio is a means of communication--you communicate to the control transmitter what you want the ailerons and the rudder and elevators to do, and the little servos inside the model move them accordingly.  But that means the radio is not only a means of communication, but a means of control.  They found a new use for the communicative powers of radio that allows something to be controlled by adding servos connected to the receiver.
> 
> Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway.


I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion that religion is anything like the process you just described.  




> Is it still an absurd analogy now that you've slowed down from ninety to nothing and actually read it, instead of skimming every third word?  Because I'd hate to be unjustly absurd.  That would just leave me feeling insulted all over.


I love how you assume I'm skimming.  I don't get the analogy because I don't know how you took that entire mechanism and applied it to something completely different.  It's apples to oranges.  You're comparing a mechanical, automated process to something that is neither mechanical nor automated.  




> Ae you sure you're not asking him if he's _Roman_ Catholic...?


Forgive me my ignorance of the history of the Catholic church.

----------


## malkusm

> Well, now you're getting into how the Bible says God punishes people who are wrong and that is a completely different theological subject.  I've never claimed that human understanding of objective morality has been consistent, but how consistent does it have to be?  Again, that's a completely different topic.  The philosophical discussion about the existence of objective morality is completely independent of all of that and, naturally, the ones who deny objective morality are the ones who constantly bring it up as if it were relevant to the actual existence of objective morality.


I think it's fair to distinguish between understanding of morality and the morality itself. The last sentence wasn't necessary but I'll forgive it.

What is the purpose of establishing that "objective morality" exists, then? If it is not to extoll the virtues of religion, nor to warn against the evils of atheism, nor to establish a basis for judgment in the eyes of God.... then, what is the purpose of convincing others that "objective morality" exists? The tone in this thread (and actually in the very thread title) suggests that if we turn away from God that we can't live according to true moral principles. But since people have lived under God and not understood the true moral principles, that doesn't seem very relevant.




> I'm not denying this, but I am skeptical of your claim of how societies acted in the past.  Is this something you have historical records for, or are you referring to the unknown "caveman" era and assuming that's how they did it (because that's how a creature closer to an animal than a human would do it)?


Look at how spirituality developed in the far east, or how attitudes around money developed in the Middle East, or how familial structures developed in Africa, and compare them to what your western worldview is. It seems pretty self-explanatory that societies have formed completely different viewpoints on right/wrong over time and place. The purpose of this point was to suggest that morality is not necessarily _a priori_. But, I am willing to punt on that point, ceding that there can exist something objective which does not necessarily guide human action and is understood by all of these societies to varying degrees.

----------


## erowe1

> What is the purpose of establishing that "objective morality" exists, then?


One reason is as an argument that God exists. Everyone innately knows that objective morality exists. This is a theistic belief. They may not acknowledge that they know it, or that it does entail theism. But it's just a matter of getting them to realize that they do and that it does.

Also, acknowledging that objective morality exists is a prerequisite to studying it with the goal of better understanding what it really is so that we can act accordingly.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion that religion is anything like the process you just described.


What part of, 'Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway,' do you not understand?




> I love how you assume I'm skimming.  I don't get the analogy because I don't know how you took that entire mechanism and applied it to something completely different.  It's apples to oranges.  You're comparing a mechanical, automated process to something that is neither mechanical nor automated.


You really called me absurd simply because you, unlike 95-98% of the human population, can't handle non-organic analogies applied to organic situations?  And yet, you compare my non-organic analogy to apples and oranges, which are organic?  Now I'm the one who is confused.




> Forgive me my ignorance of the history of the Catholic church.


Not my place.  I'm not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church who doesn't take particularly kindly to being called a Roman Catholic.

----------


## erowe1

> It seems pretty self-explanatory that societies have formed completely different viewpoints on right/wrong over time and place.


I don't see that, unless you focus on the differences rather than the similarities.

But also, where these differences exist, some of these viewpoints are relatively better or worse than others. In order to be able to say that one society's morality is in this or that respect superior to another's, and to be able to work to improve those that are inferior, you first have to recognize that there exists an objective standard out there against which they each can be measured.

----------


## malkusm

> I don't see that, unless you focus on the differences rather than the similarities.
> 
> But also, where these differences exist, some of these viewpoints are relatively better or worse than others. *In order to be able to say that one society's morality is in this or that respect superior to another's, and to be able to work to improve those that are inferior, you first have to recognize that there exists an objective standard out there against which they each can be measured.*


Not really, that's what an opinion is. I can state, for example, that Willie Mays was a better baseball player than Ken Griffey, Jr. There is no objective standard for what makes a baseball player good, nor is there a theoretical "best" baseball player. Yet, opinion on this comparison is nearly universal, and there are thousands of baseball players who, right now, are working to improve themselves because they view themselves as inferior.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think it's fair to distinguish between understanding of morality and the morality itself. The last sentence wasn't necessary but I'll forgive it.


The distinction is fair, but it's not really relevant.  




> What is the purpose of establishing that "objective morality" exists, then? If it is not to extoll the virtues of religion, nor to warn against the evils of atheism, nor to establish a basis for judgment in the eyes of God.... then, what is the purpose of convincing others that "objective morality" exists? The tone in this thread (and actually in the very thread title) suggests that if we turn away from God that we can't live according to true moral principles. But since people have lived under God and not understood the true moral principles, that doesn't seem very relevant.


The purpose of establishing that objective morality exists is to get people to think about why they view things as right or wrong and where those mores come from.  There are many people out there who claim there is no objective morality and in the same breath criticize Christianity for its immorality.  The point is that it's contradictory to claim that no objective morality exists and then claim that what the God of the Bible does is immoral as if they had any basis for criticizing something other than their own subjective views.  They could say they believed it was right or wrong, but they would have no basis for that belief, either if they truly denied the existence of absolute morality.

Inevitably, many atheists will revert back to the tautology that they CAN exercise moral discrimination and simultaneously use that as a REASON for exercising moral discrimination, but they never really seem to question where this morality comes from.  They take it for granted and use it as if it was absolute, but they also deny that it can be absolute, so why criticize anything?




> Look at how spirituality developed in the far east, or how attitudes around money developed in the Middle East, or how familial structures developed in Africa, and compare them to what your western worldview is. It seems pretty self-explanatory that societies have formed completely different viewpoints on right/wrong over time and place. The purpose of this point was to suggest that morality is not necessarily _a priori_. But, I am willing to punt on that point, ceding that there can exist something objective which does not necessarily guide human action and is understood by all of these societies to varying degrees.


That's my point.  The only reason I called your assertion into question is because you seem to be suggesting a high degree of variance and I was wondering what you were basing that claim on.  The difference, however, may not seem so stark when you actually see it from the proper perspective.  Knowing that eskimos sometimes killed their young might lead you to believe they were savages until you considered the climate and environment they had to deal with.  They could only handle one or two kids and it would be viewed as a mercy killing to get rid of the ones that could not survive.  In that light, we might see ourselves doing something similar, so it's questionable how much we actually vary on our ideas of morality, and yet there is undeniably some variance that should make us question why any morality is right or wrong instead of just popular or unpopular.

----------


## malkusm

Both of you have made a similar claim, which is that "objective morality" must exist in order for any opinion on morality to be valid.

Is there then an "objective form of government?"
Is there then an "objective diet?"
Is there then an "objective (insert any other term in place of morality)"?

Should I just stop having opinions on things because I can't justify them through the knowledge of the existence of a true objective standard?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What part of, 'Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway,' do you not understand?


I understand it perfectly, despite your condescension.  What I am questioning is your second statement, that controlling religion was "discovered to be possible" by which I assume you mean "discovered to be practical" since anything is possible, but I doubt the elite would have any interest in doing it since it is probably not practical.  




> You really called me absurd simply because you, unlike 95-98% of the human population, can't handle non-organic analogies applied to organic situations?  And yet, you compare my non-organic analogy to apples and oranges, which are organic?  Now I'm the one who is confused.


I never called you absurd.  I called your analogy absurd.  You seem to be intentionally confusing yourself since what I am saying seems to be quite clear to me.  You're making an analogy to justify similarity between two things that have very little similarity in actuality.  I'm asking what basis you have for making the assertion that "Religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and used that way anyway."  What basis do you have for saying it was used that way?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not really, that's what an opinion is. I can state, for example, that Willie Mays was a better baseball player than Ken Griffey, Jr. There is no objective standard for what makes a baseball player good, nor is there a theoretical "best" baseball player. Yet, opinion on this comparison is nearly universal, and there are thousands of baseball players who, right now, are working to improve themselves because they view themselves as inferior.


So you're saying slavery was actually right at the time that they did it because it's really just a matter of opinion?  After all, it was pretty universal in the southern US at the time, so that makes it okay, right?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Both of you have made a similar claim, which is that "objective morality" must exist in order for any opinion on morality to be valid.
> 
> Is there then an "objective form of government?"
> Is there then an "objective diet?"
> Is there then an "objective (insert any other term in place of morality)"?
> 
> Should I just stop having opinions on things because I can't justify them through the knowledge of the existence of a true objective standard?


There is a worse, better, and best diet; there is a worse, better, and best form of government.  This implies that there IS an objective best for every one of those things.  We may not know exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

We can justify our beliefs based on what we know about better/worse, unless we are claiming that there is no objective "best", which would imply that a diet of Twinkies is just as good as a well-balanced diet.  You're not making the claim that there's no objective best diet, are you?

----------


## malkusm

> So you're saying slavery was actually right at the time that they did it because it's really just a matter of opinion?  After all, it was pretty universal in the southern US at the time, so that makes it okay, right?


I'm saying that it's perfectly valid for me, as a human being, to form the view that slavery is immoral. It is perfectly valid for me to explain my reasons for this viewpoint. I don't need to believe that there is one true standard morality, in much the same way that I don't need to believe that there is one true standard for anything else I argue.

What you're really arguing, when it boils down to it, is that your viewpoint of morality is correct because it's based on an objective standard, whereas my viewpoint is incorrect because it's not. Except that your belief in an objective standard is.... a subjective belief.

----------


## acptulsa

> I understand it perfectly, despite your condescension.  What I am questioning is your second statement, that controlling religion was "discovered to be possible" by which I assume you mean "discovered to be practical" since anything is possible, but I doubt the elite would have any interest in doing it since it is probably not practical.  
> 
> 
> 
> I never called you absurd.  I called your analogy absurd.  You seem to be intentionally confusing yourself since what I am saying seems to be quite clear to me.  You're making an analogy to justify similarity between two things that have very little similarity in actuality.  I'm asking what basis you have for making the assertion that "Religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and used that way anyway."  What basis do you have for saying it was used that way?


Seriously?  You need proof of _that_?

Wow.

And yet, you said this...




> Exactly.  Religion is not a control mechanism.  The tyrants promote atheism because God gets in their way.  The Catholic church was rather clever in this regard by making themselves the authority and thereby setting themselves up as the ones to be worshiped instead of God.  It's all about who the authority is.  You cannot have God as an ultimate authority and expect to control anyone unless you pretend that you can speak for God and set yourself up as the only available authority.  There is a big difference between the church and the religion.  One is based around the following and worshiping of God, the other is based around the following and worshiping of fallible men.
> 
> And no, I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I am aware of the concepts you are relating.  I just think it's important to make the distinction between men who make themselves the authority by referencing God and those who tell people that they can directly communicate with God.  Religion itself, however, is not a control mechanism.


Having trouble making up your mind?

----------


## malkusm

> There is a worse, better, and best diet; there is a worse, better, and best form of government.  This implies that there IS an objective best for every one of those things.  We may not know exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.


What? OK, that's totally not what I expected you to say in response to this. There is a "best diet"? Maybe there is a "best diet" for you personally. Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet". Does that mean it's objectively, universally, the best diet? Is the standard based on nutritional value? Taste? Quality of ingredients? A ratio of all these things? What higher power determined the ratio between these things when setting the standard?

----------


## acptulsa

> What? OK, that's totally not what I expected you to say in response to this. There is a "best diet"? Maybe there is a "best diet" for you personally. Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet". Does that mean it's objectively, universally, the best diet? Is the standard based on nutritional value? Taste? Quality of ingredients? A ratio of all these things? What higher power determined the ratio between these things when setting the standard?


And what if my physiology is completely different?  What if I need more protein, or less?  What if I weigh twice as much, and therefore burn twice as many calories climbing the same ladder?  Are we Michelle Obama now, and able to decree that I can get along on exactly the same number of calories and the same amount of protein that you can?

And don't start calling the analogy absurd.  For one thing, we can differ just as widely in our spiritual needs.  For another, this time you'd be insulting your own analogy, not mine.

----------


## malkusm

In full disclosure, and in an effort to make clear that I'm not mocking or bashing religion, I believe there's probably a higher power / plane of existence governing things. I just don't think there's an objective standard against which morality, or anything else, is measured. I believe we have the capacity to reason in order to account for context and adapt to the relevant variables in all decisions we make and opinions we form. I also believe that, as a reflection of God ("made in His image"), probably God is taking context into account as well when evaluating our morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm saying that it's perfectly valid for me, as a human being, to form the view that slavery is immoral. It is perfectly valid for me to explain my reasons for this viewpoint. I don't need to believe that there is one true standard morality, in much the same way that I don't need to believe that there is one true standard for anything else I argue.


But you're also saying it's perfectly valid for someone else to form a completely different view.  Without an objective standard for morality, there is no way to reason your way to the correct answer, so using reason doesn't justify why you should punish others for misbehaving according to your beliefs since you don't actually believe there is one correct answer.




> What you're really arguing, when it boils down to it, is that your viewpoint of morality is correct because it's based on an objective standard, whereas my viewpoint is incorrect because it's not. Except that your belief in an objective standard is.... a subjective belief.


I never said your view was incorrect.  I'm simply saying that, if that's what you believe, then you have no basis for saying what is correct or incorrect moral behavior and you have no way of judging whether anyone else's actions are moral or immoral.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Seriously?  You need proof of _that_?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> And yet, you said this...
> 
> 
> 
> Having trouble making up your mind?


Would you care to elaborate on this supposed contradiction instead of just re-posting my own words, which, naturally, make perfect sense to me?

And why are you acting surprised that I need proof of something?  You're not being reasonable when you just make statements of shock as if what I said was somehow unreasonable.

----------


## acptulsa

> But you're also saying it's perfectly valid for someone else to form a completely different view.  Without an objective standard for morality, there is no way to reason your way to the correct answer, so using reason doesn't justify why you should punish others for misbehaving according to your beliefs since you don't actually believe there is one correct answer.


And there is with an 'objective' standard?  The Bible sets its standard with a string of parables for a reason.  Each moral situation is different, and loaded with variables too numerous to count which must be weighed before a moral decision can be reached.




> I never said your view was incorrect.  I'm simply saying that, if that's what you believe, then you have no basis for saying what is correct or incorrect moral behavior and you have no way of judging whether anyone else's actions are moral or immoral.


There are ways, but there's no way to make it easy--and if you can't find out about all the variables that the person you're trying to judge knows about, you can't objectively and accurately judge that person.  Which is why part of Christianity's objective standard of morality is a restriction on judging people.




> Would you care to elaborate on this supposed contradiction instead of just re-posting my own words, which, naturally, make perfect sense to me?
> 
> And why are you acting surprised that I need proof of something?  You're not being reasonable when you just make statements of shock as if what I said was somehow unreasonable.


I see.  But you still haven't rectified this...




> The Catholic church was rather clever in this regard by making themselves the authority and thereby setting themselves up as the ones to be worshiped instead of God.  It's all about who the authority is.  You cannot have God as an ultimate authority and expect to control anyone unless you pretend that you can speak for God and set yourself up as the only available authority.  There is a big difference between the church and the religion.  One is based around the following and worshiping of God, the other is based around the following and worshiping of fallible men.
> 
> And no, I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I am aware of the concepts you are relating.  I just think it's important to make the distinction between men who make themselves the authority by referencing God and those who tell people that they can directly communicate with God.


...with this.




> I never called you absurd.  I called your analogy absurd.  You seem to be intentionally confusing yourself since what I am saying seems to be quite clear to me.  You're making an analogy to justify similarity between two things that have very little similarity in actuality.  I'm asking what basis you have for making the assertion that "Religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and used that way anyway."  What basis do you have for saying it was used that way?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What? OK, that's totally not what I expected you to say in response to this. There is a "best diet"? Maybe there is a "best diet" for you personally. Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet". Does that mean it's objectively, universally, the best diet? Is the standard based on nutritional value? Taste? Quality of ingredients? A ratio of all these things? What higher power determined the ratio between these things when setting the standard?


You're acting like I'm trying to claim there is a *morally* best diet, when that's not what I'm doing at all.  I'm saying there is an objectively best diet for optimal human health, which is the purpose for any diet.  

All of your musings about food allergies aside, what I'm saying is this: If there is no best, then there is no better or worse, and yet we all know that a balanced diet with fruit and vegetables is better than a diet of Twinkies.  How do we know that if there is no best?  Because in order to know if something is "better", we must be able to tell whether it is getting closer to the best or farther away.  If there is no best, then you can't judge anything as being closer to or farther away from the best.  

We may not know exactly what the best diet is (some people certainly think they do), but we all know in our hearts that the answer is out there.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *And there is with an 'objective' standard?*  The Bible sets its standard with a string of parables for a reason.  Each moral situation is different, and loaded with variables too numerous to count which must be weighed before a moral decision can be reached.


Yes, that is the definition of objectivity.  There has to be one correct answer.  Of course they vary from situation to situation, but that does not mean there is no objective best or correct course of action for any particular situation you might find yourself in.  




> There are ways, but there's no way to make it easy--and if you can't find out about all the variables that the person you're trying to judge knows about, you can't objectively and accurately judge that person.  Which is why part of Christianity's objective standard of morality is a restriction on judging people.


What are these ways?  If you deny that there is a best morality, then how can you judge whether something is better or worse?  See what you're really doing is acknowledging that absolute morality does exist and you just think it just can't be discovered.  My point is that the only way there can be an objective best morality for any situation, is if something greater than, independent of, and outside of the natural universe pre-ordained these bests.  If we claim that there is no objective best, then we are really denying what we know to be true, which is that there is an absolute standard outside of the universe and that we can choose to acknowledge it or not, but we cannot make it any less real with our beliefs.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And what if my physiology is completely different?  What if I need more protein, or less?  What if I weigh twice as much, and therefore burn twice as many calories climbing the same ladder?  Are we Michelle Obama now, and able to decree that I can get along on exactly the same number of calories and the same amount of protein that you can?


The fact that there are varying situations does not mean there is no objective best for every particular situation.  We all know that vegetables are objectively better than Twinkies.  We may not always know exactly what the best is, but we do know it exists out there no matter what situation you might find yourself in.  If we need more protein, then we know it's objectively better to have more protein than less.  We would have no basis for this belief if there truly was no best because, if there is no best, then it is impossible to say whether something is really closer to or farther away from it.




> And don't start calling the analogy absurd.  For one thing, we can differ just as widely in our spiritual needs.  For another, this time you'd be insulting your own analogy, not mine.


I fully understand and acknowledge the validity of your analogy, but your interpretation of it is wrong.  You are using it to say that there is no objective best when what you're really doing is proving that there IS an objective best by saying that people NEED certain things because they are BETTER than other things.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In full disclosure, and in an effort to make clear that I'm not mocking or bashing religion, I believe there's probably a higher power / plane of existence governing things. I just don't think there's an objective standard against which morality, or anything else, is measured. I believe we have the capacity to reason in order to account for context and adapt to the relevant variables in all decisions we make and opinions we form. I also believe that, as a reflection of God ("made in His image"), probably God is taking context into account as well when evaluating our morality.


Exactly.  Context does not preclude the existence of absolute morality.  There can be an absolute best morality for every context, no matter how many there may be.  We don't have to know what it is in order to acknowledge that it exists.

----------


## acptulsa

> See what you're really doing is acknowledging that absolute morality does exist and you just think it just can't be discovered.


Not exactly.  It can't be discovered by people who only skim statements before jumping to a conclusion about them, and who put words in people's mouths without necessarily knowing that this is really what was said and intended, and just generally pass judgement hastily.  There can be an objective moral standardized best course of action for every situation, but this does not mean the person being judged can have access to all of that information in time before the decision must be made.  I'm not saying these things can never be discovered, just that they can't always be discovered, and fairly often can't be discovered in a sufficiently timely manner.  What kind of objective judgment is possible then?




> The fact that there are varying situations does not mean there is no objective best for every particular situation.  We all know that vegetables are objectively better than Twinkies.  We may not always know exactly what the best is, but we do know it exists out there no matter what situation you might find yourself in.  If we need more protein, then we know it's objectively better to have more protein than less.  We would have no basis for this belief if there truly was no best because, if there is no best, then it is impossible to say whether something is really closer to or farther away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understand and acknowledge the validity of your analogy, but your interpretation of it is wrong.  You are using it to say that there is no objective best when what you're really doing is proving that there IS an objective best by saying that people NEED certain things because they are BETTER than other things.


My analogies are absurd because it couldn't possibly be that you don't quite understand them, but when your analogies fail it's because I don't understand them.

When a diabetic's blood sugar crashes and they are seconds from dying of it, are vegetables better than a Twinkie?  Maybe vegetables are better than a Twinkie 99 44/100% of the time.  But when a person is so semi-conscious that they can't chew because their blood sugar is zero, is raw broccoli better than a Twinkie?  If Michelle Obama rushes in while someone is stuffing a Twinkie into the mouth of some Type One diabetic who is seconds away from dying and screams, you can find something more healthy to feed that person! do you physically restrain Michelle Obama and tell her to shut up even though she's objectively correct?  Or do you agree with her and help her interfere with the lifesaving Twinkie feed that's underway?




> Exactly.  Context does not preclude the existence of absolute morality.  There can be an absolute best morality for every context, no matter how many there may be.  We don't have to know what it is in order to acknowledge that it exists.


And the difference between a libertarian and a liberal is that the liberal assumes there is an absolute best for every context, or at least that said liberal is arrogant enough to believe they can always know what the best is for every situation.

----------


## Crashland

> It's not a tautology.  In order to have objectivity, we must have an objective source for that objectivity.  Just because I'm using the same word twice, that doesn't mean it's tautology.  It's a logical truth.  Without an absolute source for objective standards, there is nothing truly objective to measure our actions against to see if they are right or wrong.  If you say something is subjectively right or wrong, as you're claiming, then do you really know if it's actually right or wrong?


The question doesn't make sense. When you ask "How do you know if it's _actually_ wrong?", you are already assuming _objective_ right and wrong in the question, which I do not claim. I do not claim that there even is an "actually wrong" in the same sense that you are meaning it. There is only that which is wrong as determined by your own view, and that which is wrong as determined by other people's views, all of which are subjective.

----------


## erowe1

> Not really, that's what an opinion is.


But in order for it to be more than just a matter of opinion, which we all know morality is, we have to acknowledge that there exists objective morality.

Is there no standard out there to appeal to as a basis for showing that cultures that don't practice human sacrifice, or foot binding, or female circumcision, or militarily policing the world, are better in that respect than those that do? Of course there is.

----------


## erowe1

> I do not claim that there even is an "actually wrong" in the same sense that you are meaning it.


You don't admit it. But you know that deep down you believe it. And there are countless ways that you show you do all the time.

What stands between you and claiming it isn't somebody persuading you of it, but you recognizing and admitting what's already in your heart.

----------


## orenbus

Morality is subjective. The End.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not exactly.  It can't be discovered by people who only skim statements before jumping to a conclusion about them, and who put words in people's mouths without necessarily knowing that this is really what was said and intended, and just generally pass judgement hastily.  There can be an objective moral standardized best course of action for every situation, but this does not mean the person being judged can have access to all of that information in time before the decision must be made.  I'm not saying these things can never be discovered, just that they can't always be discovered, and fairly often can't be discovered in a sufficiently timely manner.  What kind of objective judgment is possible then?


First of all, you're making a lot of unjustified assumptions about my reading comprehension.  Secondly, I'm not arguing that knowledge of the standards are always available.  I'm saying that they exist and that we all know it, so if we claim that there is no objective standard, then we are contradicting ourselves when we claim that some thing is moral or immoral.  People do this all the time.  They will deny the existence of absolute moral standards and then they will try to judge the God of the Bible according to their notions of the best morality.  




> My analogies are absurd because it couldn't possibly be that you don't quite understand them, but when your analogies fail it's because I don't understand them.


I understand them.  You're just not being clear as to why they apply to this situation.  When you say religion is used in ways it wasn't first intended, you are making an unjustified assumption, which is that it is used in that way.  It may seem obvious to you, but you should be able to explain your premises for making the analogy.  Otherwise, I'm going to question its validity.  I'm willing to be corrected, but I didn't question the validity of the second analogy because I acknowledge that your reasoning is correct without asking you to justify it, but I still think your interpretation of it is wrong.  




> When a diabetic's blood sugar crashes and they are seconds from dying of it, are vegetables better than a Twinkie?  Maybe vegetables are better than a Twinkie 99 44/100% of the time.  But when a person is so semi-conscious that they can't chew because their blood sugar is zero, is raw broccoli better than a Twinkie?  If Michelle Obama rushes in while someone is stuffing a Twinkie into the mouth of some Type One diabetic who is seconds away from dying and screams, you can find something more healthy to feed that person! do you physically restrain Michelle Obama and tell her to shut up even though she's objectively correct?  Or do you agree with her and help her interfere with the lifesaving Twinkie feed that's underway?


There may be some situations in which a Twinkie is better than vegetables, but it is probably not the BEST.  See what you're actually doing is proving that there is a best in each of these situations and yet you're trying to make it sound absurd even though it makes perfect sense.  It would also be a lot better if the person had not allowed themselves to get to the point of being nearly passed out on the floor.  

worse < better</= best

If you deny the existence of a best morality, then you have no reason for saying anything is better or worse.

----------


## Crashland

> If most people thought that slavery was good, would they be wrong?  Why?


In my subjective view, they would be wrong. And I would be happy to contribute my perspective and attempt to get them to see it the same way I do.




> I never once mentioned the Bible.  I'm referring to God, whatever God is to you.  However, I would like to add that, in order for God to be God, he must be the absolute standard since he is the entire basis for existence.  If God can be challenged on his rightness or his ability, then he is not God.
> 
> Our thoughts and feelings are subjective according to our own perspectives, but that doesn't mean there is no objectivity.


I'm not sure where you are getting "moral perfection" from "all-powerful creator basis for existence". God being responsible for us having views about morality, doesn't mean that he created an objective standard, in the same way that just because God is responsible for us having our own favorite colors, doesn't mean that he created an objective best color. The Bible is the thing that claims God created an objective standard, although interestingly in the Bible he doesn't apply this objective standard to himself.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet".


That's not a good example for saying that it's just a matter of opinion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The question doesn't make sense. When you ask "How do you know if it's _actually_ wrong?", you are already assuming _objective_ right and wrong in the question, which I do not claim. I do not claim that there even is an "actually wrong" in the same sense that you are meaning it. There is only that which is wrong as determined by your own view, and that which is wrong as determined by other people's views, all of which are subjective.


I know.  I intended to replace _objectively_ with _actually_ because actuality implies a single uniform reality, or an objective reality.  

So is slavery objectively, uniformly, actually wrong, or was it perfectly fine at the time since it was fine to them?  Does morality change over time or from culture to culture?  Is slavery objectively wrong or is it just wrong because most people don't accept it these days?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In my subjective view, they would be wrong. And I would be happy to contribute my perspective and attempt to get them to see it the same way I do.


But how do you justify your belief?  You cannot subjectively believe that something is objectively wrong if you deny that there is objectivity.  If you are going to claim that morality is ONLY subjective, then you have to acknowledge that their subjective morality is just as good as yours because it's a matter of opinion.  If you're going to claim that you subjectively believe that their subjective belief is objectively wrong, then you can't justify that belief.




> I'm not sure where you are getting "moral perfection" from "all-powerful creator basis for existence". God being responsible for us having views about morality, doesn't mean that he created an objective standard, in the same way that just because God is responsible for us having our own favorite colors, doesn't mean that he created an objective best color. The Bible is the thing that claims God created an objective standard, although interestingly in the Bible he doesn't apply this objective standard to himself.


If His standard wasn't objective, then He wouldn't be God.  If God is truly the basis for all existence, then it follows that any standard He has is the best standard.  Therefore, God cannot measure himself against his own standard because he IS the standard.

----------


## acptulsa

> First of all, you're making a lot of unjustified assumptions about my reading comprehension.


Did I?  Am I?  Prove it.  Because I deny that those things you quoted were anything specific aimed at any living person.  Are you going to play thought police now?




> Secondly, I'm not arguing that knowledge of the standards are always available.  I'm saying that they exist and that we all know it, so if we claim that there is no objective standard, then we are contradicting ourselves when we claim that some thing is moral or immoral.  People do this all the time.  They will deny the existence of absolute moral standards and then they will try to judge the God of the Bible according to their notions of the best morality.  
> 
> 
> 
> I understand them.  You're just not being clear as to why they apply to this situation.  When you say religion is used in ways it wasn't first intended, you are making an unjustified assumption, which is that it is used in that way.  It may seem obvious to you, but you should be able to explain your premises for making the analogy.  Otherwise, I'm going to question its validity.  I'm willing to be corrected, but I didn't question the validity of the second analogy because I acknowledge that your reasoning is correct without asking you to justify it, but I still think your interpretation of it is wrong.  
> 
> 
> 
> There may be some situations in which a Twinkie is better than vegetables, but it is probably not the BEST.  See what you're actually doing is proving that there is a best in each of these situations and yet you're trying to make it sound absurd even though it makes perfect sense.  It would also be a lot better if the person had not allowed themselves to get to the point of being nearly passed out on the floor.  
> ...


You say you understand things but show no sign that you do.  You talk about judging morality, but then intimate that stuffing a Twinkie in a diabetic's mouth might be immoral because the diabetic was immoral in getting themself in that position.  Is that any reflection on the person who saves their life?  Is the moral thing to do to let them die of their mistake?  Did I in fact say that the diabetic person was not deliberately starved by some evil person?  Does the fact that immorality was involved in the creation of a situation mean that there can be no moral reaction to it?

I'm not convinced we're in disagreement on anything at all.  I don't think we are.  But as a practical matter, I feel compelled to point out that just because there's an absolute morality out there, and an absolute best solution out there, does not mean it's reasonable to expect us to find it and correctly identify it.  On the contrary, the more we feel we have a handle on this objective best morality, the more likely we are to jump to kneejerk judgments--and the more likely we are to make mortal errors in the process.  Like liberals do.

If you want the world to be black-or-white, then you had better be able to _see and understand every single variable that applies to the situation._  Because if you want to play God, that's the standard you _have_ to meet.  Otherwise your attempt to play God is horseplay, and someone is liable to be hurt for no reason at all.

Judge not lest ye be judged...

----------


## Crashland

> But how do you justify your belief?  You cannot subjectively believe that something is objectively wrong if you deny that there is objectivity.  If you are going to claim that morality is ONLY subjective, then you have to acknowledge that their subjective morality is just as good as yours because it's a matter of opinion.  If you're going to claim that you subjectively believe that their subjective belief is objectively wrong, then you can't justify that belief.


I don't subjectively believe that something is objectively wrong. Actually, that is what _your_ position is. If morality is subjective, that does not rob the concept of all value like you think it does. Saying someone else's view is just as good as mine because it is only a matter of opinion is too simplistic. If it were only a matter of opinion, like a favorite color, then I don't really have any incentive to care. Moral concepts aren't like that. People's moral views have consequences on other people. This is an incentive to contribute my own perspective, which can include judging others and sharing with others the reasons why I see it that way in my own eyes.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is an incentive to contribute my own perspective, which can include judging others and sharing with others the reasons why I see it that way in my own eyes.


And as far as I am concerned, this is a moral way to handle those judgments we come to even if we don't consciously want to judge someone.  Provided, of course, we go into that conversation with an open mind, rather than with the intent of persuading or bullying them into agreeing with us.  Because we can be blind to errors that others can help us spot.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Did I?  Am I?  Prove it.  Because I deny that those things you quoted were anything specific aimed at any living person.  Are you going to play thought police now?


If you're not, then I don't care, but if you are, then YOU prove it.  I don't have to prove anything.




> You say you understand things but show no sign that you do.


Prove that I don't.




> You talk about judging morality, but then intimate that stuffing a Twinkie in a diabetic's mouth might be immoral because the diabetic was immoral in getting themself in that position.


THAT is absurd.  I neither said nor implied nor *intimated* any such thing in any way.  I have no idea where you're getting that from.  Again, you're trying to twist it like I somehow said the best diet was somehow the most moral diet.  It was just an analogy to demonstrate that there is a best, whatever that best may be.




> Is that any reflection on the person who saves their life?  Is the moral thing to do to let them die of their mistake?  Did I in fact say that the diabetic person was not deliberately starved by some evil person?  Does the fact that immorality was involved in the creation of a situation mean that there can be no moral reaction to it?


You're trying to derive a moral situation out of an analogy that was not meant to demonstrate morality.  It was meant to demonstrate the existence of an absolute best.

In fact, it was YOUR analogy in the first place.




> I'm not convinced we're in disagreement on anything at all.  I don't think we are.  But as a practical matter, I feel compelled to point out that just because there's an absolute morality out there, and an absolute best solution out there, does not mean it's reasonable to expect us to find it and correctly identify it.  On the contrary, the more we feel we have a handle on this objective best morality, the more likely we are to jump to kneejerk judgments--and the more likely we are to make mortal errors in the process.  Like liberals do.


I made no claims about how we should identify it.  I am ONLY pointing out that an absolute MUST exist if we are to acknowledge that some things are objectively better than others.  I thought I had made this very clear throughout the discussion by saying that our ability to identify absolute morality has no bearing on whether it exists or not.  




> If you want the world to be black-or-white, then you had better be able to _see and understand every single variable that applies to the situation._  Because if you want to play God, that's the standard you _have_ to meet.  Otherwise your attempt to play God is horseplay, and someone is liable to be hurt for no reason at all.


Do you not realize how crazy that sounds?  You're acting like I'm playing God and yet I have made no claims about what objective morality is, just that it exists.  You're making all kinds of wild assertions about me with no basis whatsoever and then telling me to prove that you're making them.

If you're not making those assumptions about me, great, but if you are, then please justify them.




> Judge not lest ye be judged...


Yeah, don't judge the nazis.  What they did was fine _to them._

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't subjectively believe that something is objectively wrong. Actually, that is what _your_ position is. If morality is subjective, that does not rob the concept of all value like you think it does. *Saying someone else's view is just as good as mine because it is only a matter of opinion is too simplistic. If it were only a matter of opinion, like a favorite color, then I don't really have any incentive to care*. Moral concepts aren't like that. People's moral views have consequences on other people. This is an incentive to contribute my own perspective, which can include judging others and sharing with others the reasons why I see it that way in my own eyes.


Exactly!  But you DO have an incentive to care, so that means objective morality exists!  Otherwise, the incentive would not exist. 

You can say it's "not like that" all you want, but IF we are to accept your belief, that there is no objective morality, as a true belief, then logically, there's no reason for your belief that slavery is wrong and, therefore, no reason to say others are wrong for believing it's acceptable.

If you don't subjectively believe something is objectively wrong, then why do you believe it at all?  If it's not objectively wrong, then why do you believe it's wrong?

----------


## acptulsa

> If you're not, then I don't care, but if you are, then YOU prove it.  I don't have to prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> THAT is absurd.  I neither said nor implied nor *intimated* any such thing in any way.  I have no idea where you're getting that from.  Again, you're trying to twist it like I somehow said the best diet was somehow the most moral diet.  It was just an analogy to demonstrate that there is a best, whatever that best may be.
> ...


Now, see, I tap your knee with a little rubber hammer and you blow off with all this I have to prove I wasn't talking about you and I was talking about you anyway and I put words in your mouth crap.  This is a hypothetical conversation.  It isn't my mistake if you take it all personally on the 'strength' of a number of facts that aren't in evidence.

And judging 'The Nazis' is quite a different matter from being at Nuremberg and having the actual responsibility of judging _one_ particular Nazi.

Now calm down and stop trying to make this stuff personal, please.  You've proven my point that we must be careful not to judge based on our kneejerk reactions.  Thank you for that.  Time for the conversaton to move on.




> Exactly!  But you DO have an incentive to care, so that means objective morality exists!  Otherwise, the incentive would not exist. 
> 
> You can say it's "not like that" all you want, but IF we are to accept your belief, that there is no objective morality, as a true belief, then logically, there's no reason for your belief that slavery is wrong and, therefore, no reason to say others are wrong for believing it's acceptable.
> 
> If you don't subjectively believe something is objectively wrong, then why do you believe it at all?  If it's not objectively wrong, then why do you believe it's wrong?


Is prison slavery?  Is it not?  If it is, does that mean there's no moral way anyone could imprison someone else, even if it's the only way to prevent the imprisoned from murdering someone other than killing them?  What about confining an addict in a detox program?  What if that person volunteered for it?

See, I believe there is such a thing as an ultimate, objective morality.  But it's far more elemental than that.  You can't define it in terms even as broad as 'slavery'.  Real, elemental, objective morality has to boil down to something seriously basic like, 'All people are humans and the first one to act as though he or she has a right to run over another person's rights is the one who is wrong.'

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Now, see, I tap your knee with a little rubber hammer and you blow off with all this I have to prove I wasn't talking about you and I was talking about you anyway and I put words in your mouth crap.  This is a hypothetical conversation.  It isn't my mistake if you take it all personally on the 'strength' of a number of facts that aren't in evidence.


I just told you: If you're not saying these things, then GREAT!!  If you are, THEN prove it, but only IF you are!  Understand?




> And judging 'The Nazis' is quite a different matter from being at Nuremberg and having the actual responsibility of judging _one_ particular Nazi.


Exactly, and yet you make no distinction between these two situations when you apply the verse "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  You just say it as if it's supposed to apply to me no matter what the situation is. 




> Now calm down and stop trying to make this stuff personal, please.  You've proven my point that we must be careful not to judge based on our kneejerk reactions.  Thank you for that.  Time for the conversaton to move on.


I am calm.  In case you haven't noticed, it's notoriously hard to detect one's emotion over the internet, so how about you stop trying to play psychiatrist and detect my state of mind.

----------


## Crashland

> Exactly!  But you DO have an incentive to care, so that means objective morality exists!  Otherwise, the incentive would not exist.


No, me having an incentive to care means that other people's moral views have consequences for me and for others. That in itself is plenty of incentive and it has nothing to do with objective morality.




> You can say it's "not like that" all you want, but IF we are to accept your belief, that there is no objective morality, as a true belief, then logically, there's no reason for your belief that slavery is wrong and, therefore, no reason to say others are wrong for believing it's acceptable.
> 
> If you don't subjectively believe something is objectively wrong, then why do you believe it at all?  If it's not objectively wrong, then why do you believe it's wrong?


No matter how many times you say "there's no reason for your belief that slavery is wrong", doesn't make it true. Stop using the words "right" and "wrong" as synonyms for _objective_ morality. There are PLENTY of reasons for me to believe that people should not enslave others, and those reason have a lot to do with my understanding of my own human experience and of the human experience that I share with others. You keep referring to subjectivity as if subjectivity somehow makes things worthless. My memories are something that only I experience subjectively -- no one else has experienced the exact same things I have, and no one has the exact same memories as I do. That doesn't mean that there is no point in me having memories and that they aren't valuable, or that I shouldn't tell people about them in order to share my perspective or teach them things.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, me having an incentive to care means that other people's moral views have consequences for me and for others. That in itself is plenty of incentive and it has nothing to do with objective morality.


But then you're reduced to saying that slavery is only wrong because other people believe it is wrong.  In other words, it wasn't wrong when it was popular.




> No matter how many times you say "there's no reason for your belief that slavery is wrong", doesn't make it true.


If it is not true, then demonstrate why.  Explain to me why you believe it without appealing to the majority belief.  If you have a reason, then what is your reason?




> Stop using the words "right" and "wrong" as synonyms for _objective_ morality. There are PLENTY of reasons for me to believe that people should not enslave others, and those reason have a lot to do with my understanding of my own human experience and of the human experience that I share with others. You keep referring to subjectivity as if subjectivity somehow makes things worthless. My memories are something that only I experience subjectively -- no one else has experienced the exact same things I have, and no one has the exact same memories as I do. That doesn't mean that there is no point in me having memories and that they aren't valuable, or that I shouldn't tell people about them in order to share my perspective or teach them things.


If you say something is right or wrong, then you are making an objective claim.  If you weren't, you would say I believe this is wrong, but you would have no reason for that belief if you also believed that objective morality did not exist.  You cannot deny objective morality and then claim there is a reason for you to believe it to be true.  If it is not objective, then you have no way of knowing whether it is true or not.  I'm asking you why you believe it if it isn't objectively right or wrong.  

No amount of reasoning is going to convince the nazis that they were wrong because what they believed was based on value judgments they made about their race, not on reason.

----------


## acptulsa

> But then you're reduced to saying that slavery is only wrong because other people believe it is wrong.  In other words, it wasn't wrong when it was popular.


He is?  It looks to me like he said not that the views of others have a weight in his view of what is morally wrong, but that the 'morality by consensus' that prevails at the time is of interest to him because, for example, everyone else might consider it 'moral' to enslave _him_.




> If you say something is right or wrong, then you are making an objective claim.  If you weren't, you would say I believe this is wrong...


That would be true in a perfect world.  In the real world, people make that claim even if they're fuzzy on the difference between subjective and objective, much less if they understand the difference but can't dispassionately judge which standard they're using.

----------


## Crashland

> But then you're reduced to saying that slavery is only wrong because other people believe it is wrong.  In other words, it wasn't wrong when it was popular.


I have never claimed that anything is wrong because someone else says it is wrong. Actually, that is _your_ position.




> If it is not true, then demonstrate why.  Explain to me why you believe it without appealing to the majority belief.  If you have a reason, then what is your reason?
> 
> If you say something is right or wrong, then you are making an objective claim.  If you weren't, you would say I believe this is wrong, but you would have no reason for that belief if you also believed that objective morality did not exist.  You cannot deny objective morality and then claim there is a reason for you to believe it to be true.  If it is not objective, then you have no way of knowing whether it is true or not.  I'm asking you why you believe it if it isn't objectively right or wrong.  
> 
> No amount of reasoning is going to convince the nazis that they were wrong because what they believed was based on value judgments they made about their race, not on reason.


No, when I say something is wrong, what I mean is that people should not behave a certain way because that behavior is harmful. And the reason I contend that it is harmful is from my own subjective experience and my subjective observation of others who appear to feel the same way about being involuntarily enslaved. Personal experience and communication are excellent ways of coming to an understanding of what is harmful to people.

I would also point out, even if there was an objective standard, you would have no way of knowing whether any particular moral view is "true" or not either, because you can't get around the problem that your interpretation of that standard is inherently subjective.

If no amount of reasoning is going to convince the nazis, or anyone with a moral view that you happen to find repulsive, to think differently, then how do you propose dealing with that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He is?  It looks to me like he said not that the views of others have a weight in his view of what is morally wrong, but that the 'morality by consensus' that prevails at the time is* of interest to him* because, for example, everyone else might consider it 'moral' to enslave _him_.


But I'm asking for a reason that it is wrong, and if all you have to offer is that it is "of interest" to consider the popularity, then you're not really saying it's wrong.  If you are saying it's wrong, then what's the reason?  Saying that popular opinion is "of interest" is not a reason.




> That would be true in a perfect world.  In the real world, people make that claim even if they're fuzzy on the difference between subjective and objective, much less if they understand the difference but can't dispassionately judge which standard they're using.


But we're intentionally not being fuzzy because we're trying to figure out why we believe it's wrong.  If we can't say it is objectively wrong, then there is no basis for the belief that it is wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I have never claimed that anything is wrong because someone else says it is wrong. Actually, that is _your_ position.
> 
> 
> 
> No, when I say something is wrong, what I mean is that people should not behave a certain way because that behavior is harmful. And the reason I contend that it is harmful is from my own subjective experience and my subjective observation of others who appear to feel the same way about being involuntarily enslaved. Personal experience and communication are excellent ways of coming to an understanding of what is harmful to people.
> 
> I would also point out, even if there was an objective standard, you would have no way of knowing whether any particular moral view is "true" or not either, because you can't get around the problem that your interpretation of that standard is inherently subjective.
> 
> If no amount of reasoning is going to convince the nazis, or anyone with a moral view that you happen to find repulsive, to think differently, then how do you propose dealing with that?


Do you believe slavery is objectively wrong or not?  It's a very simple question.

----------


## Crashland

> Do you believe slavery is objectively wrong or not?  It's a very simple question.


No. I believe it is wrong in the sense that I believe people should not enslave others, based on my subjective understanding of human experience, social cooperation, and reason. Part of what you are confusing is that morality is a subjective belief about how people _in general_ should act under certain circumstances. Just because it is a belief _about_ how other people should act does not make the belief itself any less subjective.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No. I believe it is wrong in the sense that I believe people should not enslave others, based on my subjective understanding of human experience, social cooperation, and reason. Part of what you are confusing is that morality is a subjective belief about how people _in general_ should act under certain circumstances. Just because it is a belief _about_ how other people should act does not make the belief itself any less subjective.


I guess that's all I was really getting at.  You don't really believe slavery is wrong.  You just treat it as if it is because it is in your self-interest to do so.

If you were in a position to take advantage of it, though, your morality might change because consequences are the only things you care about.

I like to think that, if I lived in an era when slavery was popular, I would take the opposing view as many people did and oppose slavery because it was the right thing to do even though it wasn't popular or necessarily in my best interest to do so.

----------


## Crashland

> I guess that's all I was really getting at.  You don't really believe slavery is wrong.  You just treat it as if it is because it is in your self-interest to do so.
> 
> If you were in a position to take advantage of it, though, your morality would probably change because consequences are the only things you care about.
> 
> I like to think that, if I lived in an era when slavery was popular, I would take the opposing view as many people did and oppose slavery because it was the right thing to do even though it wasn't popular or necessarily in my best interest to do so.


Wow, no. If you think that I just take the view of the prevailing moral consensus and blend in like a chameleon, then you don't understand what subjectivity is. And you also claimed that the only reason I take a moral view is because it is in my self-interest? Sure, maybe only if we define "self-interest" as "that which is consistent with my own reason and experience", or "effective ways of living peacefully with other people." I think that people should not enslave others, and I think that way for my own reasons. I want to live in a society where we can live with one another in peace and not harm each other. If you want to call that desire "self-interest", then I am totally fine with that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wow, no. If you think that I just take the view of the prevailing moral consensus and blend in like a chameleon, then you don't understand what subjectivity is. And you also claimed that the only reason I take a moral view is because it is in my self-interest? Sure, maybe only if we define "self-interest" as "that which is consistent with my own reason and experience", or "effective ways of living peacefully with other people." I think that people should not enslave others, and I think that way for my own reasons. I want to live in a society where we can live with one another in peace and not harm each other. If you want to call that desire "self-interest", then I am totally fine with that.


I did not mean to suggest that you would do such a thing, but if you are in such a situation, what's top stop you, really?  You can change your subjective views at any time, so it's not really "wrong" to blend in like a chamelelon.  Your desires can change if you think having slaves is more important than "living in peace", so I'm just saying that if someone really believes, like you do, that slavery is not objectively wrong, it might affect their worldview and they might decide to just go with the flow even if the flow is "wrong" in your opinion.

What's more, no amount of reasoning is going to convince someone who does this because you are admitting that it's based on the value judgments you make which is akin to saying it's mere opinion like a favorite color.  Would you rather "live in peace" or have your slaves?  If the society didn't condemn it, then on what basis would you condemn others for choosing the latter?

----------


## Crashland

> I did not mean to suggest that you would do such a thing, but if you are in such a situation, what's top stop you, really?  You can change your subjective views at any time, so it's not really "wrong" to blend in like a chamelelon.  Your desires can change if you think having slaves is more important than "living in peace", so I'm just saying that if someone really believes, like you do, that slavery is not objectively wrong, it might affect their worldview and they might decide to just go with the flow even if the flow is "wrong" in your opinion.
> 
> What's more, no amount of reasoning is going to convince someone who does this because you are admitting that it's based on the value judgments you make which is akin to saying it's mere opinion like a favorite color.  Would you rather "live in peace" or have your slaves?  If the society didn't condemn it, then on what basis would you condemn others for choosing the latter?


You can't just change your subjective views on morality on a whim or  because you want to. But yes, if you think that you having slaves is more  important than living in peace in a society where everyone's rights are  protected, then you will act differently than I might. Although, this doesn't necessarily mean you think slavery is moral. It is still possible to act in ways that are opposite to what you yourself consider to be moral. When I talk about "living in peace" or living in such a way as to minimize the harm we do to one another, that is, in fact, a big part of what I mean by "morality" in the first place. I am thinking that we are not even talking about the same concept when we each refer to "morality" because we are starting with different definitions. There is "actions which people ought to do because God said so", and there is "actions which people ought to do because it fosters a cooperative society."

----------


## VIDEODROME

What if slave owners felt the objective morality or even the bible backed them up?

It's so easy for humans to just make claims of what is objectively morally right, that it can seem to have no special value over so-called subjective morality. 

Claims of what is objectively morally right probably change with the times. This will happen more in the future when new issues come up.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What if slave owners felt the objective morality or even the bible backed them up?
> 
> It's so easy for humans to just make claims of what is objectively morally right, that it can seem to have no special value over so-called subjective morality. 
> 
> Claims of what is objectively morally right probably change with the times. This will happen more in the future when new issues come up.


Then at least I would have a basis on which to disagree with them other than "I think it feels better to live in peace than to have slaves."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You can't just change your subjective views on morality on a whim or  because you want to. But yes, if you think that you having slaves is more  important than living in peace in a society where everyone's rights are  protected, then you will act differently than I might. Although, this doesn't necessarily mean you think slavery is moral. It is still possible to act in ways that are opposite to what you yourself consider to be moral. When I talk about "living in peace" or living in such a way as to minimize the harm we do to one another, that is, in fact, a big part of what I mean by "morality" in the first place. I am thinking that we are not even talking about the same concept when we each refer to "morality" because we are starting with different definitions. There is "actions which people ought to do because God said so", and there is "actions which people ought to do because it fosters a cooperative society."


I would be more likely to listen to "actions which people ought to do because God said so" because I might not care about fostering a cooperative society.  What God says would be more likely to persuade me because it has real consequences, whereas "fostering a cooperative society" is just a preference that you may or may not have.

----------


## erowe1

> What if slave owners felt the objective morality or even the bible backed them up?


They might feel that way. But are they right? Or are they wrong, and there is an object standard against which their views can be measured and shown to be wrong?

----------


## Crashland

> I would be more likely to listen to "actions which people ought to do because God said so" because I might not care about fostering a cooperative society.  What God says would be more likely to persuade me because it has real consequences, whereas "fostering a cooperative society" is just a preference that you may or may not have.


Didn't you just criticize my point earlier for "only caring about consequences"?

Obviously, not everyone puts a high value on fostering a cooperative society. However, regardless of whether some of us do not care about that, that does not mean that we can't use "fostering a cooperative society" as a reference point when we talk about moral concepts. All you have to do is define it in order for it to be used as a reference point. If we define the word moral as "that which fosters a cooperative society", then we can argue for moral positions by providing evidence one way or the other about how certain behaviors relate to that end. On the other hand if we define the word moral as "that which God says we should do", we are relegated to sifting through a million different people's unsubstantiated claims about what they say God says we should do. This would all be different of course if God were to actually show up and reveal a moral standard such that everyone knows beyond all doubt exactly what it is. That would be truly objective, but that's not what we have. And even if he did lay it out like that for us, if he were to command my people to go invade someone else's land, murder them and take their wives and steal their stuff because they had a different religion, as he commanded the Israelites in the Bible, then I would have a problem with that as it goes against just about all of my reason and human experience. But hey that's just my "preference".

----------


## orenbus

The key word being missed in this discussion is Empathy and it's role in morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Didn't you just criticize my point earlier for "only caring about consequences"?


I meant worldly consequences.  Eternal, Godly consequences are different.




> Obviously, not everyone puts a high value on fostering a cooperative society. However, regardless of whether some of us do not care about that, that does not mean that we can't use "fostering a cooperative society" as a reference point when we talk about moral concepts.  All you have to do is define it in order for it to be used as a reference point. If we define the word moral as "that which fosters a cooperative society", then we can argue for moral positions by providing evidence one way or the other about how certain behaviors relate to that end. On the other hand if we define the word moral as "that which God says we should do", we are relegated to sifting through a million different people's unsubstantiated claims about what they say God says we should do. This would all be different of course if God were to actually show up and reveal a moral standard such that everyone knows beyond all doubt exactly what it is. That would be truly objective, but that's not what we have. And even if he did lay it out like that for us, if he were to command my people to go invade someone else's land, murder them and take their wives and steal their stuff because they had a different religion, as he commanded the Israelites in the Bible, then I would have a problem with that as it goes against just about all of my reason and human experience. But hey that's just my "preference".


But you're just talking about preferences.  You would be using it as a reference point to try to make people not commit evil acts based on the idea that they would prefer not doing the evil acts more.  You can do that if you want, but I think it would be much better to use objective truths than to rely on persuading people not to be evil because "it feels better not to".  It's just not all that convincing, and this is why people like Jeffrey Dahmer have referenced the fact that they didn't think it would matter when they died if they had been good or not.  If you just break it down to preference, then that viewpoint has effects on people's worldviews.

What's more, you don't seem to think God makes it clear what we should not do, and I disagree.  The Ten Commandments are very clear and I think we have the ability to know what we're doing if we're honest with ourselves instead of just trying to misinterpret it so that it fits our view.  

In any case, it's a much better position to argue from than "I really think you would like a cooperative society better than you would like having slaves."

----------


## VIDEODROME

If both a slave owner and an abolitionist claim absolute morality backs up their claim, then how is a person listening to their arguments know who is right? Or could they decide both are right, or as others say, absolute morality bends to how God feels.

If in the past, God was cool with slavery, then it was morally right. Maybe later he changes his mind.  Seems like a weird guessing game, or you can just choose the faith with the claim about God's morality you feel more comfortable with.

When it gets to this point, it doesn't seem to provide any special consistency.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If both a slave owner and an abolitionist claim absolute morality backs up their claim, then how is a person listening to their arguments know who is right? Or could they decide both are right, or as others say, absolute morality bends to how God feels.


Easy.  Listen to their arguments and decide which one is more valid.  It's better than trying to tell people that they would prefer being good to being evil.




> If in the past, God was cool with slavery, then it was morally right. Maybe later he changes his mind.  Seems like a weird guessing game, or you can just choose the faith with the claim about God's morality you feel more comfortable with.
> 
> When it gets to this point, it doesn't seem to provide any special consistency.


I don't believe God ever changes his mind.  If these laws are absolute, and if God is really God, then there must be consistency.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The key word being missed in this discussion is Empathy and it's role in morality.


What role do you think Empathy plays?  Does understanding how someone feels serve as a good reason not to act according to your own selfish desires?  Why should you have empathy for others?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If both a slave owner and an abolitionist claim absolute morality backs up their claim, then how is a person listening to their arguments know who is right? Or could they decide both are right, or as others say, absolute morality bends to how God feels.
> 
> If in the past, God was cool with slavery, then it was morally right. Maybe later he changes his mind.  Seems like a weird guessing game, or you can just choose the faith with the claim about God's morality you feel more comfortable with.
> 
> When it gets to this point, it doesn't seem to provide any special consistency.


That God allowed slavery to exist doesn't prove he approved of it.  As you see in my sig, this world is satan's domain.  It takes some effort to dig up objective Truth on subjects like this.

----------


## TER

> The key word being missed in this discussion is Empathy and it's role in morality.


Exactly!  And Christ proves that God is the source of all morality!  For He became a man to suffer the blameless passions in order to restore us and heal us and grant us divine life!  Our stripes are healed because Christ bore them and raised from the dead!  Our hunger will be extingushed because He hungered in the desert!  Our corruption is taken away by Christ Who is the living imge of divine empathy!  Love which saves would have it no other way!

----------


## Crashland

> Easy.  Listen to their arguments and decide which one is more valid.


Exactly. And how do you decide which one is more valid?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Exactly. And how do you decide which one is more valid?


Do I have to spell it out for you?  Listen to the arguments to see which one makes more logical sense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly!  And Christ proves that God is the source of all morality!  For He became a man to suffer the blameless passions in order to restore us and heal us and grant us divine life!  Our stripes are healed because Christ bore them and raised from the dead!  Our hunger will be extingushed because He hungered in the desert!  Our corruption is taken away by Christ Who is the living imge of divine empathy!  Love which saves would have it no other way!



How can you believe that the man in Hell has had his stripes healed by Christ?  Christ died for the ones in Hell, right?

----------


## Crashland

> I meant worldly consequences.  Eternal, Godly consequences are different.


Oh, of course they are. What was I thinking...




> But you're just talking about preferences.  You would be using it as a reference point to try to make people not commit evil acts based on the idea that they would prefer not doing the evil acts more.  You can do that if you want, but I think it would be much better to use objective truths than to rely on persuading people not to be evil because "it feels better not to".  It's just not all that convincing, and this is why people like Jeffrey Dahmer have referenced the fact that they didn't think it would matter when they died if they had been good or not.  If you just break it down to preference, then that viewpoint has effects on people's worldviews.


Well, I would agree that it does not matter _for you_ after you are dead if you have been good or not. Hitler and Mother Theresa both faced the same fate when they died. As much as I might *want* for it to be different, wishful thinking is not evidence for anything.
And I disagree on the other point -- attempting to convince someone not to do evil acts based on the idea that they would prefer not to do the evil acts more, is probably the most effective way of getting someone to stop doing something that you think they shouldn't do. You can appeal to their self-interest, or you can appeal to their reason, or their empathy, or their emotions, or some combination thereof. This is, in fact, what both of us do. You invoke eternal consequences -- I can't think of anything that screams "you really would prefer not doing the evil act more" than "you'll burn in hell if you don't submit to this book". While this may be an effective way of appealing to people's _fear_ and _self-interest_, I like to stick to appealing to people using things that are a bit more substantiated with evidence and closer to our shared human experience.




> What's more, you don't seem to think God makes it clear what we should not do, and I disagree.  The Ten Commandments are very clear and I think we have the ability to know what we're doing if we're honest with ourselves instead of just trying to misinterpret it so that it fits our view.


The Ten Commandments may be clear, but what God doesn't make clear at all is that he actually exists, and that the Ten Commandments are actually authored by him as opposed to humans, like every single other one of the thousands of religious texts that we both reject.

----------


## Crashland

> Do I have to spell it out for you?  Listen to the arguments to see which one makes more logical sense.


Yes, please spell it out. Or do you have no basis to decide which one is more valid? (sound familiar?)

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, please spell it out. Or do you have no basis to decide which one is more valid? (sound familiar?)


USE LOGIC  U-S-E L-O-G-I-C.  

You can act like a child and pretend you don't understand, but I think it's clear to anyone reading this how you are supposed to decide.  Listen to the arguments and make a rational decision based on the facts and analysis provided.  I don't know how to dumb it down any more for you.

My basis is what makes sense according to available knowledge.  Your basis is preference.  Now tell me again who has no basis.

----------


## Crashland

> USE LOGIC  U-S-E L-O-G-I-C.  
> 
> You can act like a child and pretend you don't understand, but I think it's clear to anyone reading this how you are supposed to decide.  Listen to the arguments and make a rational decision based on the facts provided.  I don't know how to dumb it down any more for you.


Okay, well that is my position too. You use logic, and I would add, other things in your experience as well, to determine which one is valid. Now you realize how frustrating it is when someone doesn't understand your perfectly reasonable basis for making moral judgments.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Do I have to spell it out for you?  Listen to the arguments to see which one makes more logical sense.


What if different people listening to an argument arrive at different conclusions?  Does it mean some of them are more "Tuned In" to the Absolute Objective Morality and others less so?  

What if for example, I concede this whole thing and say I accept the existence of this Absolute Objective Morality.  Then maybe the both of us have a discussion about any particular moral issue, but maybe come to different conclusions on it.  How can that happen if there is some kind of pervasive sense of morality in the universe?  Would that mean that one of us is _interpreting_ it wrong?  Even worse, what if I had certain moral views 10 years ago, and since then I've changed my mind?  I'm missing the special consistency somewhere. 

Is it really important for people to know Absolute Morality exists so that we have something that we know we are not understanding correctly or misinterpreting?  Or is this something that is broadly defined and it's okay for people to have different moral views on social and moral issues?  

You might think it odd that you have to Spell It Out for some of us, but maybe to some of us this concept seems vague and abstract.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh, of course they are. What was I thinking...


Take your childish, petty mockery elsewhere.  If you can't provide an argument as to why I'm wrong, then I'm going to assume you're just being really immature.




> Well, I would agree that it does not matter _for you_ after you are dead if you have been good or not. Hitler and Mother Theresa both faced the same fate when they died. As much as I might *want* for it to be different, wishful thinking is not evidence for anything.
> And I disagree on the other point -- attempting to convince someone not to do evil acts based on the idea that they would prefer not to do the evil acts more, is probably the most effective way of getting someone to stop doing something that you think they shouldn't do. You can appeal to their self-interest, or you can appeal to their reason, or their empathy, or their emotions, or some combination thereof. This is, in fact, what both of us do. You invoke eternal consequences -- I can't think of anything that screams "you really would prefer not doing the evil act more" than "you'll burn in hell if you don't submit to this book". While this may be an effective way of appealing to people's _fear_ and _self-interest_, I like to stick to appealing to people using things that are a bit more substantiated with evidence and closer to our shared human experience.


If someone is in a position where they can get away with evil behavior, I don't think telling them that they would prefer something else is going to help.  It's going to take a lot to tell someone that they shouldn't do something that they can get away with based on things they may or may not care about.  If someone really prefers their evil to your society, then no amount of reason is going to convince them.  I would rather say it in concrete terms and tell them that it is objectively wrong and why.  Otherwise, you're allowing them to be the judge and promising them an uncertain long-term future in return for giving up their immediate and guaranteed satisfaction if they just do what they want and don't think about how it affects society in the uncertain long-term future.  How would that serve them if they tried to work toward bettering humanity instead of just fulfilling their own selfish desires?  All that work with potentially no reward?

I think it's ludicrous to believe that this is a more effective method than telling them that they are NOT the judge and that their actions have eternal consequences.  




> The Ten Commandments may be clear, but what God doesn't make clear at all is that he actually exists, and that the Ten Commandments are actually authored by him as opposed to humans, like every single other one of the thousands of religious texts that we both reject.


On the contrary, I think it is clear.  The only reason it seems unclear to you is that you have clouded your judgment so that you can claim ignorance.  I think it is obvious enough to any 5-year-old that a painting you find in the forest had a painter and that the painting is way different from a few rocks that kind of look like a face in the right light.  Furthermore, you pretend that the Bible is somehow unexceptional in relation to these "thousands" of other texts when there are really many ways that it stands out, such as its authenticity and its detailed account of creation.

----------


## malkusm

> If both a slave owner and an abolitionist claim absolute morality backs up their claim, then how is a person listening to their arguments know who is right?





> Easy.  Listen to their arguments and decide which one is more valid.





> Exactly. And how do you decide which one is more valid?





> Do I have to spell it out for you?  Listen to the arguments to see which one makes more logical sense.


But how can I decide whose viewpoint makes more logical sense, if...




> The point is that it's contradictory to claim that no objective morality exists and then claim that what the God of the Bible does is immoral as if they had any basis for criticizing something other than their own subjective views.  They could say they believed it was right or wrong, but they would have no basis for that belief, either if they truly denied the existence of absolute morality.


So, objective morality exists, but it's up to us to decide what is in line with that objective morality - but, since our understanding of morality doesn't always line up with what morality actually is, we're likely to make mistakes, and therefore are no better off assuming morality is objective than we would be if it were subjective.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Okay, well that is my position too. You use logic, and I would add, other things in your experience as well, to determine which one is valid. Now you realize how frustrating it is when someone doesn't understand your perfectly reasonable basis for making moral judgments.


Make no mistake, we're saying completely different things.  I'm saying use logic to decide what's objectively right or wrong based on the information available to you, and you're saying use logic to decide which preference is more preferable.  There is a huge difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

----------


## malkusm

> Make no mistake, we're saying completely different things.  I'm saying use logic to decide what's objectively right or wrong based on the information available to you, and you're saying use logic to decide which preference is more preferable.  There is a huge difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying.


You're making my brain hurt, dude.

Because you're more dogmatic and believe your position is infallible (sorry, "objective"), your use of logic gets you to the truth, whereas Crashland's use of logic gets him only to a "preference" because he admits it's based only on his experience? Is that really what you're saying?

Didn't you say earlier that we might not know what the objective morality is? So, how can you "use logic to decide what's objectively right or wrong"?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What if different people listening to an argument arrive at different conclusions?  Does it mean some of them are more "Tuned In" to the Absolute Objective Morality and others less so?


No, it just means some are right and some are wrong.  I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.




> What if for example, I concede this whole thing and say I accept the existence of this Absolute Objective Morality.  Then maybe the both of us have a discussion about any particular moral issue, but maybe come to different conclusions on it.  How can that happen if there is some kind of pervasive sense of morality in the universe?  Would that mean that one of us is _interpreting_ it wrong?  Even worse, what if I had certain moral views 10 years ago, and since then I've changed my mind?  I'm missing the special consistency somewhere.


You and I both agree on slavery, murder, and rape, correct?  I don't think our views are all that different and we can agree on most things.  And yes, if you came to the wrong conclusion, it would be because you interpreted it wrong.  I would also add that this doesn't usually happen by accident or out of pure ignorance.  It happens out of *willful* ignorance or trying to avoid the truth.  That is the basis for most disagreement.  It's not because people just can't agree, it's because some people cloud their judgment according to their bias.  There doesn't have to be special consistency to know that absolute morality exists and that you should seek it.  If you accept that it exists, then there is no excuse for you to not seek it.  If you know the truth is out there and you decide to simply give up and remain ignorant, that doesn't help you.  




> Is it really important for people to know Absolute Morality exists so that we have something that we know we are not understanding correctly or misinterpreting?  Or is this something that is broadly defined and it's okay for people to have different moral views on social and moral issues?  
> 
> You might think it odd that you have to Spell It Out for some of us, but maybe to some of us this concept seems vague and abstract.


If you really are convinced that there is some kind of absolute truth, then you have no excuse for not at least trying to find out what it is.  I think you know where to look but you are hesitant to do so because you are afraid you would not like what you find.  If you're not convinced, then all I have to do is keep asking you what your basis is for believing that things are wrong other than pure preference.  My whole goal for making the philosophical argument for absolute morality is to show atheists that they really believe slavery and murder are just preferences that you would rather people not prefer.  If you really believe that, then I can't help you.  I just want you to understand what morality is based on and where it comes from.

----------


## malkusm

> I don't think our views are all that different and we can agree on most things.  And yes, if you came to the wrong conclusion, it would be because you interpreted it wrong.  I would also add that this doesn't usually happen by accident or out of pure ignorance.  It happens out of *willful* ignorance or trying to avoid the truth.  That is the basis for most disagreement.  It's not because people just can't agree, it's because some people cloud their judgment according to their bias.


So this is why I referred to the Middle Ages previously. Do you think Christians in the Middle Ages *willfully* ignored or tried to avoid true morality? Or, do you think that some of them did what they thought was right, due to the information available to them and the society that they lived in at the time?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So this is why I referred to the Middle Ages previously. Do you think Christians in the Middle Ages *willfully* ignored or tried to avoid true morality? Or, do you think that some of them did what they thought was right, due to the information available to them and the society that they lived in at the time?


Some of them might have, but the motive is clear for those in the church establishment in the middle ages.  They willfully distorted the truth and told people that they were their only source of communication with God, which is pretty clearly false to anyone who reads the Bible.  I would have been very skeptical right away when they tried to keep translations of the Bible into non-dead languages from being published.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But how can I decide whose viewpoint makes more logical sense, if...
> 
> 
> 
> So, objective morality exists, but it's up to us to decide what is in line with that objective morality - but, since our understanding of morality doesn't always line up with what morality actually is, we're likely to make mistakes, and therefore are no better off assuming morality is objective than we would be if it were subjective.


No better off?  Hardly.  I guess you could assume that it is just as likely for you to be wrong as it is for you to be right, but why would you assume that?  That's akin to not trusting your own ability to discern.  All you have to do is be honest with yourself and I think you will find the answers.  The information is already available if you look for it, but many refuse to even look for it because they're afraid of what they might find.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're making my brain hurt, dude.


Sorry to hear that.




> Because you're more dogmatic and believe your position is infallible (sorry, "objective"), your use of logic gets you to the truth, whereas Crashland's use of logic gets him only to a "preference" because he admits it's based only on his experience? Is that really what you're saying?


Yes, that is really what I'm saying.  Objective realities are a much better basis for action than preference or promise of a pay-off would be.  

I'm willing to see reason and be corrected, so I'm not infallible.  I really do want to know the truth, so I'm not just arguing for entertainment.  You wouldn't be here arguing unless you thought that, deep down, there might be a chance that you're wrong.  




> Didn't you say earlier that we might not know what the objective morality is? So, how can you "use logic to decide what's objectively right or wrong"?


The only way we wouldn't know is if we didn't search for it.  Also, at that point in the argument, I was just using that for the sake of demonstrating that not knowing what objective morality is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

----------


## otherone

> The key word being missed in this discussion is Empathy and it's role in morality.


Not missed but ignored, ironically enough.

----------


## malkusm

To be clear, I'm tying those two things together. Observe:

1. Objective morality exists
2. People in the past who professed to follow the same morality did not act according to that morality
3. Therefore the objective morality may not be known to us as humans prone to error
4. All we can do is to interpret the information we have available to approximate objective morality, based on logic
---
1. Objective morality does not exist
4. All we can do is to interpret the information we have available to act according to what we believe is right, based on our own experiences and logic

----------


## malkusm

> Yes, that is really what I'm saying.  Objective realities are a much better basis for action than preference or promise of a pay-off would be.


OK, as long as we're saying that believing in an objective reality (which is something that cannot be demonstrated) is the difference between an opinion being an approximation of fact and merely being preference, I just can't spend any more time arguing this.

Just realize that there are some people in Iran right now who believe just as dogmatically in the opposite of what you believe, on certain matters.

----------


## Crashland

> Take your childish, petty mockery elsewhere.  If you can't provide an argument as to why I'm wrong, then I'm going to assume you're just being really immature.


You claimed that appealing to eternal consequences is somehow exempt from your previous argument against appealing to consequences. You should be the one who needs to explain themself.




> If someone is in a position where they can get away with evil behavior, I don't think telling them that they would prefer something else is going to help.  It's going to take a lot to tell someone that they shouldn't do something that they can get away with based on things they may or may not care about.  If someone really prefers their evil to your society, then no amount of reason is going to convince them.  I would rather say it in concrete terms and tell them that it is objectively wrong and why.  Otherwise, you're allowing them to be the judge and promising them an uncertain long-term future in return for giving up their immediate and guaranteed satisfaction if they just do what they want and don't think about how it affects society in the uncertain long-term future.  How would that serve them if they tried to work toward bettering humanity instead of just fulfilling their own selfish desires?  All that work with potentially no reward?


If someone doesn't care about harming others, and they are in a position to get away with whatever bad thing they are doing without any consequences that they actually care about, then there is a kernel of truth in what you are saying, at least in terms of motivation. Making up eternal consequences in the rare occasions when they don't see any earthy consequences, does _very effectively_ appeal to people's fear and can influence their behavior. While this may be a useful tool to try and control other people's actions, it doesn't make it true, and also in my view the problems this causes outweigh the benefits. When people are influenced by human-created lies or myths that are intended to evoke fear (regardless of whether they are religious or secular), instead of appealing to human empathy, this has a tendency to cause things like genocide. I think your view of what motivates people is way too narrow. I can see where it's coming from though, since the Bible teaches that people are essentially scum without God. The reality is though, humanity wouldn't be here today if we were not motivated in part by a need for social cooperation. Fortunately for us, recognizing basic concepts like the golden rule is how most of us are, and we recognize the reward of behaving that way in and of itself.




> On the contrary, I think it is clear.  The only reason it seems unclear to you is that you have clouded your judgment so that you can claim ignorance.  I think it is obvious enough to any 5-year-old that a painting you find in the forest had a painter and that the painting is way different from a few rocks that kind of look like a face in the right light.  Furthermore, you pretend that the Bible is somehow unexceptional in relation to these "thousands" of other texts when there are really many ways that it stands out, such as its authenticity and its detailed account of creation.


I think the watchmaker argument is one of the weakest arguments for God as it is inherently circular. The universe is not a painting, and the only reason you would draw that conclusion from seeing a painting is that you have seen other paintings and you already know where things like that come from. The universe does not appear "designed" to me. I look at it and I see a bunch of atoms that exploded in every direction, and we are an infinitesimally small part of an unremarkable corner of the universe. Well, then again maybe it's modern art.

The Bible is not unremarkable, because of its influence in history. But that is not evidence as to the truth of its claims, nor is its "authenticity" evidence of the truth of its claims either, as we already established before. Nor is it's "detailed" account of creation, which consists of God "speaking things into existence". Anyone can make up a story about how the universe started, and it doesn't matter how detailed it is if there is no evidence to substantiate it. I should also mention, the majority of people that have ever lived on this earth have never even heard of your Bible. If an ancient religious book written in large part by anonymous authors is _really_ how the almighty God of the universe decided to make these things clear to us humans, then he forgot quite a lot of people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To be clear, I'm tying those two things together. Observe:
> 
> 1. Objective morality exists
> 2. People in the past who professed to follow the same morality did not act according to that mortality
> 3. Therefore the objective morality may not be known to us as humans prone to error
> 4. All we can do is to interpret the information we have available to approximate objective morality, based on logic
> ---
> 1. Objective morality does not exist
> 4. All we can do is to interpret the information we have available to act according to what we *believe is right*, based on our own experiences and logic


But if we say that we *believe* something is right, then we are admitting that we think there really is an objective right thing to do out there, somewhere.  

The first part of that numbered list (1-4) is better simply because it arrives at a concrete conclusion, whereas the bottom part of the list can only lead us to preferences that allow us to decide whether we think it's worth it to be good and thereby setting us up as the judge.  I think it's a much greater motivation to behave morally if you actually seek to understand the objective truth than constantly weighing odds and preferable outcomes and likelihood of being satisfied with the outcome.  That's no way to get people to behave morally.  There's no motivation in that because it sets it up as a mere preference of little consequence to be decided at one's own leisure rather than a matter of objective reality that you MUST seek to understand because you are NOT the judge and what happens when you die hangs in the balance.

----------


## Crashland

> To be clear, I'm tying those two things together. Observe:
> 
> 1. Objective morality exists
> 2. People in the past who professed to follow the same morality did not act according to that mortality
> 3. Therefore the objective morality may not be known to us as humans prone to error
> 4. All we can do is to interpret the information we have available to approximate objective morality, based on logic
> *5. There is no reason to make moral claims if there is no objective morality.*
> ---
> 1. Objective morality does not exist
> 4. All we can do is to interpret the information we have available to act according to what we believe is right, based on our own experiences and logic


You forgot the 5th point, the frustrating one and the one that doesn't follow from anything.

----------


## malkusm

> But if we say that we *believe* something is right, then we are admitting that we think there really is an objective right thing to do out there, somewhere.


I believe Android phones are superior to Apple phones.
I could just say this is a preference, but since I said I believed it, I must think there is an objective truth, which invalidates all the idiots out there who believe Apple phones are superior, and especially the ones who don't think that their preference is the universally correct answer.

----------


## Crashland

> I believe Android phones are superior to Apple phones.
> I could just say this is a preference, but since I said I believed it, I must think there is an objective truth, which invalidates all the idiots out there who believe Apple phones are superior, and especially the ones who don't think that their preference is the universally correct answer.


Amen to that. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to malkusm again.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> OK, as long as we're saying that believing in an objective reality (which is something that cannot be demonstrated) is the difference between an opinion being an approximation of fact and merely being preference, I just can't spend any more time arguing this.


The distinction matters.  Either there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is or it just doesn't matter because evils such as slavery are just personal preferences and there's no way we can actually convince people that what they are doing is wrong.  




> Just realize that there are some people in Iran right now who believe just as dogmatically in the opposite of what you believe, on certain matters.


And you're convinced that there's absolutely no way to find out who's right so we should just give up and decide it doesn't matter, am I getting that right?

How can you be so shallow as to think that the existence of differing opinions in the world disables us from finding the truth?

----------


## orenbus



----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You forgot the 5th point, the frustrating one and the one that doesn't follow from anything.


If you really think there is no objective morality and that slavery is just a personal preference akin to choosing a favorite color, then there's nothing I can do for you.  I just want people to understand that that's what they're advocating: the idea that choosing between right and wrong is like choosing between green and red.  To me it's absurd, but apparently I'm just not new-agey enough to get it.  If you want to believe that, go right ahead, I think it's wrong.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I believe Android phones are superior to Apple phones.
> I could just say this is a preference, but since I said I believed it, I must think there is an objective truth, which invalidates all the idiots out there who believe Apple phones are superior, and especially the ones who don't think that their preference is the universally correct answer.


Insert favorite Absolute Objective "whatsit?".

How about Government and Law?  Is there a perfect system of Absolute Objective government stamped into the fabric of the universe that we're all floundering about trying to comprehend?  

How about the Absolute Objective computer operating system?  Oh, I'll give it to Android, who follows the only true path which is Linux.  And since we're dealing in Absolutes, then all others including Windows and MacOS are flat out wrong.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is


Is that like a certain health care law?  We need to pass this thing to find out what's in it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I believe Android phones are superior to Apple phones.
> I could just say this is a preference, but since I said I believed it, I must think there is an objective truth, *which invalidates all the idiots out there* who believe Apple phones are superior, and especially the ones who don't think that their preference is the universally correct answer.


I never said the fact that I admit believing in an objective morality invalidated anything.  I'm just trying to get people to understand where morality really comes from.  Either something is objectively right or wrong or it's just a preference akin to choosing between green and red.  I think accepting the idea of objective morality is a much better motivator for getting people to behave morally, but I'm not trying to invalidate your preference model if that's really what you believe and you can't be bothered to search for an objective truth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is that like a certain health care law?  We need to pass this thing to find out what's in it?


No, how in the heck did you get that out of what I just said?  I said there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is.  If my premise that there is an objective morality is true, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to find out what it is.  You're just trying every trick in the book to make it sound absurd so that you can claim ignorance and say there's no reason to search for truth.  Your childish comparisons to political squabbles only inhibits clarity.  Bills have nothing to do with philosophical, axiomatic truths.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Insert favorite Absolute Objective "whatsit?".
> 
> How about Government and Law?  Is there a perfect system of Absolute Objective government stamped into the fabric of the universe that we're all floundering about trying to comprehend?


YES.  If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be here.  Do you believe that a certain kind of government (or lack thereof) can be better than another kind?  If so, then you are acknowledging that there is a best form of government somewhere out there or else you would have no way of knowing better from worse.  




> How about the Absolute Objective computer operating system?  Oh, I'll give it to Android, who follows the only true path which is Linux.  And since we're dealing in Absolutes, then all others including Windows and MacOS are flat out wrong.


Sure, it's possible.  What you apparently think is absurd you inherently accept by the nature of your argument.  You believe certain things are better than others and yet you are not willing to acknowledge the possibility that there may be a best out there.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> No, how in the heck did you get that out of what I just said?  I said there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is.  If my premise that there is an objective morality is true, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to find out what it is.  You're just trying every trick in the book to make it sound absurd so that you can claim ignorance and say there's no reason to search for truth.  Your childish comparisons to political squabbles only inhibits clarity.  Bills have nothing to do with philosophical, axiomatic truths.


I'm sorry about that.  Sometimes this forum gets so serious it makes me want to crack a joke.  


I guess it seems odd to me to so fervently argue the existence of this thing to non-theists, and then not be able to give details on it.  Or suggest the practical application of it.  

If an Atheist accepts the existence of Absolute Morality, has their life changed for the better in some way?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm sorry about that.  Sometimes this forum gets so serious it makes me want to crack a joke.  
> 
> 
> I guess it seems odd to me to so fervently argue the existence of this thing to non-theists, and then not be able to give details on it.  Or suggest the practical application of it.


Conversion happens in two steps.  You must first accept that there is an objective moral reality before you can accept any arguments as to what it is.  If you don't believe that moral absolutes exist, then I might as well be talking to a brick wall because we are on completely different levels.  If you accept moral absolutes as truth, then at least I know we are arguing on similar terms and the discussion can commence, but not until you accept the axiomatic truth of the existence of moral absolutes.  It would be pointless for me to tell you what I think they are if you don't even believe they exist.  




> If an Atheist accepts the existence of Absolute Morality, has their life changed for the better in some way?


Sure.  Not only do they have the assurance that all is not lost when they die, but there are tons of stories of people who turned their lives around when they accepted that morality was what God wanted and not simply what they wanted.

I have never heard any stories about people who were motivated to become better people when they _lost_ their religion.

----------


## orenbus

> *mo·ral·i·ty*
> məˈralədē/
> noun
> *principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.*
> synonyms:	ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality
> *a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.*
> plural noun: moralities
> "a bourgeois morality"
> *the extent to which an action is right or wrong.*
> "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"





> *em·pa·thy*
> ˈempəTHē
> noun
> *the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.*


...

----------


## VIDEODROME

> YES.  If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be here.  Do you believe that a certain kind of government (or lack thereof) can be better than another kind?  If so, then you are acknowledging that there is a best form of government somewhere out there or else you would have no way of knowing better from worse.


It's very situational and can depend a lot on culture.  I'm not sure there is a perfect one-size-fits-all government that would work for all people in the world.  For example, I don't think most people in Afghanistan would know democracy if it bit them in the ass.  

For some nations, socialism may work just fine if the prevailing culture is collectivist by tradition.  For individualist people, they probably prefer capitalism.  

I'll also say I'm not even absolutely Libertarian.  I'm willing to have a dialogue with Progressives or Green Party types.  Maybe we have differences, but maybe we can find common ground to.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ...


Orenbus, my only problem with that is that it doesn't have an answer for why anyone should care about the feelings of another.  Empathy doesn't mean anything if you think it's just a personal preference.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Sure.  Not only do they have the assurance that all is not lost when they die, but there are tons of stories of people who turned their lives around when they accepted that morality was what God wanted and not simply what they wanted.


Does it particularly matter which God?  People can turn to Jesus or turn to Brahma and the Upanishads and feel that kind of assurance.  Would this still connect them with the sense of Absolute Morality?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's very situational and can depend a lot on culture.  I'm not sure there is a perfect one-size-fits-all government that would work for all people in the world.  For example, I don't think most people in Afghanistan would know democracy if it bit them in the ass.  
> 
> For some nations, socialism may work just fine if the prevailing culture is collectivist by tradition.  For individualist people, they probably prefer capitalism.


This may be true of government, but that doesn't mean it's also true of morality.  Morality must be universal in order to be right or wrong.  Government recognizes no optimal state of human welfare, which is ostensibly the goal of government, so it doesn't really have a direction.  This fact, as bleak and pointless as it may seem, does not preclude a best system from existing.  After all, in order to make any distinction between any kind of government, we have to first acknowledge that there is a best kind of government that we can move closer to.  I happen to think no government can truly satisfy people unless it is based on the laws of God, but that's a different discussion.  The fact that there is no one-size-fits-all government does not mean a best system doesn't exist in each of those situations.




> I'll also say I'm not even absolutely Libertarian.  I'm willing to have a dialogue with Progressives or Green Party types.  Maybe we have differences, but maybe we can find common ground to.


Sure, that's fine.  But in order to find any common ground you must first recognize that there is a best fit for whatever common ground you establish.  If you did not believe an absolute best existed, then you wouldn't even be able to begin discussing how any government practice was better than any other.  So when you discuss these things, you already come to the table under the assumption that there is a best to be strove toward.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Does it particularly matter which God?  People can turn to Jesus or turn to Brahma and the Upanishads and feel that kind of assurance.  Would this still connect them with the sense of Absolute Morality?


Yes, it would still give them the sense of Absolute Morality, which would then allow them to begin trying to discover the truth.  That's why I say you must first have an idea of absolute truth before I can try to convince you what that is.  I would be willing to talk to a Muslim about why Christianity is the best, but that's only because we are both operating on the same axiomatic truth that there exists an absolute best to be found and that it's not just a preference.  

If you look at the difference between a Christian and a Muslim, they both worship the same God because they both agree that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the absolute basis for everything that is right or wrong as well as the basis for existence itself.  The difference is that they disagree about what God's word actually is, and I believe I can show why the Bible is the true word of God and the Kuran is an impostor, but that's not for this discussion.

I think once you accept that there is an objective true morality to be found, it would be pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff and put aside all of those rubbish beliefs in multiple gods to get to the real heart of the issue, which is the argument over what the one true God wants from us.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I think once you accept that there is an objective true morality to be found, it would be pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff and put aside all of those rubbish beliefs in multiple gods to get to the real heart of the issue, which is the argument over what the one true God wants from us.


If there is a God, I wish he would make an official searchable Morality Wikipedia.  Why leave us guessing?  

I mean yeah I know Christians will point out the Bible and the Commandments, but as we move into the future new issues will continually arise. 

What if say 400 years from now, how would morality weigh in if individuals decided to marry an Artificial Intelligence?  If so, would it be adultery if a person made a digital copy of someone else's Artificial Intelligence Spouse?

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes, and the reason we have these moral controversies is because morality is subjective. The idea that "what one considers to be right or wrong will always be in the eye of the beholder" -- why is what so horrible? Isn't that exactly what happens in this world already? You said yourself, people don't even agree on what constitutes murder under certain circumstances. You claim objective morality, yet everyone disagrees on what this objective morality is. When you have a billion individuals all claiming "I am appealing to objective morality", and yet all of their opinions contradict one another, then what is the use of even referring to it as objective? Obviously, some moral issues are more controversial than others. You can't use controversial issues where you might be outside of a prevailing moral consensus ("taxation is theft") as evidence of objective morality -- that does not follow at all. Your own subjective moral position is not evidence of an objective morality.
> 
> When debating a moral point with someone, one of the least effective debate tactics is to claim "my moral position is objectively self-evident therefore you are wrong." To them, if they are representing themselves honestly, their moral position is just as self-evident as you think yours is. We make moral progress when we actually bother to appeal to another person's reason and human experience, and to share our own, in an effort to reach a shared construction of a moral concept. If you want other people to share your view that taxes are theft, then you need to convince them to see it that way in their own eyes. Asking someone to blindly follow some standard that they don't agree with in their own eyes won't get you very far.





> The argument is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be right or wrong, not necessarily that everyone has to agree on it.  I don't think anyone made such a claim.


Exactly, PaulConventionWV. Crashland, you've asked what's wrong about morality being determined in the eye of the beholder, but I'm pretty sure that if someone used the State to force you to do things which contradicted your moral standards that you would have a problem with that. But, after all, the person in authority of the State is just implementing policies (based on his moral code) which he believes is right for you. So, what would be so wrong with that, given your reasoning that morality is only subjective? His moral standard is just as "self-evident" as yours, right?

But if you say that he's wrong for imposing his moral standards upon you, then you have conceded the point that there is such a thing as objective morality, because you are supposing that there is moral code above that of the Statist authority which condemns him as being wrongful about his imposition of morality upon you. And as is the case, most people in positions of authority will not be convinced that their moral standard is in error, which is why they begin with that standard as the basis for what they perceive is the "greater good." So, it seems to me that subjective morality, in practice, is an impossibility because no one treats morality as subjective when someone else's moral code trumps theirs in society.

----------


## otherone

> ...


_Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die?

_

I'm not sure what is meant by "absolute".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If there is a God, I wish he would make an official searchable Morality Wikipedia.  Why leave us guessing?


It's called the Bible.




> I mean yeah I know Christians will point out the Bible and the Commandments, but as we move into the future new issues will continually arise. 
> 
> What if say 400 years from now, how would morality weigh in if individuals decided to marry an Artificial Intelligence?  If so, would it be adultery if a person made a digital copy of someone else's Artificial Intelligence Spouse?


Matthew 5:28

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Now, does that mean he has actually committed the sin of adultery?  Probably not, but the Bible is pretty clear that it's a dangerous temptation.

----------


## VIDEODROME

So if someone typed Adultery into the searchable Morality Bible Wiki, they would likely find the passages from the Old Testament prescribing death.  

Do published Bibles say somewhere that The Old Testament is only for historical record, but is now considered obsolete on morality?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So if someone typed Adultery into the searchable Morality Bible Wiki, they would likely find the passages from the Old Testament prescribing death.  
> 
> Do published Bibles say somewhere that The Old Testament is only for historical record, but is now considered obsolete on morality?


Would it kill ya to not use a computer for once?  Besides, the Bible can be searched online.  It's really not that hard.

I don't get into Bible discussions with atheists.  Someone who rejects the existence of an ultimate authority does not really want to know about the Bible.  I will say, though, that I do not think the OT is obsolete.

----------


## Crashland

> YES.  If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be here.  Do you believe that a certain kind of government (or lack thereof) can be better than another kind?  If so, then you are acknowledging that there is a best form of government somewhere out there or else you would have no way of knowing better from worse.  
> 
> Sure, it's possible.  What you apparently think is absurd you inherently accept by the nature of your argument.  You believe certain things are better than others and yet you are not willing to acknowledge the possibility that there may be a best out there.





> If you did not believe an absolute best existed, then you  wouldn't even be able to begin discussing how any government practice  was better than any other.  So when you discuss these things, you  already come to the table under the assumption that there is a best to  be strove toward.





This doesn't make sense. Just because I can make a judgment that 2 is greater than 1, doesn't mean that I am saying "there is a greatest number, and 2 is closer to it than 1 is." All you need when making a judgment is some attribute or set of attributes to compare. In the case of numbers, you might be comparing quantity. In the case of governments, you might be comparing attributes like sustainability, or freedom. None of this requires there to be a "best" anything anywhere but in your own subjective view.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This doesn't make sense. Just because I can make a judgment that 2 is greater than 1, doesn't mean that I am saying "there is a greatest number, and 2 is closer to it than 1 is." All you need when making a judgment is some attribute or set of attributes to compare. In the case of numbers, you might be comparing quantity. In the case of governments, you might be comparing attributes like sustainability, or freedom. None of this requires there to be a "best" anything anywhere but in your own subjective view.


You can't make value judgments in math, so that analogy doesn't really apply to this discussion.  

If we're taking about preferences, then no preference can be objectively better than any other.  So if you acknowledge that one thing is objectively better than another; for instance, that capitalism is better than socialism, then you are also acknowledging that it's NOT just a matter of opinion and that there must be a best system out there because, otherwise, you would have no way of telling whether capitalism was really better or just a preference you have.  If you acknowledge that ANYTHING is objectively better than something else, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extend that reasoning until better eventually becomes best.  Having an objective better is evidence of an objective best.

You may say the 'better' is not objective, but then you contradict yourself when you assert that it would be better for everyone and not just you.  If it's really only better in your own subjective view, then why do you insist that everyone should take your view?

----------


## Crashland

> Exactly, PaulConventionWV. Crashland, you've asked what's wrong about morality being determined in the eye of the beholder, but I'm pretty sure that if someone used the State to force you to do things which contradicted your moral standards that you would have a problem with that. But, after all, the person in authority of the State is just implementing policies (based on his moral code) which he believes is right for you. So, what would be so wrong with that, given your reasoning that morality is only subjective? His moral standard is just as "self-evident" as yours, right?
> 
> But if you say that he's wrong for imposing his moral standards upon you, then you have conceded the point that there is such a thing as objective morality, because you are supposing that there is moral code above that of the Statist authority which condemns him as being wrongful about his imposition of morality upon you. And as is the case, most people in positions of authority will not be convinced that their moral standard is in error, which is why they begin with that standard as the basis for what they perceive is the "greater good." So, it seems to me that subjective morality, in practice, is an impossibility because no one treats morality as subjective when someone else's moral code trumps theirs in society.


Just because someone else might be acting based on their own view that  they honestly believe, doesn't mean I have to accept their view. Of  course if someone acts in a way that I see as immoral, I would have a  problem with that. But the reason I would have a problem with that is because I am invoking _my own subjective moral view_, not because I am invoking an objective morality. The moral code which condemns the state when I don't like what the state is doing, is _my moral code_, I am the one doing the condemning. Other people don't react the same way to the same actions of the state because they have different subjective views.

The reason that people tend to treat their subjective view as objective, is for a few reasons. People naturally assume that they are always right, that everyone else should think like them, and they assume that everyone else should feel the same way they do. Some of this is arrogant and presumptuous, while some of it is quite reasonable because we as humans do have quite a lot of shared experiences and shared capability of reasoning. But "treating it as objective" isn't the most accurate description. Making use of common experience or common reasoning is not the same thing as appealing to objectivity. If you have two people arguing for and against euthanasia, they won't get very far if one of them just keeps insisting "murder is objectively wrong" and the other one keeps insisting "deliberately prolonging suffering is objectively wrong".

----------


## Crashland

> You can't make value judgments in math, so that analogy doesn't really apply to this discussion.  
> 
> If we're taking about preferences, then no preference can be objectively better than any other.  So if you acknowledge that one thing is objectively better than another; for instance, that capitalism is better than socialism, then you are also acknowledging that it's NOT just a matter of opinion and that there must be a best system out there because, otherwise, you would have no way of telling whether capitalism was really better or just a preference you have.  If you acknowledge that ANYTHING is objectively better than something else, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extend that reasoning until better eventually becomes best.  Having an objective better is evidence of an objective best.
> 
> You may say the 'better' is not objective, but then you contradict yourself when you assert that it would be better for everyone and not just you.  If it's really only better in your own subjective view, then why do you insist that everyone should take your view?


I didn't claim one form of government is objectively better than  another. I might have a view that one form of government is better than  another, but that is a subjective view. Even if I did think there is a  "best" form of government, that would also be subjective. I recognize that not everyone  experiences the world in the same way I do and not everyone values the  same things I do. I do not insist that everyone take my view, but I am happy to share my view with people in an effort to find common ground. You are referring to using force on others. I don't have a problem with imposing force on others who do not share the same values -- for example if someone has a mental disorder or has some morality completely at odds with mine and they honestly think it's okay to murder my family, I am perfectly comfortable with using force to prevent that from happening. I'm not just going to sit by because the murderer is just acting based on his own view which is just as valid. As I have said many, many times already, just because views on morality or government are subjective, doesn't mean that I have to accept other people's views.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Just because someone else might be acting based on their own view that  they *honestly believe*, doesn't mean I have to accept their view. Of  course if someone acts in a way that I see as immoral, I would have a  problem with that. But the reason I would have a problem with that is because I am invoking _my own subjective moral view_, not because I am invoking an objective morality. The moral code which condemns the state when I don't like what the state is doing, is _my moral code_, I am the one doing the condemning. Other people don't react the same way to the same actions of the state because they have different subjective views.


Why do you condemn somebody for not having the same preferences as you?  When you say you "honestly believe" something, you are implying that you think it is objectively true and not just a preference.




> The reason that people tend to treat their subjective view as objective, is for a few reasons. People naturally assume that they are always right, that everyone else should think like them, and they assume that everyone else should feel the same way they do. Some of this is arrogant and presumptuous, while some of it is quite reasonable because we as humans do have quite a lot of shared experiences and shared capability of reasoning. But "treating it as objective" isn't the most accurate description. Making use of common experience or common reasoning is not the same thing as appealing to objectivity. If you have two people arguing for and against euthanasia, they won't get very far if one of them just keeps insisting "murder is objectively wrong" and the other one keeps insisting "deliberately prolonging suffering is objectively wrong".


If it's just a preference, though, then why would you care?  Of course if the two people you cited just shout the same thing over and over, they wouldn't get very far, but why would they do that when they have an objective basis on which to establish why they disagree?  If you are arguing over a mere preference, you have no basis for your disagreement in the first place.  You can't tell someone *why* why you disagree if you are also saying it's just a preference and it doesn't really matter which one you choose.  Why would it matter that other people adopt your preference?

If you tell someone they would prefer moral actions over immoral ones, then they can always disagree with you and say that they actually prefer the immoral actions.  If you tell them that they are wrong, then they can't just say they prefer not to be right because being wrong might have real, tangible consequences as opposed to the consequences of having different preferences than you, which are neither real nor tangible unless you happen to hold a majority opinion.

----------


## Theocrat

> But then you're reduced to saying that slavery is only wrong because other people believe it is wrong.  In other words, it wasn't wrong when it was popular.
> 
> 
> 
> If it is not true, then demonstrate why.  Explain to me why you believe it without appealing to the majority belief.  If you have a reason, then what is your reason?
> 
> 
> 
> If you say something is right or wrong, then you are making an objective claim.  If you weren't, you would say I believe this is wrong, but you would have no reason for that belief if you also believed that objective morality did not exist.  You cannot deny objective morality and then claim there is a reason for you to believe it to be true.  If it is not objective, then you have no way of knowing whether it is true or not.  I'm asking you why you believe it if it isn't objectively right or wrong.  
> ...


Exactly, PaulConventionWV.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> If you tell someone they would prefer moral actions over immoral ones, then they can always disagree with you and say that they actually prefer the immoral actions.


If you tell them basically the same thing, claiming you're backed by the Bible and AOM, can't they just as easily go about their lives choosing their moral or immoral path on their own?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you tell them basically the same thing, claiming you're backed by the Bible and AOM, can't they just as easily go about their lives choosing their moral or immoral path on their own?


Sure, they are *capable* of doing that, but the key difference I'm pointing out is that being _right_ or _wrong_ have real consequences, whereas having certain preferences really doesn't matter one way or the other.  If I was told I was objectively wrong for doing something, I would be a lot more interested in trying to find out why than if someone simply told me they thought I would enjoy doing something else better than what I apparently already enjoy doing.  

Furthermore, I think this mindset is damaging because it sets up the perpetrator of evil acts as the judge of what is right or wrong and allows them to choose on a whim.  Nobody's going to listen to you if they feel that they can do whatever they want with no consequences.  There can be no justice if you treat the perpetrator of evil acts as if choosing to do what you think are moral acts instead of immoral ones is of no great importance or consequence and that they can choose freely as if they were picking a favorite color.  There's no justice in that view.  It's abhorrent.

----------


## Theocrat

> Just because someone else might be acting based on their own view that  they honestly believe, doesn't mean I have to accept their view. Of  course if someone acts in a way that I see as immoral, I would have a  problem with that. But the reason I would have a problem with that is because I am invoking _my own subjective moral view_, not because I am invoking an objective morality. The moral code which condemns the state when I don't like what the state is doing, is _my moral code_, I am the one doing the condemning. Other people don't react the same way to the same actions of the state because they have different subjective views.
> 
> The reason that people tend to treat their subjective view as objective, is for a few reasons. People naturally assume that they are always right, that everyone else should think like them, and they assume that everyone else should feel the same way they do. Some of this is arrogant and presumptuous, while some of it is quite reasonable because we as humans do have quite a lot of shared experiences and shared capability of reasoning. But "treating it as objective" isn't the most accurate description. Making use of common experience or common reasoning is not the same thing as appealing to objectivity. If you have two people arguing for and against euthanasia, they won't get very far if one of them just keeps insisting "murder is objectively wrong" and the other one keeps insisting "deliberately prolonging suffering is objectively wrong".

----------


## VIDEODROME

Will this come down to which group has the lowest bodycount over the course of history?  Because neither Christians or Atheists will win that one.

----------


## Crashland

> Furthermore, I think this mindset is damaging because it sets up the perpetrator of evil acts as the judge of what is right or wrong and allows them to choose on a whim.  Nobody's going to listen to you if they feel that they can do whatever they want with no consequences.  There can be no justice if you treat the perpetrator of evil acts as if choosing to do what you think are moral acts instead of immoral ones is of no great importance or consequence and that they can choose freely as if they were picking a favorite color.  There's no justice in that view.  It's abhorrent.


If there are no eternal consequences, it puts a lot more significance on making sure we impose justice as best we can *right now* doesn't it? In your view it doesn't even matter whether justice is served here on earth because in the end God's always got it covered anyway. Additionally, nobody is going to listen to you if they also feel that they are doing the work of God and following objective morality. And, you won't listen to them either.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If there are no eternal consequences, it puts a lot more significance on making sure we impose justice as best we can *right now* doesn't it? In your view it doesn't even matter whether justice is served here on earth because in the end God's always got it covered anyway. Additionally, nobody is going to listen to you if they also feel that they are doing the work of God and following objective morality. And, you won't listen to them either.


No, that's not how it works.  No eternal consequences does not equal MORE importance on this finite existence.  It equals LESS.  If there is no eternity, then it doesn't matter what happens here.  If you're going to be lost and gone forever for all the rest of time, why would you place any particular importance on morality at all?

And to the contrary, because there ARE moral absolutes is the reason it is important to serve justice here on earth.  If it's just a preference, then it doesn't matter.  You're taking all the problems with your view and you're trying to turn them back on me, but they don't stick.  

Thirdly, if someone feels they are doing the work of God, at least I have a basis on which to disagree with them and tell them they're wrong.  If it's just a preference, then there's no need to even talk about right and wrong.  It's abhorrent that anyone would take the view that a mere preference can motivate people to act morally because I think we all know that this just is not the case.  I think you know it, too and you are simply hiding from the truth.  

If that's your response, then I have nothing more to say.  You're trivializing evil and you have no shame.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Will this come down to which group has the lowest bodycount over the course of history?  Because neither Christians or Atheists will win that one.


What group is it then?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What group is it then?


Maybe Jainism.

----------


## Crashland

> No, that's not how it works.  No eternal consequences does not equal MORE importance on this finite existence.  It equals LESS.  If there is no eternity, then it doesn't matter what happens here.  If you're going to be lost and gone forever for all the rest of time, why would you place any particular importance on morality at all?


In my experience, we tend to value things *more* when they are temporary/fleeting. According to your logic, the fact that there is no eternal youth means we should value youth less. No one stays healthy forever, so we should value health less. The beauty of a sunset doesn't last forever, so we should value it less. Ice sculptures don't last forever so we should value them less. And of course, the justice we can build here on earth doesn't last forever, so we should value that less. None of this makes any sense.




> And to the contrary, because there ARE moral absolutes is the reason it is important to serve justice here on earth.  If it's just a preference, then it doesn't matter.  You're taking all the problems with your view and you're trying to turn them back on me, but they don't stick.


Fine, maybe one might see it as important if they are only concerned about saving their ass from hellfire and serving justice helps toward that end. But I think justice is important for its own sake.




> Thirdly, if someone feels they are doing the work of God, at least I have a basis on which to disagree with them and tell them they're wrong.  If it's just a preference, then there's no need to even talk about right and wrong.  It's abhorrent that anyone would take the view that a mere preference can motivate people to act morally because I think we all know that this just is not the case.  I think you know it, too and you are simply hiding from the truth.  
> 
> If that's your response, then I have nothing more to say.  You're trivializing evil and you have no shame.


You don't have an objective basis any more than I do -- you only claim that you do, and it is a claim that is no different from anyone else's claim. You might think it is "abhorrent", but this is exactly what happens in the real world, even in your own worldview. By invoking eternal consequences, all you are saying is "you really, really would prefer to act in this way because of X". The only difference in what I am saying when I argue a moral point, is that "you really would prefer to act in this way because of Y and Z", except Y and Z are things that we both might actually be able to relate to, as opposed to X which is a fairy tale.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In my experience, we tend to value things *more* when they are temporary/fleeting. According to your logic, the fact that there is no eternal youth means we should value youth less. No one stays healthy forever, so we should value health less. The beauty of a sunset doesn't last forever, so we should value it less. Ice sculptures don't last forever so we should value them less. And of course, the justice we can build here on earth doesn't last forever, so we should value that less. None of this makes any sense.


You're right, Christians generally don't value this life that much.  But we do value *righteousness* because that is ultimately the only reason we are here.  For you, there is no reason.  What's the point in life at all if you're never going to be around to know your own legacy or what have you?  What is the purpose?  There is none.  




> Fine, maybe one might see it as important if they are only concerned about saving their ass from hellfire and serving justice helps toward that end. But I think justice is important for its own sake.


Justice is important for its own sake?  You don't see the absurdity of that statement?  If the only point of justice is to have justice, then there is no point.  You're the person saying that those who lived in the era of slavery were simply exercising a personal preference and yet you're simultaneously crying for justice while your only means of converting people out of their evil ways of slavery is to convince them that they would prefer a society without it in some hypothetical future.  How can you demand justice when you are reduced to pleading with the evil to change their preference for your sake and the sake of others?  




> You don't have an objective basis any more than I do -- you only claim that you do, and it is a claim that is no different from anyone else's claim. You might think it is "abhorrent", but this is exactly what happens in the real world, even in your own worldview. By invoking eternal consequences, all you are saying is "you really, really would prefer to act in this way because of X". The only difference in what I am saying when I argue a moral point, is that "you really would prefer to act in this way because of Y and Z", except Y and Z are things that we both might actually be able to relate to, as opposed to X which is a fairy tale.


You're the one treating it as a preference that can be accepted or rejected at the evil person's whim.  The difference between me and you is that you set the evil person up as the authority on the matter and you are reduced to simply pleading with them to change for the sake of some temporary and hypothetical reward.  I am referring to the absolute authority of God and I am laying down real and certain consequences.  If there is no eternity, then nothing matters because we can literally weigh anything against our entire existence and decide that we value our sin more than our temporary existence.  When I invoke eternality, I am striking a very important point.  What's more important, though, is that I am not allowing the evil person to be the authority who can choose on a whim based on my own value judgments.  Do you not see the absurdity in this?  It's as if you are trying to go around telling people that red really is a better color than green because you value it more than green and you think someone else's shared experiences will lead them to the same conclusion.  It's ludicrous and it's harmful.  Again, this is why Jeffrey Dahmer referenced exactly what I am talking about when he was caught.  He thought there was no afterlife, so what's the point in behaving well when the temptation is that strong.  Why not just do it and see if you get caught?  After all, you only live once, so why not give in to your temptation and get it over with?  

If somebody had told him that he was not the authority and that he would have to answer to the real authority, he may have thought differently, as evidenced by his own words.

The other problem you have is that the concept of uncertainty over just what the absolute standards are causes you to throw up your hands and give up.  Many people spend their whole lives searching for the truth because they see the importance of the matter and yet, to you, it's not a reason to investigate but a reason to not even seek it because you value this life more than you value truth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV



----------


## lilymc

I hate coming into a thread this late.  (12 pages late) 

But I'll jump in anyway.

Objective morality cannot exist without a transcendent source (ie, God)   Sorry, atheists.

So your options are:

1) Try to claim that morality is subjective....which is illogical and counterintuitive.   
2) Start asking yourself how objective moral truths can exist in a godless, natural world that is the result of chance.

Good luck!

----------


## robert68

"America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776"

Almost constant war by predominantly theist US. Theist worldviews shouldn't determine morality.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is Ravi Zacharias going to Hell  for attempting suicide?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is Ravi Zacharias going to Hell  for attempting suicide?


Either these questions really bother you a lot or you're just trolling.  My guess is that you've never actually tried to find the answers to these questions.

By the way, I don't agree with Ravi on everything.  The existence of Hell is one of them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776"
> 
> Almost constant war by by predominantly theist US. Theist worldviews shouldn't determine morality.


By saying that a particular worldview *should not* determine morality, you're suggesting there is an absolute standard of morality that people *should* adhere to, suggesting that you don't think morality is subjective.

----------


## VIDEODROME

A big deal is being made about A.O.M. because things like final judgement or punishment, so I'm exploring that idea with this example.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A big deal is being made about A.O.M. because things like final judgement or punishment, so I'm exploring that idea with this example.


You're exploring the idea, even though you're not interested in the answer?

----------


## robert68

> By saying that a particular worldview *should not* determine morality, you're suggesting there is an absolute standard of morality that people *should* adhere to, suggesting that you don't think morality is subjective.


Absolute morality doesn’t imply creator of all things 'god' theism.

----------


## lilymc

> Is Ravi Zacharias going to Hell  for attempting suicide?


He became a Christian after that which means he was forgiven of all his sins.  So why would you ask that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Absolute morality doesn’t imply* creator of all things god theism.*


Yes, it does.  If it doesn't, then where do the absolutes come from?

Also, better grammar would help you get your message across clearly.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, it does.  If it doesn't, then where do the absolutes come from?


Experience?  Can it not be absolutely proven that, for example, the non-aggression principle results in the most peaceful and prosperous societies?  Could something that is proven to serve as the bedrock for the most peaceful and prosperous societies really not be moral?

----------


## robert68

> Yes, it does.  If it doesn't, then where do the absolutes come from?
> 
> Also, better grammar would help you get your message across clearly.


A deity doesn't have to create all things.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A deity doesn't have to create all things.


Of course it does.  If this "deity" did not create all things, then it is NOT God.  The very concept of God requires that he be the author of all things since he is the very basis for any existence at all.  If you want to believe that the universe came into existence randomly by itself, then you can believe that if you want, but to add another layer of deniability to the idea of God's existence is just silliness.  If God is really God, then He must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and the very basis for existence, meaning nothing can exist without him.  If God is real, then he must be all of those things or he is not God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Experience?  Can it not be absolutely proven that, for example, the non-aggression principle results in the most peaceful and prosperous societies?  Could something that is proven to serve as the bedrock for the most peaceful and prosperous societies really not be moral?


Why should I care about a prosperous society?  There is nothing within experience that tells me that it would necessarily be good for me to go along with your plan for a prosperous society, or indeed, that I should even care how it affects me at all.  I might not even care about my own well-being.

No experience can be absolute because no single experience applies to everyone.

And that all assumes that such a thing could even be proven as you assert.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Either these questions really bother you a lot or you're just trolling.  My guess is that you've never actually tried to find the answers to these questions.
> 
> By the way, I don't agree with Ravi on everything.  The existence of Hell is one of them.





> He became a Christian after that which means he was forgiven of all his sins.  So why would you ask that?


A big deal is being made about eternal consequences for immoral actions. Or that actions are universally right or wrong. So I'm wondering if this would really be the case, or if universal morality makes exceptions.  If so, it doesn't seem that universal or absolute. 

I guess Ravi pushing absolute morality seems ironic when he is exempt from it.

----------


## lilymc

> A big deal is being made about eternal consequences for immoral actions. Or that actions are universally right or wrong. So I'm wondering if this would really be the case, or if universal morality makes exceptions.  If so, it doesn't seem that universal or absolute. 
> 
> I guess Ravi pushing absolute morality seems ironic when he is exempt from it.


There are eternal consequences for those who never get right with God.   But when a person gets saved, their sins are completely forgiven... there is no longer condemnation, for those who are in Christ.

That doesn't mean that nobody paid the price.... JESUS paid the price.  The cross is where justice and mercy meet.

Does that make more sense?

----------


## TER

> There are eternal consequences for those who never get right with God.   But when a person gets saved, their sins are completely forgiven... there is no longer condemnation, for those who are in Christ.
> 
> That doesn't mean that nobody paid the price.... JESUS paid the price.  The cross is where justice and mercy meet.
> 
> Does that make more sense?


And when we sin again after baptism, God has established the mystery of repentance as a second and even greater baptism for the remission of sins and the salvation of men.

----------


## lilymc

> And when we sin again after baptism, God has established the mystery of repentance as a second and even greater baptism for the remission of sins and the salvation of men.


Some of us spent weeks (maybe months) discussing the topic of salvation, and I have no plans to re-hash that debate.  

I like you, TER, but honesty, I couldn't disagree more with your (and the EO/RCC's) position on salvation. 

I think it's very sad that some people are trapped in that Old Covenant mindset.  I think it's a man-centered, dismal, bleak, exhausting, unpeaceful position.... that goes contrary to the whole message of the Gospel.

But I really don't want to get into this debate again.     Even if I wanted to, I don't have the time, unfortunately.

----------


## TER

> Some of us spent weeks (maybe months) discussing the topic of salvation, and I have no plans to re-hash that debate.  
> 
> I like you, TER, but honesty, I couldn't disagree more with your (and the EO/RCC's) position on salvation. 
> 
> I think it's very sad that some people are trapped in that Old Covenant mindset.  I think it's a man-centered, dismal, bleak, exhausting, unpeaceful position.... that goes contrary to the whole message of the Gospel.
> 
> But I really don't want to get into this debate again.     Even if I wanted to, I don't have the time, unfortunately.


I'm just offering it as information, not trying to debate you.  It may be of interest to some what the Orthodox Church teaches.

----------


## TER

Oh, and by the way, I like you too!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And when we sin again after baptism, God has established the mystery of repentance as a second and even greater baptism for the remission of sins and the salvation of men.


That is not how the Bible describes salvation at all.  In the Bible, men are saved when God justifies them by imputing their sins to Jesus, and imputing Jesus' perfect life to them on their behalf.  JUSTIFICATION is what saves a man, not baptism or repentance or anything else.  And this justification happened at the cross.  It is a past event:




> *Romans 5:8-10
> 
> But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life*.…

----------


## VIDEODROME

> There are eternal consequences for those who never get right with God.   But when a person gets saved, their sins are completely forgiven... there is no longer condemnation, for those who are in Christ.
> 
> That doesn't mean that nobody paid the price.... JESUS paid the price.  The cross is where justice and mercy meet.
> 
> Does that make more sense?


I guess it depends on whether the main interest of this thread is about whether different people can find ways to behave morally as opposed to whether you get into Heaven or Hell.  A lot is being said about Atheists lacking an acknowledgement of Absolute Morality as a guide, or source of fear of final punishment, and I guess by extension can't supposedly argue for any kind of better moral conduct. 

It just seems funny to me that after all that, if you convert to Christianity, you get a pass on Absolute Morality.  I mean what is that kid being lectured to by Ravi Zacharias supposed to think?  Ravi is standing there telling the kid the only path is to live under the guidance of Absolute Morality as a guidance for behavior, not any so-called arbitrary subjective morality, yet he himself is apparently excused for his own past bad behavior.  

So the young man in the video may be a non-theist and his subjective morality is in question because he doesn't fear God's Wrath or something.  If he converts to Christianity, he may believe he gets a pass.  If he sins he can just ask to be forgiven and it's all good.

----------


## Crashland

> You're right, Christians generally don't value this life that much.  But we do value *righteousness* because that is ultimately the only reason we are here.  For you, there is no reason.  What's the point in life at all if you're never going to be around to know your own legacy or what have you?  What is the purpose?  There is none.


The point of life is whatever you make it to be. As far as I'm concerned, human purpose is a human desire and a human construct. What's the point of doing artwork if you know that the materials you are using will eventually be destroyed given long enough time? What's the point of trying to fix our nation's government when given enough time, all nations fall? Just because the universe doesn't care about us, and even though there will come a day when no one living on earth will even remember who we were, that does not mean that our lives can have no purpose _to us_. 





> Justice is important for its own sake?  You don't see the absurdity of that statement?  If the only point of justice is to have justice, then there is no point.  You're the person saying that those who lived in the era of slavery were simply exercising a personal preference and yet you're simultaneously crying for justice while your only means of converting people out of their evil ways of slavery is to convince them that they would prefer a society without it in some hypothetical future.  How can you demand justice when you are reduced to pleading with the evil to change their preference for your sake and the sake of others?


Yes, I see justice as an end in itself because it is something I value. That is just how I am.
Other than killing people, the only way to get someone else to acquire your own moral view is to "plead" with them, that is, your word for using reason and empathy. This applies to your view just as much as it applies to mine. You are pleading to me using logic in order to convince me that your view is more reasonable than the one I have. You have formed your own subjective view on morality and its origin, and you are appealing to my subjective human experience and sense of reason, in hopes that I might understand your perspective and come to share it. And I am doing the same thing by talking to you.




> You're the one treating it as a preference that can be accepted or rejected at the evil person's whim.  The difference between me and you is that you set the evil person up as the authority on the matter and you are reduced to simply pleading with them to change for the sake of some temporary and hypothetical reward.  I am referring to the absolute authority of God and I am laying down real and certain consequences.  If there is no eternity, then nothing matters because we can literally weigh anything against our entire existence and decide that we value our sin more than our temporary existence.  When I invoke eternality, I am striking a very important point.  What's more important, though, is that I am not allowing the evil person to be the authority who can choose on a whim based on my own value judgments.  Do you not see the absurdity in this?  It's as if you are trying to go around telling people that red really is a better color than green because you value it more than green and you think someone else's shared experiences will lead them to the same conclusion.  It's ludicrous and it's harmful.  Again, this is why Jeffrey Dahmer referenced exactly what I am talking about when he was caught.  He thought there was no afterlife, so what's the point in behaving well when the temptation is that strong.  Why not just do it and see if you get caught?  After all, you only live once, so why not give in to your temptation and get it over with?


It is not really correct to say that "preferences" can just be accepted or rejected on a whim -- there generally has to be some catalyst which compels someone to change a preference. I can't just decide to accept slavery as moral when that is something that I just don't feel. Anyway, I think I know where this trail is going, we have been there before and I'd rather not go down that road again.

For red and green, I don't really have a basis for which to think other people are likely to share the same experience as me. I don't even have a logical reason for my favorite color (which is blue). There is little reason to assume that other people will necessarily find the same color as pleasing to the eye. On the other hand, there is a lot of reason to assume that most people would not enjoy having their arm cut off, and starting from that combined with reason we can start building a moral framework. Speaking as a generality, one good reason to behave well is that behaving poorly has a strong tendency to lead to destruction in many different forms. You only live once, so why not make sure you don't screw it up?




> If somebody had told him that he was not the authority and that he would have to answer to the real authority, he may have thought differently, as evidenced by his own words.


I don't deny that religion has been used effectively to control other people's behavior, both for the better and for worse.




> The other problem you have is that the concept of uncertainty over just what the absolute standards are causes you to throw up your hands and give up.  Many people spend their whole lives searching for the truth because they see the importance of the matter and yet, to you, it's not a reason to investigate but a reason to not even seek it because you value this life more than you value truth.


I agree that it is very good to stay away from things that discourage us from continuing to search for truth -- that is, to understand the universe we live in, to understand ourselves and to understand each other as best we can. I can't think of anything that tends to discourage this more, than religious belief in unsubstantiated claims which offer cheap short-cut answers for things that we don't yet have real answers for. One can very easily tie their entire sense of identity into their religious belief -- and therefore any truth-seekers who might uncover new information which puts said religious belief in doubt, are met with intense, unwarranted resistance. A criticism of the belief is perceived as a criticism of the religious person's very identity. Thus we have apologists coming out of the woodwork doing logical gymnastics to maintain consistency, and we have churches that take hundreds of years longer than they should to reject things like geocentrism and young-earth theory...

----------


## lilymc

> I guess it depends on whether the main interest of this thread is about whether different people can find ways to behave morally


I think the thing that some atheists don't realize is that words like "moral" or "good" are meaningless, without an objective moral standard.

You say "atheists can behave morally."    Well, I don't think anyone here is denying that.  The point is, without a true moral standard (one that is objectively and universally true, whether people agree with it or not)  then your claim about "behaving morally" is baseless.     What is "good" to one person is not good to another.  What is "bad" or "immoral" to some people is not bad to others.   

So you can't have it both ways.  Either objective morality exists, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then you can't claim you're acting morally, when there is no such thing as true morality, if it's entirely subjective.




> as opposed to whether you get into Heaven or Hell.


Fear of hell is not, and never was my motivation for doing good.  I didn't fear hell before I became a believer (because obviously I didn't believe in it at that time)  and I don't fear it now, as a Christian, because I'm saved.  I have security and peace because I know who I belong to, and I know that nothing can separate me from God's love.

I obey God and act morally not out of fear of hell, but out of love and respect for God and for others.  I do it because I know it's the right thing to do....I've learned through experience that, without a doubt, obeying God is what is wisest and BEST. 





> A lot is being said about Atheists lacking an acknowledgement of Absolute Morality as a guide, or source of fear of final punishment, and I guess by extension can't supposedly argue for any kind of better moral conduct. 
> 
> It just seems funny to me that after all that, if you convert to Christianity, you get a pass on Absolute Morality.  I mean what is that kid being lectured to by Ravi Zacharias supposed to think?  Ravi is standing there telling the kid the only path is to live under the guidance of Absolute Morality as a guidance for behavior, not any so-called arbitrary subjective morality, yet he himself is apparently excused for his own past bad behavior.  
> 
> So the young man in the video may be a non-theist and his subjective morality is in question because he doesn't fear God's Wrath or something.  If he converts to Christianity, he may believe he gets a pass.  If he sins he can just ask to be forgiven and it's all good.


You don't have to worry about God making mistakes.  God is 100% just.  

But in addition to pure justice, God is also LOVE and mercy.    And it's God's kindness and love that leads people to repentance (Romans 2:4).   Once that happens, and a person has a genuine change of mind/heart and puts their faith and trust in Jesus, something very special takes place.  It's spiritual birth, the person literally becomes a new creation.  

Your assumption seems to be that they're the same lousy person they were before.... but that is not the case.  Regeneration takes place, and we have a new nature and we're sealed with the Holy Spirit.  

So it's not the way you seem to think it is.   But if you're not a believer, I don't expect you to understand all this.

----------


## Crashland

> I think the thing that some atheists don't realize is that words like "moral" or "good" are meaningless, without an objective moral standard.


Words like "moral" or "good" in an atheistic view may not be used to describe the exact same thing you describe when you refer to them, but that does not make them meaningless.




> So you can't have it both ways.  Either objective morality exists, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then you can't claim you're acting morally, when there is no such thing as true morality, if it's entirely subjective.


This is a tautology because what you are meaning by "true morality" IS "objective morality". You are saying that without objective morality there can be no objective morality. This is absolutely true, but it does not establish that morality is in fact objective. An atheist can absolutely claim that they are acting morally -- all they have to do is define what they mean by moral, just like a Christian might define morality as "God's code of conduct for humans". A huge part of the misunderstanding is the limitation of the language where we might be sharing the same word but we are really not talking about the same thing.





> Fear of hell is not, and never was my motivation for doing good.  I didn't fear hell before I became a believer (because obviously I didn't believe in it at that time)  and I don't fear it now, as a Christian, because I'm saved.  I have security and peace because I know who I belong to, and I know that nothing can separate me from God's love.


I can relate to this. As far as I can remember, I was not afraid of hell during either of the times when I was still a Christian or now as a non-Christian, for the same reasons. However, Christianity is often deliberately _presented_ in such a way as to use the fear of hell as a motivator.




> I obey God and act morally not out of fear of hell, but out of love and respect for God and for others.  I do it because I know it's the right thing to do....I've learned through experience that, without a doubt, obeying God is what is wisest and BEST.


As a non-theist, experience has also taught me that loving and respecting others and treating them as I would be treated is wisest and best, both for others and for my own sake.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is not really correct to say that "preferences" can just be accepted or rejected on a whim -- there generally has to be some catalyst which compels someone to change a preference. I can't just decide to accept slavery as moral when that is something that I just don't feel. Anyway, I think I know where this trail is going, we have been there before and I'd rather not go down that road again.
> 
> For red and green, I don't really have a basis for which to think other people are likely to share the same experience as me. I don't even have a logical reason for my favorite color (which is blue). There is little reason to assume that other people will necessarily find the same color as pleasing to the eye. On the other hand, there is a lot of reason to assume that most people would not enjoy having their arm cut off, and starting from that combined with reason we can start building a moral framework. Speaking as a generality, one good reason to behave well is that behaving poorly has a strong tendency to lead to destruction in many different forms. You only live once, so why not make sure you don't screw it up?


YOU may not want to screw it up, but what if somebody else doesn't give a $#@!?  Also, you keep reverting back to majority opinion because the "consequences" you speak of for doing evil things that "lead to destruction" only applies in a society where the behavior is not accepted.  Again, put yourself in the shoes of someone in the slavery era.  You speak of justice as being "just how you are", but what reason do you have for caring about justice when the practice is widely accepted?  Would being "just how you are" be enough to motivate you to operate an underground railroad, or would you quickly begin to realize that "how you are" isn't based on anything and keep quiet about how you feel about slavery?  Would people have fought the Civil War if they thought slavery was just a preference akin to picking blue or green?  

I noticed you want to invoke "consequences" a lot and yet you are very careful to avoid calling your view anything more concrete than a mere preference because you know that that's exactly what it is and none is more right or wrong than any other until it affects you or the "society" you live in.  Justice is a pretty convenient preference for you when others share your view, but what happens when you disagree with the majority?  Do you act against the culture or just kind of ignore it?




> I agree that it is very good to stay away from things that discourage us from continuing to search for truth -- that is, to understand the universe we live in, to understand ourselves and to understand each other as best we can. I can't think of anything that tends to discourage this more, than religious belief in unsubstantiated claims which offer cheap short-cut answers for things that we don't yet have real answers for. One can very easily tie their entire sense of identity into their religious belief -- and therefore any truth-seekers who might uncover new information which puts said religious belief in doubt, are met with intense, unwarranted resistance. A criticism of the belief is perceived as a criticism of the religious person's very identity. Thus we have apologists coming out of the woodwork doing logical gymnastics to maintain consistency, and we have churches that take hundreds of years longer than they should to reject things like geocentrism and young-earth theory...


We resist because there is a cause.  Our world is being taken over by secularists, which is very convenient for you because the state-sanctioned teaching of evolution means you get to call your ideas "science" when they're not scientific at all.  You also lump in young-earth theory with geo-centrism because the culture of science worship allows you to make false equivalency claims without any fear of being called out on it because you've got state-run science, state-run schools and state-run media at your back.  How convenient for you.  The science is not on your side and yet I doubt you've ever really dared to look at the actual scientific evidence because you are plenty satisfied with the conclusion that has been fed to you through every available medium to ensure that your brainwashing is complete.  Nothing can change someone who is willfully ignorant of the facts.

----------


## Crashland

> YOU may not want to screw it up, but what if somebody else doesn't give a $#@!?  Also, you keep reverting back to majority opinion because the "consequences" you speak of for doing evil things that "lead to destruction" only applies in a society where the behavior is not accepted.  Again, put yourself in the shoes of someone in the slavery era.  You speak of justice as being "just how you are", but what reason do you have for caring about justice when the practice is widely accepted?  Would being "just how you are" be enough to motivate you to operate an underground railroad, or would you quickly begin to realize that "how you are" isn't based on anything and keep quiet about how you feel about slavery?  Would people have fought the Civil War if they thought slavery was just a preference akin to picking blue or green?  
> 
> I noticed you want to invoke "consequences" a lot and yet you are very careful to avoid calling your view anything more concrete than a mere preference because you know that that's exactly what it is and none is more right or wrong than any other until it affects you or the "society" you live in.  Justice is a pretty convenient preference for you when others share your view, but what happens when you disagree with the majority?  Do you act against the culture or just kind of ignore it?


If I disagree with the majority, then whether or not I act against the culture depends on how strongly I feel about it and what the risks are. I am not about to go start a violent rebellion over something I disagree with but don't think is critically important. For something like US politics, there is quite a lot that I disagree with morally, and I do take actions against it by being politically active. If I do feel extremely strongly about something, and if I am courageous enough, then even more risk could be assumed. Obviously, the people who fought the Civil War were extremely convicted in their cause and also extremely courageous. I can't tell you what I would have done in the slavery era because I am not in that situation. I hope that I would have felt strongly about it and would have been courageous enough to do something about it. One thing you just don't seem to understand, is that people are motivated by more than just their own greed and thirst for power, even when they don't believe in absolutes. Do you think everyone who ever risked their lives in a war on principle was a theist? You mentioned the purpose of life earlier -- well maybe for some people, their purpose they have decided for themselves is their legacy to their loved ones, or to their country. Things like that can be more important than one's own life, even to an atheist.




> We resist because there is a cause.  Our world is being taken over by secularists, which is very convenient for you because the state-sanctioned teaching of evolution means you get to call your ideas "science" when they're not scientific at all.  You also lump in young-earth theory with geo-centrism because the culture of science worship allows you to make false equivalency claims without any fear of being called out on it because you've got state-run science, state-run schools and state-run media at your back.  How convenient for you.  The science is not on your side and yet I doubt you've ever really dared to look at the actual scientific evidence because you are plenty satisfied with the conclusion that has been fed to you through every available medium to ensure that your brainwashing is complete.  Nothing can change someone who is willfully ignorant of the facts.


Don't accuse me of science-worship as a negative thing if you are going to invoke "real science" to defend your own claims. For the record, I attended a private Christian school and I have never attended a single class from a public institution, not to mention having been raised in an entirely Christian family. I am _very_ exposed to young-earth propaganda and I can see it for what it is. The fact is, religious institutions are just as proficient at brainwashing people as other social institutions like the state. The young-earth position for people who are otherwise very scientifically-minded is, in my opinion, an enormous blind spot.

----------


## Crashland

> YOU may not want to screw it up, but what if somebody else doesn't give a $#@!?  Also, you keep reverting back to majority opinion because the "consequences" you speak of for doing evil things that "lead to destruction" only applies in a society where the behavior is not accepted.


Also, consequences don't only have to be consequences imposed by the majority. Another consequence can be you having to live with yourself bearing the burden that you're doing something you don't believe in. A consequence can be your inability to find inner peace with yourself and to be unhappy with your life. A consequence can be the shame you feel when you have to face the people you feel that you are wronging. It could be that society is fine with it but your wife and kids aren't okay with it. You don't have to have the threat of getting thrown into jail, or thrown into hell, in order to still be motivated to side with your own feelings against the majority.

----------


## lilymc

> Words like "moral" or "good" in an atheistic view may not be used to describe the exact same thing you describe when you refer to them, but that does not make them meaningless.


It's not differing beliefs that make it meaningless.  It's the lack of an objective standard that makes it meaningless.   It may mean something to YOU.  But without an absolute standard, your opinion on what is "moral" is no better than anyone else's.   It can't be, if there is nothing to measure it against.

The morality of Jeffrey Dahmer isn't worse than the morality of someone like Ghandi or Mother Theresa, if morality is subjective.

Why is that so hard for some atheists to grasp?  Some atheists DO get it.  That's why some atheists claim there IS an objective morality, they just don't attribute it to God.




> This is a tautology because what you are meaning by "true morality" IS "objective morality". You are saying that without objective morality there can be no objective morality. This is absolutely true, but it does not establish that morality is in fact objective.


I never claimed that I proved or "established" that morality is, in fact, objective.

I'm just stating that if it ISN'T, then no one "morality" is better than any other.   And if that's the case, then atheists (the ones who reject objective morality) can't claim to be "moral"...  because according to their own viewpoint, there is no true morality.   

And what's more, if you reject objective morality, then you can't accuse anyone of being immoral. (without being inconsistent and illogical)   You can't even complain about things like injustice, corruption, human rights abuses, etc.  Because according to your own position, no one morality is better than any other.




> An atheist can absolutely claim that they are acting morally -- all they have to do is define what they mean by moral, just like a Christian might define morality as "God's code of conduct for humans". A huge part of the misunderstanding is the limitation of the language where we might be sharing the same word but we are really not talking about the same thing.


An atheist can claim that he's acting morally in the sense that he's being true to his OWN "morality."

But:  

1) That's not what most atheists do.  From what I've seen, when they claim to be acting "morally" they're implying that they're "moral" in an external way... in other words, they're saying that they really are moral compared to other people and society in general.

2) Even if people claim they're acting morally because they've defined morality in their own mind, it still doesn't make them moral anywhere else except in their own head.  And what good is that, if someone like Charles Manson defines his own morality and claims he is being "moral" because he's true to his own morality?

Anyone can claim anything. It doesn't make it true.  I can claim I'm the Queen of England.... it doesn't make it true.    So it's kind of silly to say, "we can claim we're moral because we define it for ourselves"....  It just doesn't work that way in the real world.

Morals and ethics involve how we interact with other people.   If one person who defined morality in their head decided rape is OK... and another person who defined morality in their head decided rape it NOT Ok, then according to your position, even if person A rapes person B, they're both moral.    Because person A was just acting on his OWN morality, he was being true to himself.    

Do you see how absurd that is, and how it doesn't work in real life?  It doesn't even in work in theory... it just doesn't work at all.




> I can relate to this. As far as I can remember, I was not afraid of hell during either of the times when I was still a Christian or now as a non-Christian, for the same reasons. However, Christianity is often deliberately _presented_ in such a way as to use the fear of hell as a motivator.
> 
> As a non-theist, experience has also taught me that loving and respecting others and treating them as I would be treated is wisest and best, both for others and for my own sake.


That's because it really is true that loving and respecting others and treating them as we want to be treated IS wisest and best.

And it's also because you and I have a conscience.    But not everyone has a properly functioning conscience.  Some people have damaged their conscience to the point that it's pretty much non-existant.  So, to a person like that, disrespecting, abusing or cheating others might work great for him.... at least in his own mind.

Without an objective moral standard, that person is just as right as you and I.     

Does that ring true to you?

----------


## Cabal

> Objective morality cannot exist without a transcendent source (ie, God)   Sorry, atheists.


Why not?

Objective truths exist regardless of peoples belief in one god or another. Thus, it stands to reason, objective moral truths may also exist regardless of peoples belief in one god or another.

----------


## robert68

> Of course it does.  If this "deity" did not create all things, then it is NOT God.  The very concept of God requires that *he be the author of all things* since he is the very basis for any existence at all.  If you want to believe that the universe came into existence randomly by itself, then you can believe that if you want, but to add another layer of deniability to the idea of God's existence is just silliness.  If God is really God, then He must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and the very basis for existence, meaning nothing can exist without him.  If God is real, then he must be all of those things or he is not God.


That “God” is logically fallacious. If he caused everything, there would be no minds and identities different than his.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If I disagree with the majority, then whether or not I act against the culture *depends on how strongly I feel* about it and what the risks are. I am not about to go start a violent rebellion over something I disagree with but don't think is critically important. For something like US politics, there is quite a lot that I disagree with morally, and I do take actions against it by being politically active. If I do feel extremely strongly about something, and if I am courageous enough, then even more risk could be assumed. Obviously, the people who fought the Civil War were extremely convicted in their cause and also extremely courageous. I can't tell you what I would have done in the slavery era because I am not in that situation. I hope that I would have felt strongly about it and would have been courageous enough to do something about it. One thing you just don't seem to understand, is that people are motivated by more than just their own greed and thirst for power, even when they don't believe in absolutes. Do you think everyone who ever risked their lives in a war on principle was a theist? You mentioned the purpose of life earlier -- well maybe for some people, their purpose they have decided for themselves is their legacy to their loved ones, or to their country. Things like that can be more important than one's own life, even to an atheist.


This is exactly what I'm talking about.  It *depends* on your own personal viewpoint.  If you were in the slavery era and you believed that slavery was wrong, or more appropriately, you didn't *like* slavery, there's simply no way that "the way you are" would take precedence over the prevailing moral attitude of the society.  Nobody who lives in a time like that would be willing to be a hero for what they believed if what they believed was simply a preference.  Do you *prefer*
non-slavery enough that you would be willing to die for the cause of abolishing it?  I don't think so.  You don't believe in moral absolutes because you want to be able to pick and choose without feeling like there are any consequences.  As I've stated before, the words of Jeffrey Dahmer bear this out in detail.  He converted to Christianity when he was in prison.  Just think, if someone had guided him and taught him that what he was doing was wrong, maybe he would have changed his mind.  The fact that your ideology has an effect on people's minds is just common sense.  If they think anything goes, then they're going to behave like that.  You talk a good game, but as soon as it becomes in your best interest to kill, most people like you wouldn't hesitate.




> Don't accuse me of science-worship as a negative thing if you are going to invoke "real science" to defend your own claims. For the record, I attended a private Christian school and I have never attended a single class from a public institution, not to mention having been raised in an entirely Christian family. I am _very_ exposed to young-earth propaganda and I can see it for what it is. The fact is, religious institutions are just as proficient at brainwashing people as other social institutions like the state. The young-earth position for people who are otherwise very scientifically-minded is, in my opinion, an enormous blind spot.


It must be so nice for you to have your ideas backed by the state with a monopoly on force.  It must be so nice for you to hide behind the veil of the state-run scientific establishment and say everything you believe is "science" and call what I believe "propaganda" when you know very well that your view is held up by propaganda.  The only reason your view is so well-accepted is because it is held up by the state.  

What if you didn't have that crutch?  What if you couldn't hide behind the mantra of "science" and you actually had to think and defend your beliefs?  I bet things would be a lot different.  You've never actually studied the science.  The ONLY reason you call your ideas science is because they are enforced by a violent state who has the money and the means to propagate the message you happen to believe in.  Science and education have been hijacked by the state and you think it's just lovely because the family you were raised in had nothing on the media machine that created the brainwashed masses who back you up in your professed faith in the message of evolution.  Don't call it science when you don't even know what the hell it is.  You only call it science because everyone else has been brainwashed into believing that they can trust the authorities who tell them what the science is, no critical thinking required.  It must be nice to have your worldview supported by the state.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That “God” is logically fallacious. If he caused everything, there would be no minds and identities different than his.


There are none.  God created everything, including evil.  It's easy for you to say that God is evil for doing this, but you have no basis on which to judge what anyone does because you believe there is nothing absolutely wrong with being evil.

This is really beside the point, but I believe that evil works out for good in the end.  It's not good now, but it all works out that way.  Just as the individual ingredients of biscuits taste horrible, the end product is ultimately all that matters and God's authorship of evil makes him no less God for the fact that his plan involves temporary suffering.

----------


## Sam I am

The argument that religion is good because it is the source of morality is, by it's nature, a contradictory argument.  

When you try to persuade an atheist using that argument, you have already made the assumption that the atheist already considers morality to be valuable in the first place.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are none.  God created everything, including evil.  It's easy for you to say that God is evil for doing this, but you have no basis on which to judge what anyone does because you believe there is nothing absolutely wrong with being evil.
> 
> This is really beside the point, but I believe that evil works out for good in the end.  It's not good now, but it all works out that way.  Just as the individual ingredients of biscuits taste horrible, the end product is ultimately all that matters and God's authorship of evil makes him no less God for the fact that his plan involves temporary suffering.


I'd go further and say that the very phrase "God created evil" doesn't make sense from an atheist POV, thus, its absurd for an atheist to use this as a charge against God's morality.  "Evil" itself is a value statement, and subjective value statements don't matter.  So, either there is no such thing as "evil", or there is a God who decides what qualifies.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Also, consequences don't only have to be consequences imposed by the majority. Another consequence can be you having to live with yourself *bearing the burden that you're doing something you don't believe in.* A consequence can be your inability to find inner peace with yourself and to be unhappy with your life. A consequence can be the shame you feel when you have to face the people you feel that you are wronging. It could be that society is fine with it but your wife and kids aren't okay with it. You don't have to have the threat of getting thrown into jail, or thrown into hell, in order to still be motivated to side with your own feelings against the majority.


That can easily be changed.  You like to act like it's just part of your nature, but let's see how that holds up when you get yourself into a situation where you have to do evil acts to protect yourself from harm, and I DON'T mean self-defense.  I'm talking Breaking Bad type stuff.  They thought selling drugs was the only way they could get ahead, and it didn't matter one bit to any of them, just as it doesn't in real life, what they have to do to protect their interests.  The difference is that you want to pick and choose when and where you apply your own moral code to yourself.  Why would they feel remorse if they truly believe it's just a preference?  Why would you feel remorse or guilt if you really thought you were the one who decided what was right and wrong?

There are sociopaths in this world who literally don't give a $#@! who they kill because that's who they really are.  Who are you to criticize them when that's their choice?  They are the judge of their own morality and they decided it was fine.  Who are you to say otherwise?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why not?
> 
> Objective truths exist regardless of peoples belief in one god or another. Thus, it stands to reason, objective moral truths may also exist regardless of peoples belief in one god or another.


It's funny you bring that up.  Why DO objective truths exist?  Where did they come from?  If they're true regardless of what we believe, then it follows that they are independent of nature or the material universe.  

To me, that would prove that not everything is the result of natural processes since natural processes cannot explain their own existence.  The fact that objective truth exists suggests to me that there is an intelligent source for that truth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The argument that religion is good because it is the source of morality is, by it's nature, a contradictory argument.  
> 
> When you try to persuade an atheist using that argument, you have already made the assumption that the atheist already considers morality to be valuable in the first place.


You're exactly right.  Many atheists don't care about morality at all, but that doesn't contradict the idea that morality is good.  It is good because it is objectively good, and does not need anybody to agree in order for that to be true.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'd go further and say that the very phrase "God created evil" doesn't make sense from an atheist POV, thus, its absurd for an atheist to use this as a charge against God's morality.  "Evil" itself is a value statement, and subjective value statements don't matter.  So, either there is no such thing as "evil", or there is a God who decides what qualifies.


You'll notice I actually did go that far when I said they had no basis on which to judge what anyone else does.  We're on the same page.

----------


## Sam I am

> You're exactly right.  Many atheists don't care about morality at all, but that doesn't contradict the idea that morality is good.  It is good because it is objectively good, and does not need anybody to agree in order for that to be true.


Judging from the atheists that I know and know of, it seems as though it's the other way around and that atheists actually do care about morality, and that they don't need a god in order to make them care.  

A well known example is Penn Jillette who is an extremely outspoken atheist, with what appears to be an incredibly strong moral code.

----------


## erowe1

> Judging from the atheists that I know and know of, it seems as though it's the other way around and that atheists actually do care about morality, and that they don't need a god in order to make them care.  
> 
> A well known example is Penn Jillette who is an extremely outspoken atheist, with what appears to be an incredibly strong moral code.


That's because atheists are created in God's image.

----------


## lilymc

> Judging from the atheists that I know and know of, it seems as though it's the other way around and that atheists actually do care about morality, and that they don't need a god in order to make them care.  
> 
> A well known example is Penn Jillette who is an extremely outspoken atheist, with what appears to be an incredibly strong moral code.


Have you been reading the thread?  Even just this last page?  We went over this extensively.  

It's not that atheists can't be moral.  The point is that atheism has no way to ground morality in general.  

Most (not all) atheists believe that morality is entirely subjective.   Yet they don't seem to realize the illogic in claiming morality is subjective, while at the same time saying, "I'm against injustice!"  or, "Atheists are more moral than other people."    

 If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as justice, and words like "good" or "moral" are meaningless.  Because there's nothing to measure it by.  It's whatever you want it to be.

----------


## lilymc

> The argument that religion is good because it is the source of morality is, by it's nature, a contradictory argument.


Nobody (that I've seen) said "religion" is the source of morality.

----------


## Crashland

> This is exactly what I'm talking about.  It *depends* on your own personal viewpoint.  If you were in the slavery era and you believed that slavery was wrong, or more appropriately, you didn't *like* slavery, there's simply no way that "the way you are" would take precedence over the prevailing moral attitude of the society.  Nobody who lives in a time like that would be willing to be a hero for what they believed if what they believed was simply a preference.  Do you *prefer*
> non-slavery enough that you would be willing to die for the cause of abolishing it?  I don't think so.  You don't believe in moral absolutes because you want to be able to pick and choose without feeling like there are any consequences.  As I've stated before, the words of Jeffrey Dahmer bear this out in detail.  He converted to Christianity when he was in prison.  Just think, if someone had guided him and taught him that what he was doing was wrong, maybe he would have changed his mind.  The fact that your ideology has an effect on people's minds is just common sense.  If they think anything goes, then they're going to behave like that.  You talk a good game, but as soon as it becomes in your best interest to kill, most people like you wouldn't hesitate.
> 
> 
> 
> It must be so nice for you to have your ideas backed by the state with a monopoly on force.  It must be so nice for you to hide behind the veil of the state-run scientific establishment and say everything you believe is "science" and call what I believe "propaganda" when you know very well that your view is held up by propaganda.  The only reason your view is so well-accepted is because it is held up by the state.  
> 
> What if you didn't have that crutch?  What if you couldn't hide behind the mantra of "science" and you actually had to think and defend your beliefs?  I bet things would be a lot different.  You've never actually studied the science.  The ONLY reason you call your ideas science is because they are enforced by a violent state who has the money and the means to propagate the message you happen to believe in.  Science and education have been hijacked by the state and you think it's just lovely because the family you were raised in had nothing on the media machine that created the brainwashed masses who back you up in your professed faith in the message of evolution.  Don't call it science when you don't even know what the hell it is.  You only call it science because everyone else has been brainwashed into believing that they can trust the authorities who tell them what the science is, no critical thinking required.  It must be nice to have your worldview supported by the state.


Well, as nice as this has been, my patience with you has reached its limit. Perhaps we will continue at some other time, but for now I am happy to leave the conversation. Thanks for your time

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, as nice as this has been, my patience with you has reached its limit. Perhaps we will continue at some other time, but for now I am happy to leave the conversation. Thanks for your time


You're welcome. 

As you can see, this debate means a lot to me, so I argue with fervor and yet I mean no disrespect.  It's just that I'm passionate about the subject and I feel strongly about my point of view.  

That said, I do want to say one other thing.  You mentioned a popular argument by atheists, which is that the fact that this finite life is all there is makes life that much more precious.  You are absolutely right when you say this.  In fact, some atheists value this life so much that they're willing to sacrifice the lives of others to make their own lives better.  Valuing life is no virtue on its own unless you hold it as an absolute moral standard in which *all lives* are precious and not just your own.  You will never see an atheist give his life for a complete stranger, nor will you see an atheist give his life for any cause that they ostensibly deem noble, such as, the abolition of slavery (absent any other motivation, such as money).  

Jeffrey Dahmer valued life, just like you do.  He preferred life, although he still thought it was ultimately meaningless.  The fact that a finite number of lives make you value the ones you have more does not make your life objectively meaningful and it does not make you value *all* life, as those who believe in the afterlife do.  Holding life as precious is no virtue if it does not apply to all life but rather just the lives you happen to care about.

----------


## Crashland

> As you can see, this debate means a lot to me, so I argue with fervor and yet I mean no disrespect.  It's just that I'm passionate about the subject and I feel strongly about my point of view.


Likewise. I wholeheartedly disagree with many of your viewpoints but I appreciate the effort

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Judging from the atheists that I know and know of, it seems as though it's the other way around and that atheists actually do care about morality, and that they don't need a god in order to make them care.  
> 
> A well known example is Penn Jillette who is an extremely outspoken atheist, with what appears to be an incredibly strong moral code.


I bet his "strong moral code" goes out the window once it's no longer in his interest.  As I've said, you will never see an atheist give his life for a complete stranger or sacrifice his safety and security for the sake of a cause he ostensibly believes in.  If it's against your self-interest to hold to your moral code and go against the grain of society, why would you do it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Likewise. I wholeheartedly disagree with many of your viewpoints but I appreciate the effort


Thanks.

I'll admit, though, it will feel unfinished if I don't get a response to the rest of that post.

----------


## Crashland

> Thanks.
> 
> I'll admit, though, it will feel unfinished if I don't get a response to the rest of that post.


For now I will only say that I think you are underestimating "the way you are" as a factor in determining one's actions in various situations. As for the piece about science I would still stick by my previous post to which you were responding.

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
>  If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as justice, and words like "good" or "moral" are meaningless.  Because there's nothing to measure it by.  It's whatever you want it to be.


The word “God” isn’t a measurement of objective morality since its morality varies according to situation, time period, believer, and group.

Those who recognize individual rights have an objective morality.

----------


## lilymc

> The word God isnt a measurement of objective morality since its morality varies according to situation, time period, believer, and group.
> 
> Those who recognize individual rights have an objective morality.


True morality is rooted in the nature of God... and God's nature is immutable.     

"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people.   So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The word “God” isn’t a measurement of objective morality since its morality varies according to situation, time period, believer, and group.
> 
> Those who recognize individual rights have an objective morality.


As the OP explains, theories of rights that are based on what is, are not sufficient to give prescriptions of what ought be.

The people of RPF'S like logic,  right?  Why do they consistently use illogical arguments and never change?

----------


## robert68

> True morality is rooted in the nature of God... and God's nature is immutable.     
> 
> "Individual rights" can mean different things to different people.   So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.


The definition of the word morality doesn’t contain the term “Gods nature”, and that term is far from objective.

Those who recognize individual rights, Ron Paul being one of them, as well as a great many who don’t, understand what they are very well. Also, they’re mentioned twice in the Mission Statement of this forum and discussed at the link “Why Liberty?”

----------


## DamianTV

> True morality is rooted in the nature of God... and God's nature is immutable.     
> 
> "Individual rights" can mean different things to different people.   So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.


By externalizing the source of morality from an internal state, manipulations of the external source become possible.  Morality does not come from God.  Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not, and that goes for both sides of the God exists / doesnt exist debate.  Cant have both Morality from God and Free Will at the same time becaue people will be free for themselves to decide to behave or not to behave in a moral way.

----------


## otherone

> The people of RPF'S like logic,  right?  Why do they consistently use illogical arguments and never change?


Dunno.
Why do some people consistently think it's their business to change them?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The word “God” isn’t a measurement of objective morality since its morality varies according to situation, time period, believer, and group.


God's morality does not change.




> Those who recognize individual rights have an objective morality.


But what is the concept of rights based on other than a subjective thought or feeling?

Furthermore, why should I recognize individual rights?

----------


## erowe1

> Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not.


But there is a standard against which the morality of those choices can be measured. And that standard is no more subject to our opinions about it than the laws of mathematics or logic are.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The definition of the word morality doesn’t contain the term “Gods nature”, and that term is far from objective.
> 
> Those who recognize individual rights, Ron Paul being one of them, as well as a great many who don’t, understand what they are very well. Also, they’re mentioned twice in the Mission Statement of this forum and discussed at the link “Why Liberty?”


You can understand what they are without caring about them.  I'm asking you why you believe that we absolutely should care about them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> By externalizing the source of morality from an internal state, manipulations of the external source become possible.  Morality does not come from God.  Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not, and that goes for both sides of the God exists / doesnt exist debate.  Cant have both Morality from God and Free Will at the same time becaue people will be free for themselves to decide to behave or not to behave in a moral way.


What's your justification for externalizing an internal state?  I assume you mean that you can take your individual beliefs and apply them to everybody, but how would you justify the belief that you can or should do that?  If morality comes from choices, then there is no morality because everyone's choices are different.  It doesn't matter that people can choose because morality can still be absolutely true without people choosing to behave by it, but on what basis would you believe that it was true if it comes from an internal state that does not apply to everyone?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As the OP explains, theories of rights that are based on what is, are not sufficient to give prescriptions of what ought be.
> 
> The people of RPF'S like logic,  right?  Why do they consistently use illogical arguments and never change?


Because most people here don't actually like logic.

----------


## lilymc

> The definition of the word morality doesnt contain the term Gods nature, and that term is far from objective.


We have been talking about the nature of morality and the source of morality.  Obviously a short definition in the dictionary is not going to go into detail on all those things.  

The dictionary defines it as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."   So you're still left with the question: what is right conduct?   What is "right" to one person is not "right" to another.

And it's also beyond silly to say that fallible, changeable human beings are objective, and the God and Creator of everything - who is eternal and immutable - is not objective.




> Those who recognize individual rights, Ron Paul being one of them, as well as a great many who dont, understand what they are very well. Also, theyre mentioned twice in the Mission Statement of this forum and discussed at the link Why Liberty?


The mission statement of Ron Paul forums is where objective morality comes from?     You completely ignored the point that you were replying to.  I'll repeat it. 

*"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people. So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.*

----------


## lilymc

> By externalizing the source of morality from an internal state, manipulations of the external source become possible.


Have you been reading the thread?   If morality comes from man, then it's subjective.  If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a true morality.   Read the last couple pages of this thread, we went over this in numerous posts.

Objective / universal truths do not come from man.  They just exist, whether we believe them or not.   

As for manipulation, the exact opposite of what you said is true.  If we don't recognize that our rights are derived from a transcendent source,  then they can be manipulated or taken away by whatever corrupt person is in power.   The very thing that makes our rights inalienable is that they come from God!  The founders understood that  ("they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights")

Why do you think they're trying to take God out of everything?  Why do you think there are horrible human rights abuses and a history of mass murder in atheistic/communist nations?  One of the reasons is because they reject the idea of inalienable human rights.... and those brutal dictators didn't think they were accountable to anyone.





> Morality does not come from God.  Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not, and that goes for both sides of the God exists / doesnt exist debate.  Cant have both Morality from God and Free Will at the same time becaue people will be free for themselves to decide to behave or not to behave in a moral way.


I guarantee you, morality comes from God.     Also, it makes no sense to say "morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not."    Everyone has different ideas on what is moral and what isn't moral.   You're sidestepping the question, "What is moral?"   Whose standard are you going by?  

As for your last sentence, it wasn't clear to me what you're trying to say.  Of course people are free to decide to behave or not behave in a moral way.  That doesn't mean that morality is not objective.    In the same way that people are free to obey the law or break the law.... it doesn't mean there isn't a law.

----------


## robert68

> We have been talking about the nature of morality and the source of morality.  Obviously a short definition in the dictionary is not going to go into detail on all those things.  
> 
> The dictionary defines it as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."   So you're still left with the question: what is right conduct?   What is "right" to one person is not "right" to another.
> 
> And it's also beyond silly to say that fallible, changeable human beings are objective, and the God and Creator of everything - who is eternal and immutable - is not objective.





> The mission statement of Ron Paul forums is where objective morality comes from?     You completely ignored the point that you were replying to.  I'll repeat it. 
> 
> *"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people. So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.*


It was a reply to your first 2 sentences (of the bold part). Furthermore, “individual rights” are objectively defined and understood pretty well. But most people are tribal in one way or another and oppose them. The ethical stance of “God” on the other hand, as I previously stated, varies with situation, time period, believer and group.  

Individual rights don’t require a “source” to be an ethical stance. That’s a rule you and your comrades have concocted in order to define it circular and bring “God” into it (who is always easily used to justify wars, empire, and the violation of individual rights).

----------


## Crashland

> It's as if you are trying to go around telling people that red really is a better color than green because you value it more than green and you think someone else's shared experiences will lead them to the same conclusion.


I couldn't resist, I thought this was ironic after we were just.... anyway, in my subjective view, I'm gonna say that involuntary servitude is not what people should do, and also that the color of this dress is blue and black.

----------


## lilymc

> It was a reply to your first 2 sentences (of the bold part). Furthermore, individual rights are objectively defined and understood pretty well. But most people are tribal in one way or another and oppose them. The ethical stance of God on the other hand, as I previously stated, varies with situation, time period, believer and group.


You still haven't answered the questions I brought up twice.   Let me try again, in different words.

You said, "Individual rights" are objectively defined and understood."  By who?   If person A defines "individual rights" one way... and person B defines "individual rights" a different way, then which one is right?    Whose standard is correct?  The one you agree with?  What makes your idea of "individual rights" more right than anyone else's? 




> Individual rights dont require a source to be an ethical stance.


Before we jump ahead to a source, please make your position clear.   Do you believe in an objective moral standard (one that is true for everyone, whether they believe it or not?)  Or do you believe that morality is subjective?





> Thats a rule you and your comrades have concocted in order to define it circular and bring God into it (who is always easily used to justify wars, empire, and the violation of individual rights).


Calling me comrade is hilariously ironic, because I'm not the one with an atheistic/ communistic viewpoint.  As I posted earlier to someone else, why do you think there are horrible human rights abuses and a history of mass murder in atheistic/communist nations?  One of the reasons is because they reject the idea that our rights come from a higher power (God).  To them, government is the highest power....to them, government is "god".  You seem to like that idea.   So since you agree with the communist mindset on morality, who is the comrade here?  lol!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I couldn't resist, I thought this was ironic after we were just.... anyway, in my subjective view, I'm gonna say that involuntary servitude is not what people should do, and also that the color of this dress is blue and black.


Well, I don't know about the dress, but I'm sure you're going to say that involuntary servitude is wrong because you know that absolute morality really does exist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It was a reply to your first 2 sentences (of the bold part). Furthermore, “individual rights” are objectively defined and understood pretty well. But most people are tribal in one way or another and oppose them. The ethical stance of “God” on the other hand, as I previously stated, varies with situation, time period, believer and group.
> 
> Individual rights don’t require a “source” to be an ethical stance. That’s a rule you and your comrades have concocted in order to define it circular and bring “God” into it (who is always easily used to justify wars, empire, and the violation of individual rights).


That is the subjective nature of people, but it does not change the fact that objective truth really does exist regardless of what people believe.  They may be objectively defined, but you cannot justify believing in them because I could choose not to care about individual rights and you would have no basis for saying that I'm objectively wrong, thus proving that your worldview cannot account for objective morality.

----------


## robert68

> That is the subjective nature of people, but it does not change *the fact* that objective truth really does exist regardless of what people believe.  They may be objectively defined, but you cannot justify believing in them because I could choose not to care about individual rights and you would have no basis for saying that I'm objectively wrong, thus proving that your worldview cannot account for objective morality.


What "fact" is that?

Also, Christians or theists who decry they’ve been “persecuted” in the past (or presently in one place or another) to the general public are in fact appealing to individual rights to an extent. When at the same time they don’t recognize the individual rights of all and ally with the state for privileged treatment and support its wars, they’re proving to be double talkers and hypocrites. I’m not accusing you of that, but it’s the case with most theists.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What "fact" is that?


If you had read the words right after "the fact", then you would have known what "fact" I was referring to.  




> Also, Christians or theists who decry they’ve been “persecuted” in the past (or presently in one place or another) to the general public are in fact appealing to individual rights to an extent. When at the same time they don’t recognize the individual rights of all and ally with the state for privileged treatment and support its wars, they’re proving to be double talkers and hypocrites. I’m not accusing you of that, but it’s the case with most theists.


You're stereotyping.  I believe in individual rights because I have an objective basis for believing in them.  If you deny objectivity, then you have no basis.  Those who support wars are just wrong.

----------


## robert68

> If you had read the words right after "the fact", then you would have known what "fact" I was referring to.


I never said there isnt a truth that exists regardless of what one believes. It would be a self defeating statement. 




> You're stereotyping.  I believe in individual rights because I have an objective basis for believing in them.  If you deny objectivity, then you have no basis.  Those who support wars are just wrong.

----------


## robert68

> There are none.  God created everything, including evil.  It's easy for you to say that God is evil for doing this, but you have no basis on which to judge what anyone does because you believe there is nothing absolutely wrong with being evil.
> 
> This is really beside the point, but I believe that evil works out for good in the end.  It's not good now, but it all works out that way.  Just as the individual ingredients of biscuits taste horrible, the end product is ultimately all that matters and God's authorship of evil makes him no less God for the fact that his plan involves temporary suffering.


That's not a response to what I wrote. This is what I wrote:



> That “God” is logically fallacious. If he caused everything, there would be no minds and identities different than his.


The word "sin" wasn't mentioned. Every human being would just be a mindless robot of that being, with no basis and capability to judge anyone or anything.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I never said there isn’t a truth that exists regardless of what one believes. It would be a self defeating statement.


Did I say you believed that?  It's been a few days since anyone's responded to this thread, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That's not a response to what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
> 
> 
> The word "sin" wasn't mentioned. Every human being would just be a mindless robot of that being, with no basis and capability to judge anyone or anything.


The whole point being that there are no minds different than His.  And suffice it to say, you're just completely wrong about what you claim to know about what humans would be like if God created them.  How can you claim to know such a thing?

----------


## robert68

> The whole point being that there are no minds different than His.  And suffice it to say, you're just completely wrong about what you claim to know about what humans would be like if God created them.  How can you claim to know such a thing?


The word “create” or "cause" has an objective meaning. The implications of a being "creating" other beings comes from the definition of the term.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The word “create” or "cause" has an objective meaning. The implications of a being "creating" other beings comes from the definition of the term.


Ok.  Not sure how you're drawing the conclusion you are from that, but ok.

----------


## robert68

> Ok.  Not sure how you're drawing the conclusion you are from that, but ok.


You like to analogy “God” as a nickel in your pocket: something understandable that really exists.  If he’s now something no one can understand, you shouldn’t be lecturing non theists (or anyone else about it.)  Not to suggest you’re the only one who pulls the “he can’t be understood” card.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You like to analogy “God” as a nickel in your pocket: something understandable that really exists.  If he’s now something no one can understand, you shouldn’t be lecturing non theists (or anyone else about it.)  Not to suggest you’re the only one who pulls the “he can’t be understood” card.


Um, did I say that He couldn't be understood?  I use the nickel as proof of concept regarding equally plausible realities.  When you say "something that really exists", you're already implying that you know God doesn't exist, which is fallacious.

----------


## robert68

> *The whole point being that there are no minds different than His.*  And suffice it to say, you're just completely wrong about what you claim to know about what humans would be like if God created them.  How can you claim to know such a thing?


I want to go back to this post. If the part in bold is true, humans would be omniscient like "God" is.
And you certainly don't believe humans are omniscient.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I want to go back to this post. If the part in bold is true, humans would be omniscient like "God" is.
> And you certainly don't believe humans are omniscient.


I have no idea how you are arriving at this conclusion that men MUST have all the attributes of God in order for God to be real.  It just doesn't logically follow.  Why do you think this?

----------


## robert68

> I have no idea how you are arriving at this conclusion that men MUST have all the attributes of God in order for God to be real.  It just doesn't logically follow.  Why do you think this?


First of all, I didnt say that. How about not confusing matters by saying or implying I said things I didnt? 

Secondly, you said The whole point being that there are no minds different than His. What is that supposed to mean?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I want to go back to this post. If the part in bold is true, humans would be omniscient like "God" is.
> And you certainly don't believe humans are omniscient.


I agree with you here.   God is a mind and men are different minds.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> First of all, I didn’t say that. How about not confusing matters by saying or implying I said things I didn’t? 
> 
> Secondly, you said “The whole point being that there are no minds different than His.” What is that supposed to mean?


God knows everything you know.  That's what that means.

What you're saying is already confusing enough without my input, so I'll just let you try to explain what you mean if you really have an explanation (but I suspect you're just making baseless assertions).

So go ahead... what in the heck are you saying?

It doesn't really help clarify anything if you tell me what you're not saying without trying to clarify what you are saying.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I sometimes wonder if people not understanding what the heck other people really mean has basically been a running theme through most of this thread.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I sometimes wonder if people not understanding what the heck other people really mean has basically been a running theme through most of this thread.


I think youre right.  Most every post in this thread didn't understand the OP.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Gordon Clark:





> ...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God.
> 
> I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows.
> 
> Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy. Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason wants to do.


Briefly, I think that if God's morality is logical, then we (humans) can proceed from first principles, and using deductive logic, develop a moral system which is indistinguishable from God's.

Of course the critique here is that you cannot "discover" what those first principles are - which is true, in a sense, because they are the bedrock foundations from which all other morality derives. In another word, you have to start from somewhere - there must be some _first_ step taken, which is accepted as true, from which to proceed.

In many cultures, these principles are reflected in values such as "the golden rule." That shalt not kill, etc, etc. In religion, it is what "God" says. In both cases, the arguments proceed along parallel paths, and are really one and the same. The difference being the _location_ where the argument starts.

This is the theme of C.S. Lewis' book The Abolition of Man, and while I don't agree with his his concluding 3rd chapter, he makes an extremely compelling argument in the first two that no matter what system someone is operating in, there are certain assumptions behind the scenes which can be discovered and accessed - it is these assumptions which make up the _foundation_ of that person's moral system.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Briefly, I think that if God's morality is logical, then we (humans) can proceed from first principles, and using inductive logic, develop a moral system which is indistinguishable from God's.
> 
> Of course the critique here is that you cannot "discover" what those first principles are - which is true, in a sense, because they are the bedrock foundations from which all other morality derives. In another word, you have to start from somewhere - there must be some _first_ step taken, which is accepted as true, from which to proceed.
> 
> This is the theme of C.S. Lewis' book The Abolition of Man, and while I don't agree with his his concluding 3rd chapter, he makes an extremely compelling argument in the first two that no matter what system someone is operating in, there are certain assumptions behind the scenes which can be discovered and accessed - it is these assumptions which make up the _foundation_ of that person's moral system.


C.S. Lewis did not have a Christian view of knowledge.   He didn't believe what the OP says.  He believed in natural revelation.  That is contradictory to what the OP said.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> C.S. Lewis did not have a Christian view of knowledge.   He didn't believe what the OP says.  He believed in natural revelation.  That is contradictory to what the OP said.


I suppose that's probably the case, and was intentionally drawing a distinction between what C.S. Lewis' argument is, and what the OP said. I agree with C.S. Lewis.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Yeah all of those Moslems, Christians and Jews never ever have any difficulties determining morality.   

LMAO!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah all of those Moslems, Christians and Jews never ever have any difficulties determining morality.   
> 
> LMAO!


You are late to the discussion, so it's only natural that you completely miss the point.  

The point is not how we determine morality, it's how we justify it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are late to the discussion, so it's only natural that you completely miss the point. 
> 
> The point is not how we determine morality, it's how we justify it.


What "we", do you have a mouse in your pocket?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What "we", do you have a mouse in your pocket?


I use "we" quite deliberately.  We all have to ask these questions if we are to be intellectually honest.  You have to justify your moral beliefs just as much as I do.  "We" must do so collectively because society operates by reaching a moral consensus.  If one person says murder is universally wrong and someone else says it isn't, then we have to determine who's right and who's wrong if we are going to deal out justice.

I'm honestly surprised I had to explain that to you.  It should be common sense.

----------


## Crashland

> I use "we" quite deliberately.  We all have to ask these questions if we are to be intellectually honest.  You have to justify your moral beliefs just as much as I do.  "We" must do so collectively because society operates by reaching a moral consensus.  If one person says murder is universally wrong and someone else says it isn't, then we have to determine who's right and who's wrong if we are going to deal out justice.
> 
> I'm honestly surprised I had to explain that to you.  It should be common sense.


The existence of an objective morality which can only be understood subjectively does not make it any easier to determine a moral consensus than it would if morality were subjective to begin with.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The existence of an objective morality which can only be understood subjectively does not make it any easier to determine a moral consensus than it would if morality were subjective to begin with.


Like I said, it's not about how we determine it, it's about how we justify it.  Try to take a minute and really understand that sentence.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Like I said, it's not about how we determine it, it's about how we justify it.  Try to take a minute and really understand that sentence.


What if 2 Christians independently researching a moral issue come to different conclusions?  Do they both get the benefit of _justifying_ their conclusion because they profess belief in OM?  

Or does this mean that one of these people is a weak Christian and not as close to God to have knowledge of OM revealed to them?  

I guess I'm curious as to how this idea applies in daily life if people encounter a moral issue.  Also, I was actually raised Catholic, so if I wanted to buy into this idea maybe I could go back to my church.  Except then I'd fall into another trap because some people here say Catholics are not Christians.  Can Catholics determine morality?  Or did I save myself a lot of wasted time by leaving them and getting to sleep in on Sunday?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What if 2 Christians independently researching a moral issue come to different conclusions?  Do they both get the benefit of _justifying_ their conclusion because they profess belief in OM?  
> 
> Or does this mean that one of these people is a weak Christian and not as close to God to have knowledge of OM revealed to them?  
> 
> I guess I'm curious as to how this idea applies in daily life if people encounter a moral issue.  Also, I was actually raised Catholic, so if I wanted to buy into this idea maybe I could go back to my church.  Except then I'd fall into another trap because some people here say Catholics are not Christians.  Can Catholics determine morality?  Or did I save myself a lot of wasted time by leaving them and getting to sleep in on Sunday?


You're trying to make the argument that, because counterfeit dollars exist, that means there are no real dollars.  What's more, you're using this supposed confusion that you portray as some kind of barrier to even being able to look for the truth.  No matter how confusing it may seem to you, that's no excuse not to look for the truth.

Also, once again, you're demonstrating that you don't know the difference between justifying and determining.  You can determine that your view of morality is correct on your own, but whether you are actually correct depends on how you are able to logically justify your belief.  At least people who hold to an objective standard have a basis on which to argue whether their standard is right or wrong, but if you don't hold any standard, then there's no way to justify your belief in the first place because, if there is no objective morality, then everyone's opinion is just as correct as anyone else's.

There's a difference between saying it's hard to find the real truth and saying truth doesn't even exist.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You're trying to make the argument that, because counterfeit dollars exist, that means there are no real dollars.  What's more, you're using this supposed confusion that you portray as some kind of barrier to even being able to look for the truth.  No matter how confusing it may seem to you, that's no excuse not to look for the truth.
> 
> Also, once again, you're demonstrating that you don't know the difference between justifying and determining.  You can determine that your view of morality is correct on your own, but whether you are actually correct depends on how you are able to logically justify your belief.  At least people who hold to an objective standard have a basis on which to argue whether their standard is right or wrong, but if you don't hold any standard, then there's no way to justify your belief in the first place because, if there is no objective morality, then everyone's opinion is just as correct as anyone else's.


I guess I'm trying to see value of that standard as a means to justify a view if even two Christians could conceivably have different conclusions on a moral issue.  

I think I sort of get what you mean by justifying even from a secular point of view.  A non-theist would look at the past, knowledge, philosophy, law or other things to justify or make a case for their view.  In a way, it's a standard, but because it's not perfect it should be questioned.   2 Non-theists could do that and possibly arrive at different conclusions as well.  In that case, they would argue or review their conclusions.  Maybe one of them made a mistake.  

I could go on with this thought further, but I'm curious if you still think if have your idea of justifying a view wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I guess I'm trying to see value of that standard as a means to justify a view if even two Christians could conceivably have different conclusions on a moral issue.  
> 
> I think I sort of get what you mean by justifying even from a secular point of view.  A non-theist would look at the past, knowledge, philosophy, law or other things to justify or make a case for their view.  In a way, it's a standard, but because it's not perfect it should be questioned.   2 Non-theists could do that and possibly arrive at different conclusions as well.  In that case, they would argue or review their conclusions.  Maybe one of them made a mistake.  
> 
> I could go on with this thought further, but I'm curious if you still think if have your idea of justifying a view wrong.


If two Christians come to a different view, then one of them is wrong and there's a way to tell which one.  

You can't justify a belief in the way things should be by studying the way things are or even the way things were, which is what the two gentlemen in your scenario would be doing.  If they come to different conclusions, then there's no way to tell which one is right because they can't objectively show that their knowledge of the way things are in history or philosophy has anything to do with the way it should be.  They have to make value judgments about which knowledge they value more than other knowledge, and there's no way to tell if they are valuing it incorrectly.

----------


## lilymc

> You're trying to make the argument that, because counterfeit dollars exist, that means there are no real dollars.  What's more, you're using this supposed confusion that you portray as some kind of barrier to even being able to look for the truth.  No matter how confusing it may seem to you, that's no excuse not to look for the truth.
> 
> Also, once again, you're demonstrating that you don't know the difference between justifying and determining.  You can determine that your view of morality is correct on your own, but whether you are actually correct depends on how you are able to logically justify your belief.  At least people who hold to an objective standard have a basis on which to argue whether their standard is right or wrong, but if you don't hold any standard, then there's no way to justify your belief in the first place because, if there is no objective morality, then everyone's opinion is just as correct as anyone else's.
> 
> There's a difference between saying it's hard to find the real truth and saying truth doesn't even exist.


Excellent post. Well said.

----------


## Crashland

> If two Christians come to a different view, then one of them is wrong and there's a way to tell which one.


What do you mean by "a way to tell which one"? If it involves the Bible, as VIDEODROME already pointed out, different Christians can come to different conclusions.

----------


## Biblefundyfun

Hi bother/sister?

With respect, the pupose of Gods law is to expose mankind's immorality. Yes of course they are very moral precepts, however it is the law that converts a sinful soul to CHRIST. Because we are ALL incapable of following and keeping Gods perfect law, because non is righteous not even one.  That said for the most part I agree with the point you are trying to make, although unbelievers/atheists  are more than able to subject themselves to a rigid self inflicted moral code that would put many a "believer" to shame

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I use "we" quite deliberately. We all have to ask these questions if we are to be intellectually honest. You have to justify your moral beliefs just as much as I do. "We" must do so collectively because society operates by reaching a moral consensus. If one person says murder is universally wrong and someone else says it isn't, then we have to determine who's right and who's wrong if we are going to deal out justice.
> 
> I'm honestly surprised I had to explain that to you. It should be common sense.


Sorry, my intellectual honesty demands/requires no such thing. I really can't speak for your's, however. Enjoy your established committee consensus opinion "we(s)".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry, my intellectual honesty demands/requires no such thing. I really can't speak for your's, however. Enjoy your established committee consensus opinion "we(s)".


That's absurd.  Part of the definition of morality is that it is universal (applies to everyone).  If we are going to have a debate about how everyone should behave, then we have to invoke "we".  Morality that doesn't apply to everyone is useless.  That's why the founding fathers sought to make the government bound by the same laws as the people.

We all live by the maxim that you should not kill and yet you are trying to tell me that it's ok if some people don't live by that.  Surely you see how ridiculous it is to insist on individuality in terms of morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What do you mean by "a way to tell which one"? If it involves the Bible, as VIDEODROME already pointed out, different Christians can come to different conclusions.


Yes, but there's a way to tell which one is wrong.  If you don't have a standard by which to judge, then there is no way to even judge who is wrong.  People interpret the Bible differently based on their bias, but that doesn't change what it says.  Christianity, by and large, has been a religion of peace.  That's because lots and lots of people throughout history read the Bible and came to the same conclusion and yet you're trying to tell me that because counterfeit dollars exist, that means there are no real ones.

Like I said, big difference between claiming that it's hard to find the real truth and saying there is no truth at all.

----------


## otherone

> That's absurd.  Part of the definition of morality is that it is universal (applies to everyone).  If we are going to have a debate about how everyone should behave, then we have to invoke "we".  Morality that doesn't apply to everyone is useless.


You are speaking about law, not morality.  Law is used to judge others after a transgression.  Morality is the behavioral model to guide the individual.     "Universal" certainly does not mean "objective".  Universal means "common", and yes, there are mores that transcend cultures, like the Golden Rule.  Because all men share certain desires, like social order, does not in any way imply a supernatural origin to that commonality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are speaking about law, not morality.  Law is used to judge others after a transgression.  Morality is the behavioral model to guide the individual.     "Universal" certainly does not mean "objective".  Universal means "common", and yes, there are mores that transcend cultures, like the Golden Rule.  Because all men share certain desires, like social order, does not in any way imply a supernatural origin to that commonality.


I know what universal means.  And it does not just mean "common".  It means it is true everywhere for everyone.  Morality is what the law is based on (in a free society).  You can't base the law on an idea of morality that only applies to you.  

I am not even invoking a supernatural origin for this.  The fact that morality is universal is not debatable.  The definition of morality is a belief in a way in which all people generally ought to act.  You can say that it is just for the individual, but then how do you justify having laws if you don't even believe your morality applies to anyone else?

If law is the way in which people are judged after a transgression, then you need morality to even determine what is and is not a transgression.  Again, I'm not even talking about objective morality here.  The fact that morality concerns "us" as a collective is evidenced by the fact that you hold beliefs about the way EVERYONE should act, in general.  That is why I invoke "we."  You have to because if you don't invoke "we" as a collective, then morality is meaningless.  The fact that most of us don't believe it's right to murder is not what I mean by "universal."  The fact that we believe this rule is true for everyone in general is what I mean by "universal."  You believe everyone else should be held by the same standard as you when it comes to murder and you believe that those who disagree are wrong.  

This is seriously common sense and I can't even believe I have to explain this.  Unbelievable.

----------


## otherone

> The fact that morality concerns "us" as a collective is evidenced by the fact that you hold beliefs about the way EVERYONE should act, in general.  That is why I invoke "we."  You have to because if you don't invoke "we" as a collective, then morality is meaningless.


How you "act" is not my concern, unless it affects me.  Morality is meaningful only in how it guides the individual, not in giving you a pretext with which to judge your neighbor.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That's absurd. Part of the definition of morality is that it is universal (applies to everyone). If we are going to have a debate about how everyone should behave, then we have to invoke "we". Morality that doesn't apply to everyone is useless. That's why the founding fathers sought to make the government bound by the same laws as the people.
> 
> We all live by the maxim that you should not kill and yet you are trying to tell me that it's ok if some people don't live by that. Surely you see how ridiculous it is to insist on individuality in terms of morality.


The Golden Rule and its philosophical big brother the Categorical Imperative works out just fine for me, *individually*. Now, I'm just impatiently waiting for the rest of the world (including you) to finally catch up. BTW, all morality is individual. Collectives, as being purely abstractions, have *NO* morality.

Worldviews, atheistic or not, do NOTHING.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Golden Rule and its philosophical big brother the Categorical Imperative works out just fine for me, *individually*. Now, I'm just impatiently waiting for the rest of the world (including you) to finally catch up. BTW, all morality is individual. Collectives, as being purely abstractions, have *NO* morality.
> 
> Worldviews, atheistic or not, do NOTHING.


That is a very ignorant thing to say.  Worldviews determine everything.  Who owns the world?  Do we own it or does God own it?  The answer to that question determines what you believe about morality, as is made evident by this conversation.

The Golden Rule is an example of something you believe is right for everyone.  You say it's right for you, individually, and then you say you are waiting for the rest of the world to *catch up*, which implies that you also believe everyone else should hold these same moral imperatives.  Therefore, you believe *we* (everyone) should adhere to the Golden Rule.

For instance, do you believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun?  Is there any situation in which this might not be wrong?  Or do you believe that *we* (everyone) should NOT torture babies for fun?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How you "act" is not my concern, unless it affects me.  Morality is meaningful only in how it guides the individual, not in giving you a pretext with which to judge your neighbor.


Do you believe it's okay if I torture babies for fun?  If you know I'm doing this, is it still "not your concern"?  Would you judge me if I was doing that?

Slavery wasn't regarded as wrong over a century ago by many people.  It certainly wasn't illegal.  Was it not wrong?  Would it be "not your concern" if you lived in that time period and were white?

----------


## otherone

> Do you believe it's okay if I torture babies for fun?


No, but it's perfectly acceptable to torture straw men for fun.
And why is the "for fun" qualifier necessary?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That is a very ignorant thing to say. Worldviews determine everything. Who owns the world? Do we own it or does God own it? The answer to that question determines what you believe about morality. 
> 
> The Golden Rule is an example of something you believe is right for everyone. You say it's right for you, individually, and then you say you are waiting for the rest of the world to *catch up*, which implies that you also believe everyone else should hold these same moral imperatives. Therefore, you believe *we* (everyone) should adhere to the Golden Rule.
> 
> For instance, do you believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun? Is there any situation in which this might not be wrong? Or do you believe that *we* (everyone) should NOT torture babies for fun?


What are the tools of cognition of a worldview? Is the world owned, by whom, how do you know?  Or is it, much more logically, unknown, and unowned?  Which of my "shoulds" are you mistakingly referring to.

BTW, saying it doesn't make it so, regardless of your preferred fantasy desires.

You need to do some (any) research, on the near human universality, at least claimed, for the multiple world variations of the Golden Rule.

What does the Categorical Imperative say about "baby torturing"?  If you don't know, I certainly won't be surprised.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, but it's perfectly acceptable to torture straw men for fun.
> And why is the "for fun" qualifier necessary?


I'm not attacking straw men.  I'm trying to find out what you believe.  The qualifier is necessary because motive is a part of what determines whether something is wrong or not.  I am trying to show that you believe certain things are absolutely wrong for everyone.  In other words, you don't just believe morals are for the individual because there are certain things you think I shouldn't do either.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What are the tools of cognition of a worldview? Is the world owned, by whom, how do you know?  Or is it, much more logically, unknown, and unowned?  Which of my "shoulds" are you mistakingly referring to.
> 
> BTW, saying it doesn't make it so, regardless of your preferred fantasy desires.
> 
> You need to do some (any) research, on the near human universality, at least claimed, for the multiple world variations of the Golden Rule.
> 
> What does the Categorical Imperative say about "baby torturing"?  If you don't know, I certainly won't be surprised.


I'm not talking about whether the world is owned or not.  I'm talking about what you BELIEVE.  If you believe there is no owner, then that will affect your beliefs about morality.

Answer the question.  Is it wrong for everyone to torture babies for fun regardless of time, place or circumstances?  It's a yes or no question.

----------


## otherone

> The qualifier is necessary because motive is a part of what determines whether something is wrong or not.


So much for objective morality.
Who determines someone's motives?  You?  Who judges a person's motives? You?





> I am trying to show that you believe certain things are absolutely wrong for everyone.  In other words, you don't just believe morals are for the individual because there are _certain things you think_ I shouldn't do either.


That is not objective morality, it is very subjective. Just because_ I believe_ someone should or should not do a thing does not give me the justification to judge their behavior.
Baby torture aside, is it immoral to fantasize about your neighbor's wife?  Is it immoral to imagine strangling your boss?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm not talking about whether the world is owned or not. I'm talking about what you BELIEVE. If you believe there is no owner, then that will affect your beliefs about morality.
> 
> *Well world ownership did seem to be a concern of yours. Even though I thought at the time that it was just silly and irrelevant. If not, then why even bother to bring it up?
> 
> *Answer the question. Is it wrong for everyone to torture babies for fun regardless of time, place or circumstances? It's a yes or no question.
> 
> *BTW, I did answer that, but I accept and understand that the answer is completely beyond your comprehension. 
> 
> Logic demands that I reject all false dichotomies. 
> ...


.....

----------


## otherone

> Answer the question.  Is it wrong for everyone to torture babies for fun regardless of time, place or circumstances?  It's a yes or no question.


Paint me a picture in which you can justify this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So much for objective morality.
> Who determines someone's motives?  You?  Who judges a person's motives? You?


Just because we have to find out a motive that means it's not objectively wrong?  What?

You really don't understand what objective means, do you?  Allow me to demonstrate.  Do you believe it is wrong for anyone to torture babies for fun regardless of time, place or circumstances?  If you do, then you believe in objective morality.  

I'm not trying to demonstrate that things are objectively wrong.  I'm trying to demonstrate that you believe they are objectively wrong.




> That is not objective morality, it is very subjective. Just because_ I believe_ someone should or should not do a thing does not give me the justification to judge their behavior.


Right, don't judge Hitler.  He was just misunderstood.  




> Baby torture aside, is it immoral to fantasize about your neighbor's wife?  Is it immoral to imagine strangling your boss?


Stop avoiding the question.  Is baby-torturing wrong everywhere, everywhen for everyone?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Paint me a picture in which you can justify this.


That's completely irrelevant to the issue.  But okay, if aliens came and made me torture a few babies to save the whole world, maybe it would be right then.  I'm just setting up the conditions for a proof-of-concept.  

Do you have even the slightest grasp of basic philosophical concepts?  Do you know what proof of concept is?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> .....


Was your answer yes or no?  You're trying to avoid giving a direct answer because you know I'm going to demonstrate the absurdity of your position as soon as you do.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Was your answer yes or no? You're trying to avoid giving a direct answer because you know I'm going to demonstrate the absurdity of your position as soon as you do.


What's the point, you STILL really just don't get it?

 My what a rich fantasy life you must live.  Dream on, Goober!  

Still beating your Mom?

----------


## otherone

> Just because *we have to* find out a motive that means it's not objectively wrong?  What?


Why do we _have_ to?




> You really don't understand what objective means, do you?  Allow me to demonstrate.  Do you believe it is wrong for anyone to torture babies for fun regardless of time, place or circumstances?  If you do, then you believe in objective morality.


*My* beliefs CAN NOT determine objectivity, as they are subjective.  






> Right, don't judge Hitler.  He was just misunderstood.


This is precisely my point.  Hitler is DEAD, chum.  If there is a God, then God judges his actions, not me.  Who the $#@! CARES what you, I or anyone else has to say about him?  WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR.




> Stop avoiding the question.  Is baby-torturing wrong everywhere, everywhen for everyone?


Yes, that is my opinion. 
LOL.  You keep asking for people's opinions in determining objectivity.
Do you know the difference between_ believing in_ moral absolutes versus moral objectivity?

----------


## otherone

> That's completely irrelevant to the issue.  But okay, if aliens came and made me torture a few babies to save the whole world,_ maybe_ it would be right then.  I'm just setting up the conditions for a proof-of-concept.


Maybe?
According to your beliefs, there is an objective truth.  Right or wrong?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What's the point, you STILL really just don't get it?
> 
>  My what a rich fantasy life you must live.  Dream on, Goober!  
> 
> Still beating your Mom?


Fine, don't answer the question, then.  I asked you a simple yes or no question and you found a way to make it seem like I'm stupid for asking.  I understand perfectly what you're saying but you just don't want to have an intelligent discussion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why do we _have_ to?


You believe the person who did it should be punished, right?




> *My* beliefs CAN NOT determine objectivity, as they are subjective.


Yet you believe some things are objectively wrong.  Why do you believe that if it's not true?




> This is precisely my point.  Hitler is DEAD, chum.  If there is a God, then God judges his actions, not me.  Who the $#@! CARES what you, I or anyone else has to say about him?  WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR.


Oh, so if another Hitler were to come to power tomorrow, then I should just ignore it?  




> Yes, that is my opinion. 
> LOL.  You keep asking for people's opinions in determining objectivity.
> Do you know the difference between_ believing in_ moral absolutes versus moral objectivity?


So it is your opinion that baby-torturing is objectively wrong?  Why do you believe that if it's not true?

Yes, I know the difference.  But you believe in objective morality, too.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Maybe?
> According to your beliefs, there is an objective truth.  Right or wrong?


Again, do you know what proof of concept means?  I believe it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun.  The specific circumstances might be confusing, but that's irrelevant.  There are no circumstances under which torturing babies for fun would not be wrong.  The point is that I believe absolute, objective morality exists, even if I can't find it.  And so do you.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Fine, don't answer the question, then. I asked you a simple yes or no question and you found a way to make it seem like I'm stupid for asking. I understand perfectly what you're saying but you just don't want to have an intelligent discussion.


I love intelligent discussions.  Do you have someone else in mind?

Why not just go ahead with your dynamite absurdity demonstrations for both answers, Yes and No?

It's a pretty slow day and I could really use a couple of more chuckles.  I promise you won't even hear me.  Scout's honor.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I love intelligent discussions.  Do you have someone else in mind?
> 
> Why not just go ahead with your dynamite absurdity demonstrations for both answers, Yes and No?
> 
> It's a pretty slow day and I could really use a couple of more chuckles.  I promise you won't even hear me.  Scout's honor.


Ok, so say you said "Yes."

Congratulations!  You believe in objective morality.  Go ahead and laugh, but it's true despite all your sniveling mockery and arrogance.

Notice that, throughout all of this, you STILL avoided answering the question.

If you said "no," then you don't believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun.  That says it all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ok, so say you said "Yes."
> 
> Congratulations! You believe in objective morality. Go ahead and laugh, but it's true despite all your sniveling mockery and arrogance.
> 
> Notice that, throughout all of this, you STILL avoided answering the question.
> 
> If you said "no," then you don't believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun. That says it all.


OK.

And don't forget my condescension too, it's a specialty. (Snivel, snivel, mock, mock.)

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> OK.
> 
> And don't forget my condescension too, it's a specialty.


Cool.  Stay classy.

----------


## otherone

> You believe the person who did it should be punished, right?



Is that your concern in all this?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is that your concern in all this?


Is what my concern?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Cool. Stay classy.


Did you manage to figure out who owns the the world? Yes or No.

Did you manage to figure out the world view's morality cognition tools? Yes or No.

Did you manage to research the wide spread popularity of the Golden Rule? Yes or No.

Did you manage to figure out the meaning of the Categorical Imperative? Yes or No.

Did you stop beating your Mom? Yes or No.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Did you manage to figure out who owns the the world? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you manage to figure out the world view's morality cognition tools? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you manage to research the wide spread popularity of the Golden Rule? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you manage to figure out the meaning of the Categorical Imperative? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you stop beating your Mom? Yes or No.


Are you implying that I'm asking loaded questions by asking you if you believe baby torturing is wrong?

If you ask me if I've stopped beating my mom, I would say I've never beaten her.  If you asked me if I believe beating my mom is wrong, then I would say, unequivocally, yes.  You, however, can't seem to do that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Are you implying that I'm asking loaded questions by asking you if you believe baby torturing is wrong?
> 
> If you ask me if I've stopped beating my mom, I would say I've never beaten her. If you asked me if I believe beating my mom is wrong, then I would say, unequivocally, yes. You, however, can't seem to do that.


Nope, just checking out my opinion of the possibility of an intelligent discussion. Just as I suspected and thought. Thanks!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nope, just checking out my opinion of the possibility of an intelligent discussion. Just as I suspected and thought. Thanks!


I've given my position and asked you for yours but you can't seem to answer.  I think the only barrier to a discussion here is you.

Like I said, stay classy.

If referring to the Categorical Imperative is your way of answering "yes" to my question, then I don't know why you can't just say it.

----------


## otherone

You:



> Just because we have to find out a motive that means it's not objectively wrong?


Me:



> Why do we have to?


You:



> You believe the person who did it should be punished, right?


Me:



> Is that your concern in all this?


You:



> Is what my concern?


Punishing those who transgress against an objective morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You:
> 
> Me:
> 
> You:
> 
> Me:
> 
> You:
> ...


Yes.  If you don't believe in objective morality, then there's no way to justify punishing people for something they believe to be right.  

But as I've shown, you actually DO believe in objective morality.  You just don't want to admit it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Nice rep, Ronin.  Apparently, I'm a "$#@! for brains."  

Because it's clearly not possible that you just don't understand.  You're too smart for that.

----------


## otherone

> Yes.  If you don't believe in objective morality, then there's no way to justify punishing people for something they believe to be right.


People are punished for what they believe is "right" all the time.  People are also punished for transgressions that are in no way "immoral", other than defying the King's laws.  Other people are routinely given a pass on immoral behavior.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> People are punished for what they believe is "right" all the time.  People are also punished for transgressions that are in no way "immoral", other than defying the King's laws.  Other people are routinely given a pass on immoral behavior.


I agree.  But you seem to have missed the fact that I'm not talking about how this is carried out in practice.  I'm talking about what should happen, not what does happen.

----------


## otherone

> But as I've shown, you actually DO believe in objective morality.  You just don't want to admit it.


You making this claim does not authenticate it.  I strive to do what I consider to be the moral thing in most occasions.  These decisions are predicated on exigent circumstances, certainly, but, like other matters of "free will", choosing the considered optimal option does not imply that decision would be optimal for others, and in no way justifies holding others accountable to behave as I would.  For instance. your pro-baby-torture stance.  You believe that it may be morally necessary, whereas I believe that violence can never be moral in the service of good.  My beliefs are moral absolutes, but they are in no way objective, or universal.  The difference between you and I in regards to morality is that I see it as a personal tool for enlightened growth, whereas for you it is a justification to judge others.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You making this claim does not authenticate it.  I strive to do what I consider to be the moral thing in most occasions.  These decisions are predicated on exigent circumstances, certainly, but, like other matters of "free will", choosing the considered optimal option does not imply that decision would be optimal for others, and in no way justifies holding others accountable to behave as I would.  For instance. your pro-baby-torture stance.  You believe that it may be morally necessary, whereas I believe that violence can never be moral in the service of good.  My beliefs are moral absolutes, but they are in no way objective, or universal.  The difference between you and I in regards to morality is that I see it as a personal tool for enlightened growth, whereas for you it is a justification to judge others.


Why did you just imply that I'm pro-baby torture?  I don't have a pro-baby torture stance.  I was just giving an example of how someone might justify baby torture without the qualifier "for fun."

Is baby torture wrong just for you, or is it wrong for everyone, regardless of who they are or under what circumstances?

Don't tell me you never judge anyone.

----------


## otherone

> Is baby torture wrong just for you, or is it wrong for everyone, regardless of who they are or under what circumstances?
> 
> Don't tell me you never judge anyone.


Many people here, you included, and the world at large, provide very compelling justifications for the use of violence.  Bless them on their paths.
I do not agree with them.  Their consciences are their business, not mine, but I see nothing useful in shaking my head at others and going "cluck cluck cluck".
Everyone has a hard road to hoe.  I'm grateful to have gotten as far as I've had with (most) of my skin intact.
My kids are healthy and productive members of society; more importantly they are compassionate and considerate.
I do the best I can.  I only "judge" others as precautionary tales for myself.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Many people here, you included, and the world at large, provide very compelling justifications for the use of violence.  Bless them on their paths.
> I do not agree with them.  Their consciences are their busy, not mine, but I see nothing useful in shaking my head at others and going "cluck cluck cluck".
> Everyone has a hard road to hoe.  I'm grateful to have gotten as far as I've had with (most) of my skin intact.
> My kids are healthy and productive members of society; more importantly they are compassionate and considerate.
> I do the best I can.  I only "judge" others as precautionary tales for myself.


So you're saying there may be some circumstances under which baby torture would be okay for others?

----------


## otherone

> So you're saying there may be some circumstances under which baby torture would be okay for others?


Your question makes no sense.
What I wrote is that "I" could never justify doing it "myself".
Understand?
WHY are you so focused on OTHERS?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your question makes no sense.
> What I wrote is that "I" could never justify doing it "myself".
> Understand?
> WHY are you so focused on OTHERS?


Do you believe it's wrong for everyone or just you?  Because when you say, "I" could never justify it "myself", that makes me think you think it's okay for someone else.

----------


## Sam I am

> Do you believe it's wrong for everyone or just you?  Because when you say, "I" could never justify it "myself", that makes me think you think it's okay for someone else.


I think he's saying that it doesn't matter whether or not it's okay for others.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think he's saying that it doesn't matter whether or not it's okay for others.


Oh, okay, so it doesn't matter if I torture babies for fun.  In other words, it's okay.

----------


## Sam I am

> Oh, okay, so it doesn't matter if I torture babies for fun.  In other words, it's okay.


If I knew that you were torturing babies for fun, I'd probably stop step in and stop you.  Gotta protect the babies you know.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If I knew that you were torturing babies for fun, I'd probably stop step in and stop you.  Gotta protect the babies you know.


You would stop me?  Does that mean you think it's wrong for others?

----------


## Sam I am

> You would stop me?  Does that mean you think it's wrong for others?


I'd stop you for the benefit of the baby.  I don't need it to be morally wrong for you to do that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'd stop you for the benefit of the baby.  I don't need it to be morally wrong for you to do that.


Then why would you stop me?  If it's okay for me to do it, then why do you care?

----------


## Sam I am

> Then why would you stop me?  If it's okay for me to do it, then why do you care?


I care about the baby.  I don't care about you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I care about the baby.  I don't care about you.


So it's not okay to torture babies for fun?

----------


## Sam I am

> So it's not okay to torture babies for fun?


I would stop you even if it was okay with you.

----------


## acptulsa

I'm at a loss as to how the Golden Rule--whether exactly as expressed by Jesus, as the NAP or otherwise--could be successfully argued to be immoral in any way, and I don't think that after seventeen pages anyone has found a better standard by which to judge morality.  So, it seems to me the question is, is the NAP an atheistic worldview or a religious worldview, or both, or neither?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would stop you even if it was okay


"If it was okay"?  Does that mean it's not okay?  

If it was okay, then why would you stop me?  Obviously, you don't really think it's okay.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm at a loss as to how the Golden Rule--whether exactly as expressed by Jesus, as the NAP or otherwise--could be successfully argued to be immoral in any way, and I don't think that after seventeen pages anyone has found a better standard by which to judge morality.  So, it seems to me the question is, is the NAP an atheistic worldview or a religious worldview?


Why is it right to adhere to the Golden Rule?

----------


## Sam I am

> "If it was okay"?


It means that I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's okay with you.  you seem to be pretty Gung-ho about torturing babies here.

----------


## otherone

> Do you believe it's wrong for everyone or just you?  Because when you say, "I" could never justify it "myself", that makes me think you think it's okay for someone else.


The question is NOT whether it's ok for someone else.
The question is; is it morally ok for me to use violence to stop them?  
Morality is a tool for the individual.  It is not my place to judge you, or anyone else.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I'm at a loss as to how the Golden Rule--whether exactly as expressed by Jesus, as the NAP or otherwise--could be successfully argued to be immoral in any way, and I don't think that after seventeen pages anyone has found a better standard by which to judge morality.  So, it seems to me the question is, is the NAP an atheistic worldview or a religious worldview, or both, or neither?


Moral law is encoded in us.  You support NAP and golden rule because you have innate knowledge of the law.  You recognize it subjectively and support even though you do not know its origin.

It is the same as finding a member of the opposite sex as attractive.  

You didn't "learn" moral law.  You learned the consequences of violating it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It means that I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's okay with you.  you seem to be pretty Gung-ho about torturing babies here.


It's all hypothetical to prove a point.  I think I've proven it.  You believe it's universally morally wrong to torture babies.  Ergo, you believe in objective morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The question is NOT whether it's ok for someone else.
> The question is; is it morally ok for me to use violence to stop them?  
> Morality is a tool for the individual.  It is not my place to judge you, or anyone else.


I think I've made my point.  If you really believe it's not only wrong for you, but wrong for everyone else and you care enough to stop it, that means you apply the same standards to other people as you apply to yourself by saying I wouldn't do it, but you shouldn't either.  That means you believe in objective morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Moral law is encoded in us.  You support NAP and golden rule because you have innate knowledge of the law.  You recognize it subjectively and support even though you do not know its origin.
> 
> It is the same as finding a member of the opposite sex as attractive.  
> 
> You didn't "learn" moral law.  You learned the consequences of violating it.


You recognize it subjectively, but everyone knows it's not really subjective in its nature, or else we wouldn't care if other people did it.  The fact that these principles exist doesn't explain why we should care about them.  Deep down, we all know they're not subjective truths but objective truths.  You SHOULD NOT do these things because they're wrong, not because I don't like them.  To say they're not objective is to say it's perfectly fine for other people to do it if they want to.  You just don't do it because you don't want to.  But the fact that you are willing to force other people to abide by the rules means you think they're objective and not just a matter of opinion.

----------


## acptulsa

> Why is it right to adhere to the Golden Rule?


Because it's an _objective_ fact that you aren't the only human on the face of the earth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because it's an _objective_ fact that you aren't the only human on the face of the earth.


Exactly.  And you believe others should behave as you do because you believe you are doing it right.  

Objective moral truths.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is this thread really now down to debating the morality of baby torture?  WTF?  

Why not bring it closer to practical everyday life that people can actually relate to?  Is something like recreational marijuana Absolutely Immoral?  Many people think it is and want the force of government to stop it they loath it so much.  On the other hand, is the consumption of Alcohol immoral?  Many people about a hundred years ago dragged us all through Prohibition they were so against it.  How about Cocaine?  Or LSD? 

How about the use of animals in medical research?  Lots of people have very strong feelings either way on this one.  

How about gambling?  Many people see this as just entertainment while other see it as sinful.  

Is it immoral to enjoy violent video games or movies?

----------


## otherone

> Is this thread really now down to debating the morality of baby torture?  WTF?


Nah.
Just yetanudda RPF religion forum straw man argument.

----------


## lilymc

> Is this thread really now down to debating the morality of baby torture?  WTF?  
> 
> Why not bring it closer to practical everyday life that people can actually relate to?  Is something like recreational marijuana Absolutely Immoral?  Many people think it is and want the force of government to stop it they loath it so much.  On the other hand, is the consumption of Alcohol immoral?  Many people about a hundred years ago dragged us all through Prohibition they were so against it.  How about Cocaine?  Or LSD? 
> 
> How about the use of animals in medical research?  Lots of people have very strong feelings either way on this one.  
> 
> How about gambling?  Many people see this as just entertainment while other see it as sinful.  
> 
> Is it immoral to enjoy violent video games or movies?


All of that is missing the point, and trying to jump way ahead.   It's not necessary to go through every single little action, in order to figure out what the nature of morality is.    

As PaulConventionWV said, we're using hypothetical situations to prove a point.   If morality is subjective, then it's subjective for any and ALL situations.  It doesn't matter if the example sounds extreme, or something that is highly unlikely to ever happen.  It's supposed to make you think, and really examine your position.

If morality is subjective, then even values - like kindness, goodness, gentleness, compassion, etc...are ultimately meaningless.   

If morality isn't objective, then a brutal, heinous act - like raping, torturing and murdering a baby would be just as "moral" as an act of kindness, love, compassion and respect for others.   

*One can't be better or more "right" than the other unless there is an objective standard* - something to measure everything by.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> All of that is missing the point, and trying to jump way ahead.   It's not necessary to go through every single little action, in order to figure out what the nature of morality is.    
> 
> As PaulConventionWV said, we're using hypothetical situations to prove a point.   If morality is subjective, then it's subjective for any and ALL situations.  It doesn't matter if the example sounds extreme, or something that is highly unlikely to ever happen.  It's supposed to make you think, and really examine your position.
> 
> If morality is subjective, then even values - like kindness, goodness, gentleness, compassion, etc...are ultimately meaningless.   
> 
> If morality isn't objective, then a brutal, heinous act - like raping, torturing and murdering a baby would be just as "moral" as an act of kindness, love, compassion and respect for others.   
> 
> *One can't be better or more "right" than the other unless there is an objective standard* - something to measure everything by.


I guess I figured it would be worth using examples seen in everyday life instead of hypothetical that are kind of ridiculous.  It makes me think of how people debated torturing prisoners at Gitmo asking what would you do if you were Jack Bauer and you just caught a terrorist that know when and where a bomb will go off.  Hell you could even toss in whether you would instead torture the terrorists' infant son in front of him to get information to stop a bomb.  

I thought I'd bring the discussion down from being kind of ridiculous.  

Anyway, here is an honest thought I'll toss in here.  What if Morality is like a spectrum and Objective Morality and Subjective Morality is on each end?  Also, what if some of the issues I tossed out are really in a grey area between the two?  What if both sides of this argument have merit and we might agree some issues are objectively morality wrong all the time?  Yet, if we look at Real Life and instead of a hypothetical situation that resembles a bad movie plot, we might decide some types of behavior are not morally wrong every time.  Some things can depend a lot on context.

----------


## TheTexan

Morals are whatever I decide them to be

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is this thread really now down to debating the morality of baby torture?  WTF?  
> 
> Why not bring it closer to practical everyday life that people can actually relate to?  Is something like recreational marijuana Absolutely Immoral?  Many people think it is and want the force of government to stop it they loath it so much.  On the other hand, is the consumption of Alcohol immoral?  Many people about a hundred years ago dragged us all through Prohibition they were so against it.  How about Cocaine?  Or LSD? 
> 
> How about the use of animals in medical research?  Lots of people have very strong feelings either way on this one.  
> 
> How about gambling?  Many people see this as just entertainment while other see it as sinful.  
> 
> Is it immoral to enjoy violent video games or movies?


It's an extreme example to prove the concept that there do exist things that we all believe are absolutely, objectively immoral.  It's a popular philosophical example when discussing morality just to prove the concept.  You could use something else, but it doesn't really display the absurdity of a relativist position as well.  People are more likely to get it when it's something they feel strongly about.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nah.
> Just yetanudda RPF religion forum straw man argument.


I never presented a straw man argument.  All I did was ask questions about your personal beliefs, which you were free to answer any way you like.

----------


## otherone

> I never presented a straw man argument.  All I did was ask questions about your personal beliefs, which you were free to answer any way you like.


Yeah.
Who introduced baby torture into the "debate"?
I tried to introduce a common moral dilemna, but you ignored it in favor of hyperbole.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Did you manage to figure out who owns the the world? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you manage to figure out the world view's morality cognition tools? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you manage to research the wide spread popularity of the Golden Rule? Yes or No.
> 
> Did you manage to figure out the meaning of the Categorical Imperative? Yes or No.
> 
> *Did you stop beating your Mom? Yes or No.*


Though this thread has somehow devolved into a discussion about torture, I would like to parse that last question and make a point about logic and "begging the question:"

*Did you stop beating your Mom? Yes or No.*

This is a good example of a logical fallacy known as "begging the question," wherein the question presupposes something else, some earlier fact, which is assumed to have been established. In this case, that fact is "you are beating your Mom."

The point I want to make is that this sentence can be turned into a "sentential function," of the form "Did you (X)?" where X = 'stop beating your mom.'

Most people refuse to answer such questions for fear that by either answering "yes," they will obviously admit to X, in which something undesirable is embedded. This tricky technique often first rears its head in children with the joke: "Do your parents know you're gay?" No doubt, a fairly clever verbal maneuver. The key thing to recognize, however is that by answering 'no' to the question, there are _two_ possible outcomes from a logical stance, both of which share that same answer. The first is the obvious one that everyone latches onto: "No, I didn't stop beating my Mom...because I'm still beating her," and the other answer (from the non mom-beater, LOL): "No, I didn't stop beating my Mom...because I never was."

Many folks who love to force a "yes" or "no" question are engaging in some form of begging the question (whether realized or not). One thing you can do is to play the game. "No, I didn't stop beating my mom." *This statement is just as true for the entire class of people who have never beaten their mom a day in their lives, as it is for those who are still beating their mothers*. Think about it. Hopefully this small demonstration highlights the core issue when someone begs the question, and can provide _you_ with a way to ask better questions.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> It's an extreme example to prove the concept that there do exist things that we all believe are absolutely, objectively immoral.  It's a popular philosophical example when discussing morality just to prove the concept.  You could use something else, but it doesn't really display the absurdity of a relativist position as well.  People are more likely to get it when it's something they feel strongly about.


Okay what if I put these things on my example of a Morality Spectrum with Objective Morality on the extreme end and Subjective Morality on the other?  

Obviously, people here would agree baby torture is bad and we can put that one on the Objective Morality end.  We'll say it's bad *every time*. 

Now for a little perspective, we could consider personal recreational drug use.  I'm not sure where people on the forum would put that one on the Spectrum if it was put to a vote.  It might wind up in the middle somewhere.  

What if we could consider the idea that yes some things are considered universally wrong by people here, but on other issues we'll be divided on it or have to discuss it.  Somethings depend a lot on context.  

Are violent movies morally wrong to enjoy as entertainment?  Some would say yes.  For me, it might even be a grey area and depend on the movie.  I don't have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to it.

----------


## otherone

> Are violent movies morally wrong to enjoy as entertainment?  Some would say yes.  For me, it might even be a grey area and depend on the movie.  I don't have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to it.


If _you_ believe enjoying violent movies is immoral, then by all means don't do it.  But if you come to that conclusion to have serenity in your life, PLEASE don't judge others based on what gives _you_  peace.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah.
> Who introduced baby torture into the "debate"?
> I tried to introduce a common moral dilemna, but you ignored it in favor of hyperbole.


Hyperbole?  What was I hyperbolizing?  All I did was ask you your beliefs.  You would only have a problem with that if you didn't like your own beliefs for some reason.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Though this thread has somehow devolved into a discussion about torture, I would like to parse that last question and make a point about logic and "begging the question:"
> 
> *Did you stop beating your Mom? Yes or No.*
> 
> This is a good example of a logical fallacy known as "begging the question," wherein the question presupposes something else, some earlier fact, which is assumed to have been established. In this case, that fact is "you are beating your Mom."
> 
> The point I want to make is that this sentence can be turned into a "sentential function," of the form "Did you (X)?" where X = 'stop beating your mom.'
> 
> Most people refuse to answer such questions for fear that by either answering "yes," they will obviously admit to X, in which something undesirable is embedded. This tricky technique often first rears its head in children with the joke: "Do your parents know you're gay?" No doubt, a fairly clever verbal maneuver. The key thing to recognize, however is that by answering 'no' to the question, there are _two_ possible outcomes from a logical stance, both of which share that same answer. The first is the obvious one that everyone latches onto: "No, I didn't stop beating my Mom...because I'm still beating her," and the other answer (from the non mom-beater, LOL): "No, I didn't stop beating my Mom...because I never was."
> ...


I didn't beg the question because my question didn't assume anything.

All I did was ask if you believe something is right or wrong.  Simple.

----------


## Crashland

> It's an extreme example to prove the concept that there do exist things that we all believe are absolutely, objectively immoral.  It's a popular philosophical example when discussing morality just to prove the concept.  You could use something else, but it doesn't really display the absurdity of a relativist position as well.  People are more likely to get it when it's something they feel strongly about.


The reason you are using an extreme example is because you want an example in which we are extremely likely to have a unanimous consensus. The existence of a consensus does not imply objectivity, however, regardless of whether it's about prohibition, or gambling, or baby torture. The only thing a consensus proves is that humans are very much alike in some ways, like our desire to have a functioning society. And a lack of a consensus demonstrates our differences, such as a conflicting desire for safety and a desire for freedom.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> If _you_ believe enjoying violent movies is immoral, then by all means don't do it.  But if you come to that conclusion to have serenity in your life, PLEASE don't judge others based on what gives _you_  peace.


There's an idea.   Live and let live.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Okay what if I put these things on my example of a Morality Spectrum with Objective Morality on the extreme end and Subjective Morality on the other?  
> 
> Obviously, people here would agree baby torture is bad and we can put that one on the Objective Morality end.  We'll say it's bad *every time*. 
> 
> Now for a little perspective, we could consider personal recreational drug use.  I'm not sure where people on the forum would put that one on the Spectrum if it was put to a vote.  It might wind up in the middle somewhere.  
> 
> What if we could consider the idea that yes some things are considered universally wrong by people here, but on other issues we'll be divided on it or have to discuss it.  Somethings depend a lot on context.  
> 
> Are violent movies morally wrong to enjoy as entertainment?  Some would say yes.  For me, it might even be a grey area and depend on the movie.  I don't have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to it.


I don't know.  What if you did?  

My only point was to prove that objective moral truths exist.  All I have to do to prove that is demonstrate that even those who deny their existence actually believe in them.

If you want to find the answers to the tougher questions, then you better start trying to find out what the source of that objective morality is.  I could give you hints, but I think you know where I'm going with this.

----------


## otherone

> Hyperbole?  What was I hyperbolizing?  All I did was ask you your beliefs.  You would only have a problem with that if you didn't like your own beliefs for some reason.


How often does "baby torture" present itself in your life as a moral dilemna?

----------


## otherone

> If you want to find the answers to the tougher questions, then you better start trying to find out what the source of that objective morality is.  I could give you hints, but I think you know where I'm going with this.


Sharia Law?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The reason you are using an extreme example is because you want an example in which we are extremely likely to have a unanimous consensus. The existence of a consensus does not imply objectivity, however, regardless of whether it's about prohibition, or gambling, or baby torture. The only thing a consensus proves is that humans are very much alike in some ways, like our desire to have a functioning society. And a lack of a consensus demonstrates our differences, such as a conflicting desire for safety and a desire for freedom.


That's very true.  You're free to say baby torture is okay and I would have no answer, but at the end of the day, most people who say morality is subjective don't really believe what they're saying.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How often does "baby torture" present itself in your life as a moral dilemna?


Doesn't matter.  Ever heard of philosophy?  Philosophy deals with _concepts._  Know what a concept is?

----------


## otherone

> Doesn't matter.  Ever heard of philosophy?  Philosophy deals with _concepts._  Know what a concept is?


Answer the question, please.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sharia Law?


You would have to convince me.  But I don't think you could because, see, I've actually bothered to study and look for the answers.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Answer the question, please.


I did.  Doesn't matter.

But I assume "not very often" is the answer you were looking for, so there you go.  Does this invalidate the concepts?

----------


## otherone

> I did.  Doesn't matter.


You present a straw man dilemna as a "concept" and say it doesn't matter as a real-life example?
Fair enough.
Please present an actual moral dilemna that does.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You present a straw man dilemna as a "concept" and say it doesn't matter as a real-life example?
> Fair enough.
> Please present an actual moral dilemna that does.


You really don't understand what a concept is, do you?

It's just as valid as any real-word example you could offer.  But I guess we should be careful because this stuff really does happen in the real world (albeit rarely), doesn't it?

----------


## otherone

> You really don't understand what a concept is, do you?


Sure.  I also know a straw man argument.
Please present a real-life moral dilemna that illustrates your concept..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sure.  I also know a straw man argument.
> Please present a real-life moral dilemna that illustrates your concept..


I don't need to.  I've already proven the concept.

By the way, you clearly do not understand what a straw man argument is.  In order for me to be making a straw man argument, I would have to be setting up your side of the argument, but I wasn't doing that.  I was just asking you questions.  It's only a straw man if I was arguing against things you never said, but I wasn't doing that because I was only responding to things you did say.

----------


## Crashland

> That's very true.  You're free to say baby torture is okay and I would have no answer, but at the end of the day, most people who say morality is subjective don't really believe what they're saying.


Intervening to stop someone else from torturing the baby doesn't mean you think morality isn't subjective.

----------


## otherone

> I don't need to.  I've already proven the concept.


No, of course you don't NEED to.  You are free to do as you like.  I'm asking you to.  You have bullied your way through this thread, making baseless assertions and assumptions, claiming that you know what others believe, claiming you have proven points that you have not, and have derided and insulted those who debate you.  Believe what you want, do what you want, but if you wish to convince others that your claim is reasonable, then you may want to use a reasonable "concept", and not the fantastical one you've chosen.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Intervening to stop someone else from torturing the baby doesn't mean you think morality isn't subjective.


Your actions would say otherwise.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, of course you don't NEED to.  You are free to do as you like.  I'm asking you to.  You have bullied your way through this thread, making baseless assertions and assumptions, claiming that you know what others believe, claiming you have proven points that you have not, and have derided and insulted those who debate you.  Believe what you want, do what you want, but if you wish to convince others that your claim is reasonable, then you may want to use a reasonable "concept", and not the fantastical one you've chosen.


I'm only a "bully" because I'm right.  Of course you'll feel beaten up if you can't make a strong case.  

We're only not still talking about it because you've given up.  Now you feel like you have to justify giving up so you tell me I haven't proven my point even though you can't respond to my questions anymore.  

And please show me where I've insulted someone.  Who's making baseless assertions now?

Also, my example is not fantastical.  It's real.  It really happens.  I could use "murder for fun" and it would be the exact same argument.  Is that real enough for you or do you require some other precondition?

----------


## Crashland

> Your actions would say otherwise.


My actions reflect my own views, not anyone else's. As otherone has already stated, I would intervene because I care about the baby. That has nothing to do with anything other than my own subjective values.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> My actions reflect my own views, not anyone else's. As otherone has already stated, I would intervene because I care about the baby. That has anything to do with anything other than my own subjective values.


Correct.  And your view happens to be that the person you're stopping should have the same moral values as you.

Otherwise, why would you stop them?  Why would you care about a baby that has no relation to you?

----------


## otherone

> I'm only a "bully" because I'm right.  Of course you'll feel beaten up if you can't make a strong case.


You are a bully because you insult those you argue with.  Review your posts and this will become apparent to you.  Saying things like, "I can't believe I have to explain this, it's common sense", is an insult, not an argument.




> And please show me where I've insulted someone.  Who's making baseless assertions now?


Review your posts and this will become apparent to you.  Saying things like, "I can't believe I have to explain this, it's common sense", is an insult, not an argument.






> Also, my example is not fantastical.  It's really.  It really happens.


OK.  I'll accept your baseless assertion, for argument's sake.  Now indulge me...can you provide a more "common" moral dilemna that would resonate with people's actual experience?
Can we revisit my fantasizing about one's neighbor's wife example?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

[QUOTE=otherone;5806564]You are a bully because you insult those you argue with.  Review your posts and this will become apparent to you.  Saying things like, "I can't believe I have to explain this, it's common sense", is an insult, not an argument.




> Review your posts and this will become apparent to you.  Saying things like, "I can't believe I have to explain this, it's common sense", is an insult, not an argument.


That's not an insult.  Even if it was, it's pretty light in comparison to the things that Ronin Truth was throwing at me.  




> OK.  I'll accept your baseless assertion, for argument's sake.  Now indulge me...can you provide a more "common" moral dilemna that would resonate with people's actual experience?
> Can we revisit my fantasizing about one's neighbor's wife example?


I just provided you with the example of murder.  Is that not real enough?  You can use any example you want and the argument is exactly the same.  It's just a process of finding out what you actually believe.  You just want to make it about something that nobody really cares about so that you can answer either way without making yourself look bad.

----------


## moostraks

> It's all hypothetical to prove a point.  I think I've proven it.  You believe it's universally morally wrong to torture babies.  Ergo, you believe in objective morality.


So how do you deal with the situation of the cultures that don't have such a moral inclination to protect the weak? What about those who feel the same need to stop the use of animals for any purpose? They have the same moral, gut level need to protect animals and feel meat eaters are barbaric, as barbaric as you are demanding others respond to your baby torture hypothesis being a universal moral absolute when some societies clearly missed that memo. And what exactly qualifies as baby torture? Some here say circumcision qualifies. Pretty sure they would say it is a moral absolute. Forgive me if this has been addressed but I saw these recent posts and was curious as to how you reconcile these types of variables...

----------


## Crashland

> Correct.  And your view happens to be that the person you're stopping should have the same moral values as you.
> 
> Otherwise, why would you stop them?  Why would you care about a baby that has no relation to you?


I don't care if the person I'm stopping has the same moral values as me. I just want to protect the baby. Why? Because I have empathy for one. Because if I also have a child, or if my loved ones have children, I do not want dangerous people going around torturing babies and I would rather create a deterrent to that behavior. Because I don't want to have to empathize with the pain of the baby or his parents, and I don't want to have to answer the parents' questions as to why I didn't help. Because helping your fellow man is a healthy and beneficial thing to do period for everyone involved. I'm not really sure why I have to go through this. Protecting the baby because it's something you read in a book sounds to me like a really lame reason in comparison.

----------


## otherone

> _That's not an insult.  Even if it was,_ it's pretty light in comparison to the things that Ronin Truth was throwing at me.


LOL.  OF COURSE it was.  Your derision is PALPABLE.  You use derision as a debate tactic in nearly every thread you are confronted in, PCWV! 





> I just provided you with the example of murder.  Is that not real enough?  You can use any example you want and the argument is exactly the same.  It's just a process of finding out what you actually believe.  You just want to make it about something that nobody really cares about so that you can answer either way without making yourself look bad.


C'mon, man.  This isn't about "looking bad", it's about discerning truth.  Videochrome hit on it....people are concerned not about the sensationally lurid, but the banal commonplace.   We are confronted with non-murder/baby-torture dilemnas every day.  Can we use these in the debate?

----------


## otherone

> I don't care if the person I'm stopping has the same moral values as me. I just want to protect the baby. Why? Because I have empathy for one. Because if I also have a child, or if my loved ones have children, I do not want dangerous people going around torturing babies and I would rather create a deterrent to that behavior. Because I don't want to have to empathize with the pain of the baby or his parents, and I don't want to have to answer the parents' questions as to why I didn't help. Because helping your fellow man is a healthy and beneficial thing to do period for everyone involved. I'm not really sure why I have to go through this. Protecting the baby because it's something you read in a book sounds to me like a really lame reason in comparison.


Your empathy for the victim does not regard the need to 
_PUNISH THE OFFENDER_ DUM DUM Duuuuuuum......

----------


## otherone

> I don't care if the person I'm stopping has the same moral values as me. I just want to protect the baby. Why? Because I have empathy for one. Because if I also have a child, or if my loved ones have children, I do not want dangerous people going around torturing babies and I would rather create a deterrent to that behavior. Because I don't want to have to empathize with the pain of the baby or his parents, and I don't want to have to answer the parents' questions as to why I didn't help. Because helping your fellow man is a healthy and beneficial thing to do period for everyone involved. I'm not really sure why I have to go through this. Protecting the baby because it's something you read in a book sounds to me like a really lame reason in comparison.


Welcome to Christianity, brother!

 1 Corinthians 13:1-3
13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't care if the person I'm stopping has the same moral values as me. I just want to protect the baby. Why? Because I have empathy for one. Because if I also have a child, or if my loved ones have children, I do not want dangerous people going around torturing babies and I would rather create a deterrent to that behavior. Because I don't want to have to empathize with the pain of the baby or his parents, and I don't want to have to answer the parents' questions as to why I didn't help. Because helping your fellow man is a healthy and beneficial thing to do period for everyone involved. I'm not really sure why I have to go through this. Protecting the baby because it's something you read in a book sounds to me like a really lame reason in comparison.


You say you don't care if the person you're stopping has the same moral values as you, but then you go on to say that you want to create a deterrent to that kind of behavior, so it kind of follows that you do care.  

It's beside the point why you're doing it.  The point is that you believe it's universally wrong regardless of what the person who's doing it believes.  If you really believed it was subjective, then it wouldn't matter to you what other people believed, but it obviously does matter to you.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I don't know.  What if you did?  
> 
> My only point was to prove that objective moral truths exist.  All I have to do to prove that is demonstrate that even those who deny their existence actually believe in them.
> 
> If you want to find the answers to the tougher questions, then you better start trying to find out what the source of that objective morality is.  I could give you hints, but I think you know where I'm going with this.


I'm just making a gesture that we could have it both ways. Okay so you make the point some things everyone here would obviously agree is wrong.  In my life, if I ever encounter the issue of baby torture, I'll recall this discussion on objective morality.  

However, what if some things are not objectively moral or immoral?  Maybe one person likes the latest Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat violent video game, while another finds it reprehensible and disgusting?  This could be a subjective moral issue.  It may not even be possible to have a consensus on things like this and it's hard for me to see a hint of Objective Morality having any bearing on it because there are so many different personal views on it.  We'll just have to understand we have different groups defining different moral standards for themselves in this world.  Hopefully, we can tolerate or learn to even understand eachother. In other cases, the differences in morality will be to different and different sides will clash. 

But seriously, what if I just grant OM for big obvious black and white issues?  It's wrong to execute an innocent man who didn't deserve it for example.  Yet, the world is also full of issues that are not at all black and white to us and may lend themselves to being looked at more subjectively.  

Again, what if we can have it both ways?  It just seems an easier path than an ongoing stalemate arguement continuing this thread until it's 50 pages of circular arguing. Maybe we should change the direction of this thread away from a spirit of contention to that of mutual understanding?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm just making a gesture that we could have it both ways. Okay so you make the point some things everyone here would obviously agree is wrong.  In my life, if I ever encounter the issue of baby torture, I'll recall this discussion on objective morality.  
> 
> However, what if some things are not objectively moral or immoral?  Maybe one person likes the latest Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat violent video game, while another finds it reprehensible and disgusting?  This could be a subjective moral issue.  It may not even be possible to have a consensus on things like this and it's hard for me to see a hint of Objective Morality having any bearing on it because there are so many different personal views on it.  We'll just have to understand we have different groups defining different moral standards for themselves in this world.  Hopefully, we can tolerate or learn to even understand eachother. In other cases, the differences in morality will be to different and different sides will clash. 
> 
> But seriously, what if I just grant OM for big obvious black and white issues?  It's wrong to execute an innocent man who didn't deserve it for example.  Yet, the world is also full of issues that are not at all black and white to us and may lend themselves to being looked at more subjectively.  
> 
> Again, what if we can have it both ways?  It just seems an easier path than an ongoing stalemate arguement continuing this thread until it's 50 pages of circular arguing. Maybe we should change the direction of this thread away from a spirit of contention to that of mutual understanding?


That's actually a good point.  The fact that there are confusing issues doesn't mean there is no objective morality.  It just means we have to recognize where we're coming from before we can make a convincing argument either way.  If you believe it's all subjective, then arguing over who's right is like arguing over which color is the best.  It doesn't make sense unless you have a standard.

----------


## Crashland

> You say you don't care if the person you're stopping has the same moral values as you, but then you go on to say that you want to create a deterrent to that kind of behavior, so it kind of follows that you do care.  
> 
> It's beside the point why you're doing it.  The point is that you believe it's universally wrong regardless of what the person who's doing it believes.  If you really believed it was subjective, then it wouldn't matter to you what other people believed, but it obviously does matter to you.


No, in that situation I really do not care at all what the torturer thinks. 
I do not care what the torturer thinks. 
I do not care what the torturer thinks. 

The _only_ reason I might care what other people think *in general* is _if what they think makes a difference in whether the world is a more torturous or less torturous place for babies_. So when I am done saving babies being tortured and when I am done not caring what is going on in the torturer's head (other than the bullet I just put in it), then after that is over, when I am back in society, I am happy to go out and sell my idea that we should deter baby torture. Why? Because I want to protect babies. Wanting to protect babies is a _subjective_ value that I experience.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, in that situation I really do not care at all what the torturer thinks. 
> I do not care what the torturer thinks. 
> I do not care what the torturer thinks. 
> 
> The _only_ reason I might care what other people think *in general* is _if what they think makes a difference in whether the world is a more torturous or less torturous place for babies_. So when I am done saving babies being tortured and when I am done not caring what is going on in the torturer's head (other than the bullet I just put in it), then after that is over, when I am back in society, I am happy to go out and sell my idea that we should deter baby torture. Why? Because I want to protect babies. Wanting to protect babies is a _subjective_ value that I experience.


You say you don't care what the torturer thinks, but if the torturer thought like you, then it would make a difference in whether the world was a more or less torturous place for babies.  So yes, you do care.  The fact that you aren't thinking about it at the moment that you're "putting a bullet in" the torturer's head doesn't change that.

----------


## otherone

> No, in that situation I really do not care at all what the torturer thinks. 
> I do not care what the torturer thinks. 
> I do not care what the torturer thinks. 
> 
> The _only_ reason I might care what other people think *in general* is _if what they think makes a difference in whether the world is a more torturous or less torturous place for babies_. So when I am done saving babies being tortured and when I am done not caring what is going on in the torturer's head (other than the bullet I just put in it), then after that is over, when I am back in society, I am happy to go out and sell my idea that we should deter baby torture. Why? Because I want to protect babies. Wanting to protect babies is a _subjective_ value that I experience.


It's not subjectivity...it's wisdom.  The only person you can control is YOURSELF.   The purpose of morality is to help _you_ make the best choices for yourself.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's not subjectivity...it's wisdom.  The only person you can control is YOURSELF.   The purpose of morality is to help _you_ make the best choices for yourself.


The only person you can control is yourself, and yet you hope that other people believe as you do and you seek to punish those who believe differently and act on their beliefs.

----------


## Crashland

> You say you don't care what the torturer thinks, but if the torturer thought like you, then it would make a difference in whether the world was a more or less torturous place for babies.  So yes, you do care.  The fact that you aren't thinking about it at the moment that you're "putting a bullet in" the torturer's head doesn't change that.


Ok, sure. Convincing the torturer to stop would also be an adequate solution to the problem, but since that is unlikely to happen instantly, using force is a better option. I would be pleased if the torturer later came around and started thinking the same as me. But again, the only reason I would care about what anyone else thinks is because it makes a difference in what I am trying to accomplish based on my own values. I don't see what this has to do with objectivity.

----------


## otherone

> The only person you can control is yourself, and yet you hope that other people believe as you do and_ you seek to punish those who believe differently_ and act on their beliefs.


Where did you get such an idea?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok, sure. Convincing the torturer to stop would also be an adequate solution to the problem, but since that is unlikely to happen instantly, using force is a better option. I would be pleased if the torturer later came around and started thinking the same as me. But again, the only reason I would care about what anyone else thinks is because it makes a difference in what I am trying to accomplish based on my own values. I don't see what this has to do with objectivity.


I never said anything about convincing the torturer.  It would just be better if he/she believed like you do.  

The point is exactly what you said: It makes a *difference.*  They are your subjective values, and yet you believe your subjective values are the best, exposing the fact that you think there is some kind of ultimate goal to work toward, such as preservation of the human race.  You think that goal is objectively good, not just something you would prefer.  The fact that you care about what anyone else thinks exposes that you think there are objectively good values in this world to hold.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Where did you get such an idea?


You want to punish baby torturers, don't you?  Do you think they should be allowed to roam free of consequences?

----------


## otherone

> You want to punish baby torturers, don't you?  Do you think they should be allowed to roam free of consequences?


No!  I don't WANT to punish ANYONE! 
Is this something that YOU "want" to do?

----------


## lilymc

> I guess I figured it would be worth using examples seen in everyday life instead of hypothetical that are kind of ridiculous.  It makes me think of how people debated torturing prisoners at Gitmo asking what would you do if you were Jack Bauer and you just caught a terrorist that know when and where a bomb will go off.  Hell you could even toss in whether you would instead torture the terrorists' infant son in front of him to get information to stop a bomb.  
> 
> I thought I'd bring the discussion down from being kind of ridiculous.  
> 
> Anyway, here is an honest thought I'll toss in here.  What if Morality is like a spectrum and Objective Morality and Subjective Morality is on each end?  Also, what if some of the issues I tossed out are really in a grey area between the two?  What if both sides of this argument have merit and we might agree some issues are objectively morality wrong all the time?  Yet, if we look at Real Life and instead of a hypothetical situation that resembles a bad movie plot, we might decide some types of behavior are not morally wrong every time.  Some things can depend a lot on context.


You're still trying to focus on "deciding" or determining which behaviors are morally wrong and which are OK.    But before we can get to that point, we have to understand the nature of morality itself.   

If morality is objective, then it's not up for each of us to decide.  It is what it is.   You either like it, or you don't, but it's just the way it is.    

I think it's obvious why so many people WANT morality to be subjective.  Because of course we all want to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.  Most people love the idea of doing whatever the hell they want to do.    So, subjective morality is appealing, and popular.   

The funny part is, most people want to have subjective morality, as long as THEY decide for themselves and THEY get what they want.  But when it comes to someone else doing something that affects them in a negative way, all of sudden that "subjective morality" is thrown out the window... and they immediately become an moral objectivist, whether they realize it or not.

And not only when it affects them personally, but when they can see that immorality or evil affects the world.

For example, the same people who promote the idea that morality is subjective will, out of the other side of their mouth, decry "injustices",  "oppression", "corruption", and all the evils in the world.    You can't have it both ways.   If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as injustice or "unjust wars" or corruption, evil, or any of those things.

----------


## Crashland

> I never said anything about convincing the torturer.  It would just be better if he/she believed like you do.  
> 
> The point is exactly what you said: It makes a *difference.*  They are your subjective values, and _yet you believe your subjective values are the best_





> *You think that goal is objectively good, not just something you would prefer.*


No. Stop saying that is what I believe, when I keep telling you it isn't what I believe. When I think that something is good, then I think it is good _according to me_. It is my own value which is not objective. I do not expect that everyone will necessarily have the same values as me. Acting on my values is in itself a value that is determined by me.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No!  I don't WANT to punish ANYONE! 
> Is this something that YOU "want" to do?


You mean you don't want to have to punish anyone.  But you do think it's necessary.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No. Stop saying that is what I believe, when I keep telling you it isn't what I believe. When I think that something is good, then I think it is good _according to me_. It is my own value which is not objective. I do not expect that everyone will necessarily have the same values as me. Acting on my values is in itself a value that is determined by me.


You may not expect it, but you think they should.  Remember, I'm not talking about the way things are.  I'm talking about the way they should be.

----------


## otherone

> You mean you don't want to have to punish anyone.  But you do think it's necessary.


????
It's necessary for me to punish someone? Other than my children, 20 years ago?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ????
> It's necessary for me to punish someone? Other than my children, 20 years ago?


Maybe not you personally, but you think they should be punished, correct?

----------


## Crashland

> You may not expect it, but you think they should.  Remember, I'm not talking about the way things are.  I'm talking about the way they should be.


I think they "should" in the sense that I "want" them to because of my own values. That's pretty much all it means. I have my own perspective which tells me I don't want babies being tortured. When we are talking about the way things "should" be we are basically talking about the way we would prefer things to be in your own eyes.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think they "should" in the sense that I "want" them to because of my own values. That's pretty much all it means. I have my own perspective which tells me I don't want babies being tortured. When we are talking about the way things "should" be we are basically talking about the way we would prefer things to be in your own eyes.


No, I make a hard distinction between the way things should be because they're better that way and the way things should be simply because we prefer them.  When you say "things should be this way/that way", you are making a truth claim, not a preference.  You are saying that it achieves some goal that is objectively good.  If you didn't believe it was objectively good, then you wouldn't care what other people did as long as it wasn't you doing it.  It would be kind of like picking a favorite color.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That's actually a good point.  The fact that there are confusing issues doesn't mean there is no objective morality.  It just means we have to recognize where we're coming from before we can make a convincing argument either way.  If you believe it's all subjective, then arguing over who's right is like arguing over which color is the best.  It doesn't make sense unless you have a standard.


Well, I was considering the idea that Absolute Objective Morality covers the big obvious issues that are universally agreed upon, even by vastly different cultures.  For example, isolated island communities seperated by vast distances may still have core parts of their Moral Code in common with eachother.  

On the other end of the spectrum are their many differences though.  Sometimes almost trivial.  One such culture could have a very ardent Work Ethic, while the other might live on an island with abundant resources living a more leizurely life.  The more stoic culture hard working culture might see this as morally despicable.  

I think this represents another Moral Realm, but is this kind of stuff only subjective?  I think there is "Limited-Objectivity" here. Or maybe call it a _special objectivity_.  Certainly there is a lot of simple personal bias wrapped up in these kinds of views, but in a lot of cases I think these sort of culture moralities have some basis in objectivity.  Why might one culture regard waking up early to work hard as a virtue?  At one point, survival might have depended on it and those who didn't pull their weight were resented.  This is just based on reality and circumstance so it seems objective.  

Atheists or even Christians probably make these kinds of moral decision all the time in everyday life based on context or empiricism.  Yes, because these are human moral views on even mundane human issues, they are open to being questioned or being revised.  

To put this into perspective, I'd like to borrow a quote from Richard Feynman: 




> Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? *No, it is simply not proved wrong*. Because in the future there could be a wider range of experiments, you could compute a wider range of consequences, and you may discover that the thing is wrong.

----------


## Crashland

> No, I make a hard distinction between the way things should be because they're better that way and the way things should be simply because we prefer them.  When you say "things should be this way/that way", you are making a truth claim, not a preference.  You are saying that it achieves some goal that is objectively good.  If you didn't believe it was objectively good, then you wouldn't care what other people did as long as it wasn't you doing it.  It would be kind of like picking a favorite color.


Things are "better" in certain ways _because_ we prefer them to be that way. The terms are almost synonymous. If my arm is not being chopped off, then that is a "better" state than it would be if it is being chopped off. That is what I prefer -- because I value having my arm, not because my arm being on or off is objectively good or bad. The universe doesn't care if my arm is on or off, but I care. The universe also doesn't care if the baby is tortured or not. That is something *I* care about, so I see it as "better" that the baby is not tortured. When you boil down the words you like to rely on so heavily like "should", "ought", or "better", the words themselves are essentially constructed by the states that we see as desirable. We don't have to appeal to anything outside of ourselves to give those words meaning.

Comparing this to favorite colors is really not accurate. Your choice of favorite color does not affect me or anything that I value in any way. Unless perhaps if you were going to paint my room neon orange and pink though because those are your favorite colors, then I might be motivated to get you not to do that...

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

If you believe in evolution, a bias for basic behavior we'd call "moral", would be very much selected for over time. 

As in if your village was dog eat dog, rape, murder, pillage were accepted, well that doesn't lead to much stability, that doesn't lend itself to a long life, and living long enough and having the time to do things like figure out what plants grow when, how much to water them, when to plant them by the moon and star cycles, etc... don't really occur. In essence you kill the nerds. 

So, let's say we went 10,000 years with the thugs in charge (immoral people) of the vast majority of the planet, then boom an ice age happens, now thuggery is worthless, cooperation and thinking, observation of environment, etc... is what is necessary to survive. So, the thugs die en masse, the "moral" tribes become "thinking" tribes if only at a basic level. 

At the end of that ice age you will have selected for a "moral" bias in the human population, and in reality bred a bias right into the DNA for interacting in a manner that doesn't solely benefit the individual at that moment, in favor of behavior that benefits the individual even if indirectly in the long term.

So, humans have a bias against murder. Humans have a bias against theft. Etc... Those things would not be good for survival in scenarios humans lived through in the past like ice ages. In those scenarios, it's how can "WE" figure out how to live or "WE" all die together. WE, instead of solely I thinking creates moral behavior. Tribes that could not do that DIED entirely, no genetics passing.  IMO. Ideas like don't $#@! my wife, is a good idea for social cohesion, thus a bias for that would evolve over time, but that conflicts with the desire to spread ones seed in every hottie you see, as one would attempt if purely driven by self interest. Just the thought that you shouldn't $#@! your neighbors wife, is pretty well established in every society I've witnessed, thus would seem to be an "instinctive" behavior bias, and does in fact lead to a society with less wasted time on conflict, and more free for productive thought or activity. 

Dogs are kinda moral if you observe them, they lick one another, snuggle together for heat, "WE" behavior. Maybe they have a dog god, I don't think so though.

If God had a hand in our morality, well, IMO, that would be from embedding these biases in us, but they are there, and whether you credit God with the embedding or the great human die offs of the past caused by ice ages or droughts, or other natural disasters, that would "naturally" promote behavior that was what we call "moral" those "instincts" would still be present in atheists.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you believe in evolution, a bias for basic behavior we'd call "moral", would be very much selected for over time. 
> 
> As in if your village was dog eat dog, rape, murder, pillage were accepted, well that doesn't lead to much stability, that doesn't lend itself to a long life, and living long enough and having the time to do things like figure out what plants grow when, how much to water them, when to plant them by the moon and star cycles, etc... don't really occur. In essence you kill the nerds. 
> 
> So, let's say we went 10,000 years with the thugs in charge (immoral people) of the vast majority of the planet, then boom an ice age happens, now thuggery is worthless, cooperation and thinking, observation of environment, etc... is what is necessary to survive. So, the thugs die en masse, the "moral" tribes become "thinking" tribes if only at a basic level. 
> 
> At the end of that ice age you will have selected for a "moral" bias in the human population, and in reality bred a bias right into the DNA for interacting in a manner that doesn't solely benefit the individual at that moment, in favor of behavior that benefits the individual even if indirectly in the long term.
> 
> So, humans have a bias against murder. Humans have a bias against theft. Etc... Those things would not be good for survival in scenarios humans lived through in the past like ice ages. In those scenarios, it's how can "WE" figure out how to live or "WE" all die together. WE, instead of solely I thinking creates moral behavior. Tribes that could not do that DIED entirely, no genetics passing.  IMO. Ideas like don't $#@! my wife, is a good idea for social cohesion, thus a bias for that would evolve over time, but that conflicts with the desire to spread ones seed in every hottie you see, as one would attempt if purely driven by self interest. Just the thought that you shouldn't $#@! your neighbors wife, is pretty well established in every society I've witnessed, thus would seem to be an "instinctive" behavior bias, and does in fact lead to a society with less wasted time on conflict, and more free for productive thought or activity. 
> ...


It's a nice fairy tale.  Not science, though.

----------


## Sam I am

> Maybe not you personally, but you think they should be punished, correct?


You're hitting a very interesting point there.  

I do *not* think that baby torturers need to be punished in theory.  

In fact, if there's a way to prevent babies from being tortured equally as well that does not involve punishment at all, and doesn't have any other adverse side effects then, punishment philosophy in a heartbeat.


You see, I don't want to bring harm to people in general. Even if they're people who cause harm to others.

----------


## robert68

Those who believe any act is moral when the deity they believe in authorizes it (with them of course telling you when that deity authorizes it), lecturing others here on morality. But it's nothing new.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're hitting a very interesting point there.  
> 
> I do *not* think that baby torturers need to be punished in theory.  
> 
> In fact, if there's a way to prevent babies from being tortured equally as well that does not involve punishment at all, and doesn't have any other adverse side effects then, punishment philosophy in a heartbeat.
> 
> 
> You see, I don't want to bring harm to people in general. Even if they're people who cause harm to others.


Whatever.  You don't care about the truth.  You just want to be able to do whatever you want so you can go on ignoring the God you know exists.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Those who believe any act is moral when the deity they believe in authorizes it (with them of course telling you when that deity authorizes it) lecturing others here on morality. But it's nothing new.


Your "lack of belief" in a deity is just as much faith as anything else.  Don't fool yourself into thinking that you have the moral upper hand here.  You know your position is indefensible, but like Sam I am, you don't care.

----------


## Crashland

> Your "lack of belief" in a deity is just as much faith as anything else.  Don't fool yourself into thinking that you have the moral upper hand here.  You know your position is indefensible, but like Sam I am, you don't care.


It doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe in Santa Claus.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe in Santa Claus.


Except we're not talking about some random fiction.  We're talking about the origins of our universe.  In that regard, with a complete lack of prior knowledge, your theory makes just as little sense as you purport mine to make.

But perhaps you can explain how everything popped out of nothing without invoking the supernatural.  THAT takes faith.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Except we're not talking about some random fiction.  We're talking about the origins of our universe.  In that regard, with a complete lack of prior knowledge, your theory makes just as little sense as you purport mine to make.
> 
> But perhaps you can explain how everything popped out of nothing without invoking the supernatural.  THAT takes faith.


I get what you're saying and I see how you're using the word "faith," but these are characteristically different things, and when you use that word like that you are really smearing words pretty badly.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity in the early 1900s based on a few observations, developed equations that made certain predictions, ALL of which were later confirmed. Notice - _the equations_ made the predictions. The equations said certain things were true about the universe that no other human had ever predicted, assumed, or posited about the universe. The most well known example is the degree of bending light waves due to a gravitational field, which was validated during an eclipse in 1919.

There are admittedly some pretty fantastic theories out there right now about the origin of the universe, and yes, none has been confirmed, but the fact that there is literally mountains of scientific evidence that support a certain viewpoint, while there is no scientific evidence to support another, is plenty of reason to have "faith" in one side over the other.

Please note that I'm not providing a critique of religious reasoning or anything of the sort. _No_ scientific evidence could ever establish something that _by it's nature_ is mystic.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> It doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe in Santa Claus.


Exactly - it simply requires that you are never _told_ about him...

----------


## Crashland

> Except we're not talking about some random fiction.  We're talking about the origins of our universe.  In that regard, with a complete lack of prior knowledge, your theory makes just as little sense as you purport mine to make.
> 
> But perhaps you can explain how everything popped out of nothing without invoking the supernatural.  THAT takes faith.


Yes, it would take faith to blindly believe the claim that the universe inexplicably "popped out of nothing". Good thing I don't believe that claim either. I don't know if it popped out of nothing, or if it has always been there, or if it was caused by something else which could be completely foreign to our current understanding of how things work. It doesn't take any faith to say "I don't know" when there is not enough evidence to substantiate a claim. It does take faith to believe and trust in a cooked up unsubstantiated explanation like "a powerful eternal deity did it", or in any one of the many other hypotheses there are. Although, some hypotheses are more compelling than others.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe in Santa Claus.


By your standard of knowledge, did George Washington exist?  You didn't sense him.  How do you know?

----------


## Crashland

> By your standard of knowledge, did George Washington exist?  You didn't sense him.  How do you know?


I don't know that, and I wouldn't know that with 100% certainty even if I did sense him. George Washington probably existed. It takes at least some degree of faith to believe almost any claim, even claims that have overwhelming evidence. Any particular piece of "knowledge" that we have falls within a spectrum of possible confidence levels. The more supporting evidence there is for a claim, the less faith is required and the more confident we can be in believing it. The less supporting evidence there is for the claim, the more faith is required and the less confident we can be in believing it. George Washington's existence falls within the former category; the existence of a supreme creator deity with morals falls within the latter.

Also, it does not require any faith at all to *not* believe a claim. Failing to believe an unsubstantiated claim is _reasonable skepticism_. Failing to believe a claim in the face of overwhelming evidence is _denial_. Neither one of those is faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know that, and I wouldn't know that with 100% certainty even if I did sense him. George Washington probably existed. It takes at least some degree of faith to believe almost any claim, even claims that have overwhelming evidence. Any particular piece of "knowledge" that we have falls within a spectrum of possible confidence levels. The more supporting evidence there is for a claim, the less faith is required and the more confident we can be in believing it. The less supporting evidence there is for the claim, the more faith is required and the less confident we can be in believing it. George Washington's existence falls within the former category; the existence of a supreme creator deity with morals falls within the latter.
> 
> Also, it does not require any faith at all to *not* believe a claim. Failing to believe an unsubstantiated claim is _reasonable skepticism_. Failing to believe a claim in the face of overwhelming evidence is _denial_. Neither one of those is faith.


You dont understand yet the presuppositional nature of thought.  You presuppose the nonexistence of God.  Is it any wonder that you intepret all the "evidence" in light of your presupposition?

----------


## Crashland

> You dont understand yet the presuppositional nature of thought.  You presuppose the nonexistence of God.  Is it any wonder that you intepret all the "evidence" in light of your presupposition?


No, I do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Nor do I presuppose the existence of God. I do not presuppose or assume either of those things. The only thing I truly presuppose would be something along the lines of "I have thoughts and perceptions." This is because all evidences I consider inevitably have to be filtered through my own reasoning and perceptions. Any other _claims_ are evaluated subsequently and are not presupposed. Those can include positive claims (God exists) or negative claims (God does not exist). The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. I will not accept a person's claim if there is not sufficient evidence.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Nor do I presuppose the existence of God. I do not presuppose or assume either of those things. The only thing I truly presuppose would be something along the lines of "I have thoughts and perceptions." This is because all evidences I consider inevitably have to be filtered through my own reasoning and perceptions. Any other _claims_ are evaluated subsequently and are not presupposed. Those can include positive claims (God exists) or negative claims (God does not exist). The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. I will not accept a person's claim if there is not sufficient evidence.


Yes you do.  You have an unproven precommitment to naturalism.  You choose what evidence you will accept based on your presupposition against God.

If you want me to prove you have presuppositions you never knew you had, I'll show you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I get what you're saying and I see how you're using the word "faith," but these are characteristically different things, and when you use that word like that you are really smearing words pretty badly.
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity in the early 1900s based on a few observations, developed equations that made certain predictions, ALL of which were later confirmed. Notice - _the equations_ made the predictions. The equations said certain things were true about the universe that no other human had ever predicted, assumed, or posited about the universe. The most well known example is the degree of bending light waves due to a gravitational field, which was validated during an eclipse in 1919.
> 
> There are admittedly some pretty fantastic theories out there right now about the origin of the universe, and yes, none has been confirmed, but the fact that there is literally mountains of scientific evidence that support a certain viewpoint, while there is no scientific evidence to support another, is plenty of reason to have "faith" in one side over the other.
> 
> Please note that I'm not providing a critique of religious reasoning or anything of the sort. _No_ scientific evidence could ever establish something that _by it's nature_ is mystic.


You're saying there's evidence to support atheism?  What evidence is that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Exactly - it simply requires that you are never _told_ about him...


God comes from the philosophical necessity for a beginning, not from someone's imagination.  If you can't provide an alternative way the universe could have begun without a beginner, then you can't say atheism is any easier to believe than theism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, it would take faith to blindly believe the claim that the universe inexplicably "popped out of nothing". Good thing I don't believe that claim either. I don't know if it popped out of nothing, or if it has always been there, or if it was caused by something else which could be completely foreign to our current understanding of how things work. It doesn't take any faith to say "I don't know" when there is not enough evidence to substantiate a claim. It does take faith to believe and trust in a cooked up unsubstantiated explanation like "a powerful eternal deity did it", or in any one of the many other hypotheses there are. Although, some hypotheses are more compelling than others.


The point I'm getting at is that you seem to believe it is reasonable to accept that the universe did NOT have a creator while simultaneously requiring evidence for the opposite conclusion.  What I'm saying is that atheism requires just as much evidence to believe as theism because both of them invoke the supernatural.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't know that, and I wouldn't know that with 100% certainty even if I did sense him. George Washington probably existed. It takes at least some degree of faith to believe almost any claim, even claims that have overwhelming evidence. Any particular piece of "knowledge" that we have falls within a spectrum of possible confidence levels. The more supporting evidence there is for a claim, the less faith is required and the more confident we can be in believing it. The less supporting evidence there is for the claim, the more faith is required and the less confident we can be in believing it. George Washington's existence falls within the former category; the existence of a supreme creator deity with morals falls within the latter.


How do you know that?  We have historical eyewitnesses for both, if we are to stick only empirical facts.  This doesn't mention the philosophical evidence for God.




> Also, it does not require any faith at all to *not* believe a claim. Failing to believe an unsubstantiated claim is _reasonable skepticism_. Failing to believe a claim in the face of overwhelming evidence is _denial_. Neither one of those is faith.


So you do *not* believe in the claim that there is a Creator because there is no evidence, but you simultaneously accept the claim that the universe got here without a Creator with absolutely no evidence?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Nor do I presuppose the existence of God. I do not presuppose or assume either of those things. The only thing I truly presuppose would be something along the lines of "I have thoughts and perceptions." This is because all evidences I consider inevitably have to be filtered through my own reasoning and perceptions. Any other _claims_ are evaluated subsequently and are not presupposed. Those can include positive claims (God exists) or negative claims (God does not exist). The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. I will not accept a person's claim if there is not sufficient evidence.


Do you believe in the existence of God?

----------


## Crashland

> Yes you do.  You have an unproven precommitment to naturalism.  You choose what evidence you will accept based on your presupposition against God.
> 
> If you want me to prove you have presuppositions you never knew you had, I'll show you.


Don't ask me, go right ahead.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes you do.  You have an unproven precommitment to naturalism.  You choose what evidence you will accept based on your presupposition against God.
> 
> If you want me to prove you have presuppositions you never knew you had, I'll show you.


Don't ask me, go right ahead.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Don't ask me, go right ahead.


Crashland, I take it you believe in the Steady State Theory (the universe always existed), correct?  What is your evidence for that and how is it not faith to believe in that?  Not only do you have to believe the finite universe can exist infinitely, but you have to believe that the laws of thermodynamics were, at some point, violated in order to bring us into existence.  So why do you accept the idea that there is nothing beyond the natural universe while simultaneously requiring evidence for the opposite claim?

If you were intellectually honest, you would require just as much evidence for naturalism as you do for the supernatural.

----------


## otherone

Post 577




> Yes, it would take faith to blindly believe the claim that the universe inexplicably "popped out of nothing". Good thing I don't believe that claim either.* I don't know if it popped out of nothing, or if it has always been there, or if it was caused by something else which could be completely foreign to our current understanding of how things work. It doesn't take any faith to say "I don't know" when there is not enough evidence to substantiate a claim.*





> Crashland*, I take it you believe in the Steady State Theory (the universe always existed), correct?  What is your evidence for that and how is it not faith to believe in that? *

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Do you believe in the existence of God?


Which God?  There are many Gods followed by many religions in this world. 

Could it be more specific?  Assuming this is the approved Christian God, is there an approved or agreed upon picture or illustration of this God? It would be nice to know more about what we are being asked to believe in. I think at least the Hindus have accepted images of their Gods and specific descriptions of their nature, biographies, and abilities.

----------


## osan

> Gordon Clark:
> 
> ...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God.


There is no definition of "God" in evidence.  A list of those laws might be handy in order that, upon examination, we may decide whether the laws are valid and, assuming they are, whether they can be derived independently of the putative source.  If so, it may be argued with validity that perhaps _we_ are the repositories of God's laws.  Would it not make sense that God would instill His law into each of us?  If not, why not?




> I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms.


Reason and logic are demonstrated, by their competent application, to lead men to derive valid and immutable principles ("law") of proper human relations.  All that is required is acceptance of the Cardinal Postulate, "all men hold equal claims to life".  Acceptance leads axiomatically and apodictically to everything we need in order to live among our fellows in proper consanguinity.  Rejection of the Postulate opens those who refuse it to a literally endless line of questions, the answers to which are demonstrably arbitrary and only serve to lead to more questions, thereby further demonstrating an absence of an irreducible invariant upon which all previous answers may confidently rest in the minds of men.

_



			
				Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do.
			
		

_"Science" is but a tool.  It can discover nothing in and o fi tself, much as a sheet of paper or one of your dinner fork is incapable of same.  _People_ discover all manner of truths and often they do so by using the tool called "science".  Therefore, your very premise is at gross fault, its semantics placed under close scrutiny suggesting that science is an autonomous thing, in and of itself.  That, of course, is an absurdity.  Science is the product of the minds that God gives each of us.

Therefore, secular science most certainly can be employed to discover truth when given a standard from which to judge.  Science is like a torque wrench.  If I need to torque the bolts for the connecting rods on my car's engine, which I am rebuilding, the tool is able to do what is needed, but the "ought" portion of it must be in evidence.  In this case, the "ought" may be 44 lb-ft of torque, provided by a shop manual.  If I tighten to only 20 lb-ft, I should not be surprised if the crankshaft launches a rod through the side of the engine block.




> _From observational premises no normative conclusion follows._


The statement erroneously presupposes this a valid application of "science". 

_



			
				Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.
			
		

_Clark is pissing up a rope on this, apparently due to some misapprehension about the very nature of scientific inquiry.

_



Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed.


_Good grief - he goes on like a broken record.  It is clear to me he has some weird issue with his notion of "science".  I hate to break it to him, but everything we do as human beings is a form of science, if practiced with greatly reduced rigor.
He has thoroughly confused a map for the terrain it was meant to represent.  Science is but a means to an end.  To assert that "science cannot <fill in the blank>" makes as much sense as saying "my baseball mitt cannot write my term paper."  Of course it cannot - it is an inanimate, lifeless thing.  Only another human being can write your term paper... whether it be you or the guy you paid.  

This exposition is a morass of semantic FAIL.
_





 Originally Posted by Falcon63


Religion has no monopoly on morality. In fact, morality has nothing to do with religion at all.


_Correct on the former, hopeless FAIL on the latter.  Had you written "morality has nothing of necessity to do with religion", you would stand upon far firmer ground.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Post 577


Are you kidding me? I just asked you if it was correct. I did this specifically to avoid being accused of attacking a straw man, an assumption you seem so eager to apply.

If that's not what you believe, then please explain what you do believe.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Which God?  There are many Gods followed by many religions in this world. 
> 
> Could it be more specific?  Assuming this is the approved Christian God, is there an approved or agreed upon picture or illustration of this God? It would be nice to know more about what we are being asked to believe in. I think at least the Hindus have accepted images of their Gods and specific descriptions of their nature, biographies, and abilities.


When I say God, I simply mean a Creator of the entire universe.  Do you believe that an intelligent being created the universe?

----------


## otherone

> Are you kidding me? I just asked you if it was correct. I did this specifically to avoid being accused of attacking a straw man, an assumption you seem so eager to apply.
> 
> If that's not what you believe, then please explain what you do believe.


If you had read Post 577 you would CLEARLY have had the answer to your question, yet you chose to create your straw man to attack instead.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Originally Posted by wizardwatson
> 
> 
> Moral law is encoded in us.  You support NAP and golden rule because you have innate knowledge of the law.  You recognize it subjectively and support even though you do not know its origin.
> 
> It is the same as finding a member of the opposite sex as attractive.  
> 
> You didn't "learn" moral law.  You learned the consequences of violating it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think I said they were objective.  I didn't say we each had our OWN moral law.

I don't see where we are in disagreement if your intent was to point that out.  Anyway, seems like you are talking to others, which is fine, you did expand on what I said.

Even the point about "why you should care" I addressed by referencing consequences.  The "why" is so you don't suffer.

As to why it exists at all, well, that's a different topic.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> When I say God, I simply mean a Creator of the entire universe.  Do you believe that an intelligent being created the universe?


I honestly don't know.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you had read Post 577 you would CLEARLY have had the answer to your question, yet you chose to create your straw man to attack instead.


You're being incredulous.  If you wanted me to understand you, you would have no problem repeating your beliefs for me, and yet here you are trying to tell me I've run out of time to understand and therefore I have no right to ask that you reason with me.  What a childish thing to do.

In any case, asking you a question is NOT a strawman argument as you so incorrigibly insist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah, I think I said they were objective.  I didn't say we each had our OWN moral law.
> 
> I don't see where we are in disagreement if your intent was to point that out.  Anyway, seems like you are talking to others, which is fine, you did expand on what I said.
> 
> Even the point about "why you should care" I addressed by referencing consequences.  The "why" is so you don't suffer.
> 
> As to why it exists at all, well, that's a different topic.


So you agree that they're objective is what you're telling me, correct?  (Or am I too late to understand, like I was with otherone)

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I honestly don't know.


That would be the intellectually honest position to take.  But most people when they say they don't know, they really mean they're assuming some null hypothesis that says God doesn't exist until we have proof.  But in reality, there is no null hypothesis.  Both beliefs require faith and both beliefs require just as much evidence in order to be "proven" if such a thing is possible.

So do you live your life as if there is a creator of the entire universe or do you live as if there is not one?

----------


## otherone

> You're being incredulous.  If you wanted me to understand you, you would have no problem repeating your beliefs for me, and yet here you are trying to tell me I've run out of time to understand and therefore I have no right to ask that you reason with me.  What a childish thing to do.
> 
> In any case, asking you a question is NOT a strawman argument as you so incorrigibly insist.


????  "Run out of time?  WTF? 
What are you talking about?
They were not MY beliefs; they're CRASHLAND'S.
You asked CRASHLAND in post 490 what he ALREADY addressed in post 477...GET IT?
But you not only asked him what his beliefs are after he already expressed them, you went and argued with what you ASSUMED his answer would be.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ????  "Run out of time?  WTF? 
> What are you talking about?
> They were not MY beliefs; they're CRASHLAND'S.
> You asked CRASHLAND in post 490 what he ALREADY addressed in post 477...GET IT?
> But you not only asked him what his beliefs are after he already expressed them, you went and argued with what you ASSUMED his answer would be.


Then why are you even responding to me?  I wasn't talking to you.  You did not specify that you were talking about Crashland's beliefs in your post.

And excuse me for anticipating a response, but I'm willing to be corrected if people would only tell me what their beliefs are.  That doesn't make it a straw man if I respond to an anticipated response.  If you or whoever is making the claim is not making that argument, then all you have to do is say so.  

Forgive me for not being perfect so that I need no further explanation than what you assume is an adequate answer for me to understand.  Is there something wrong with asking for clarification?

----------


## otherone

> Then why are you even responding to me?  I wasn't talking to you.  You did not specify that you were talking about Crashland's beliefs in your post.


...except that I quoted him.




> And excuse me for anticipating a response, but I'm willing to be corrected if people would only tell me what their beliefs are.


You're excused, but there's no reason to anticipate a response when you were told by him his beliefs the prior day.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You're saying there's evidence to support atheism?  What evidence is that?


No, I am not saying there is evidence to support atheism. There is the exact same lack of evidence on both sides of those positions, because both effectively posit statements that have an actual "truth value" in sentential logic.

I take an agnostic stand on the issue because I feel that it is the most intellectually honest - it answers the question by saying "I don't know." Both religious and atheist people answer the question with "I know the answer, and it is X." You can fill in the blank for X, but the structure of both arguments is the same.

Now, that said, there are many atheists who (correctly) place the burden of proof on the theist side of the argument, as they are the ones making a positive claim (i.e. God exists); but strictly speaking (in terms of formal logic), neither position has a settled truth value - which is why faith ~equal logic.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> God comes from the philosophical necessity for a beginning, not from someone's imagination.  If you can't provide an alternative way the universe could have begun without a beginner, then you can't say atheism is any easier to believe than theism.


"_God comes from the philosophical necessity of being_" is a statement I could agree with; however, I don't think it gets you where you want to be. God may, in fact, be a philosophical need in our current description of the universe. That, however, in no way makes him a logical, physical, metaphysical, spiritual, or in any other way, necessary being. It's only a necessary premise based on the circular argument we have created for ourselves, which parades as our description of the way the universe is and operates. It could very well be that there was _not_ a beginning to our universe, and it may well be without end - it is an unanswered question. Science currently can only "see" back about 14 billion years. Maybe we'll be able to detect exactly what caused it sometime soon...who knows.

It is simply our lack of understanding, lack of creativity, lack of perception, missing scientific instrumentation, or incomplete mathematical description that means _we don't know_ where (or how) the universe formed or came from. Yet.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Reason and logic are demonstrated, by their competent application, to lead men to derive valid and immutable principles ("law") of proper human relations.  *All that is required is acceptance of the Cardinal Postulate, "all men hold equal claims to life".*  Acceptance leads axiomatically and apodictically to everything we need in order to live among our fellows in proper consanguinity.  Rejection of the Postulate opens those who refuse it to a literally endless line of questions, the answers to which are demonstrably arbitrary and only serve to lead to more questions, thereby further demonstrating an absence of an irreducible invariant upon which all previous answers may confidently rest in the minds of men.


So I agree that science (or at least logical inquiry) can lead, demonstrably, to valid moral principles, but I don't accept that the cardinal postulate is a sufficient place to start. It is not basic enough, and it doesn't provide for cases where individuals can take actions that surrender their claim. I do accept, though that there are "irreducible invariants" upon which all answers may rest. Those would be the axioms of a moral system - in which, I think there would need to be more than one. I posted you a response to a similar post a while ago, but I'll re-post it here, because I think it's relevant to the discussion again.

In your post, you argued that the "*Cardinal Postulate is the only thing necessary upon which to construct a moral system.*"




> If we accept the Cardinal Postulate (CP), which states:
> 
> "All men hold equal claims to life"
> 
> then any time someone asks, "but what about <x>" for any contrived <x> such that something apparent exception is brought to the fore, one can be confident that the contrivance is almost certainly a fallacious issue, void of validity it any context, save that which the utterer falsely presumes as valid.


Here is my response:




> Osan, I love topics like this, and formal logic, proof, and reasoning applied to morality and ethics is a very large interest of mine - likely because I see a lot of invalid reasoning throughout many human relationships (politics, among other places), and I agree that the process of using algebra to determine right courses of action is a great way to arrive at fair and equitable ends (albeit a hypothetical one at our current stage) - which I think is one of the core underlying principles of the USA. I bolded the portions of your post I mean to respond to...
> 
> I agree that there are plenty out there that will ignore the logic of an argument or delve into some irrelevant tangent to push the argument in a direction of their choosing. Granting you that, it of course follows that even if someone has made a logically valid argument, it doesn't mean that the conclusion is true. People mistakenly attempt to reason their way out of valid arguments (which is of course impossible), while what they should be doing instead, is attacking the premises used to make the argument - which in the case of valid arguments is the only way to refute a valid conclusion - which you identify as attacking the "fallacious assumptions" used to make the argument.
> 
> I agree with your assertion that the most important thing is to identify the assumptions used to make an argument. In Mathematics (sorry, not sure of your background - nor am I speaking only to you...), these are called axioms, and are the "assumptions" which are used to build arguments, that in turn result in theorems, further conjecture, proof, theorem, etc. I prefer to think of them as "definitions," because they are such simple principles that they actually cannot be proven. Someone either accepts them as true and proceeds from them as if they were facts, or they choose a different truth, and proceed from it. In such cases totally different systems of Mathematics have been developed which are both equally valid yet arrive at different conclusions - the best known examples are Euclidean and Hyperbolic geometry.
> 
> I think a well-known issue (abortion) can serve as an example of what we're talking about. In the two sides of the argument, it is best to examine the language used to "frame" the issue. We have pro-life and we have pro-choice. Notice how there are two separate concepts which are used to frame the opposition in a certain light: in the case of pro-life, we have its opposite, anti-life, and in the case of pro-choice, we have its opposite, anti-choice. Now we have four separate concepts, yet we are only talking about two different things. Such is the way most of our political discourse proceeds in this country. And if you notice, the issue has settled into a stable orbit about the crux of the issue: what the definition of the unborn is...
> 
> Another recent example I like to discuss is the Net-Neutrality debate - which any debate inevitably revolves around four positions: 1 and 2: Corporations should or should not be allowed to control the speed of access to their networks based on the content of the user and; 3 and 4: The government should or should not be allowed to impose legal controls on the companies that provide access to the internet or implement a taxation-scheme on the same. Do a little surfing on the net if you haven't looked at the character of the debate out there. Neither side is really debating the other. In reality, both (or one in some cases) parties have set up straw men on the others' side and are attacking an argument the other isn't making - they frame the issue in a context which provides ammunition for the argument they want to make, and they utilize those (and only those) terms to make it - they will never speak using the same language. Two sides, four positions...a confusing and frustrating situation, no doubt.
> ...

----------


## Crashland

> You're being incredulous.  If you wanted me to understand you, you would have no problem repeating your beliefs for me, and yet here you are trying to tell me I've run out of time to understand and therefore I have no right to ask that you reason with me.  What a childish thing to do.
> 
> In any case, asking you a question is NOT a strawman argument as you so incorrigibly insist.


As otherone already pointed out, I direct you back to Post #577 where I already explained that I do not "believe in" any particular origin theory because I do not think there is sufficient evidence to accept any one of them as an accurate description of what really happened. I do not claim to know or even have any idea at all about the circumstances which might have caused the universe as we know it to begin.

----------


## Crashland

> That would be the intellectually honest position to take.  But most people when they say they don't know, they really mean they're assuming some null hypothesis that says God doesn't exist until we have proof.  But in reality, there is no null hypothesis.  Both beliefs require faith and both beliefs require just as much evidence in order to be "proven" if such a thing is possible.
> 
> So do you live your life as if there is a creator of the entire universe or do you live as if there is not one?


"Believing in a hypothesis that there is no God" is not the same thing as "not believing in a hypothesis that there is a God". This is one of the most common misconceptions I encounter when debating theists. Non-belief in X does not imply belief in not-X. For example, my uncle Bob lives 300 miles away. I don't know anything about his schedule for today. Right now there is no evidence to support the idea that uncle Bob is sitting down on a chair right now. I would have no reason to accept that claim. This does not mean that "I believe uncle Bob is not sitting down on a chair." That *does not follow*. There is no reason for me to believe that, either. It is the same thing with regard to whether a deity caused the universe or if the universe was not caused by a deity. I simply do not know.

As I have stated previously, if we are talking about a generic deistic "God" without any particular attributes assigned to it, then I really have no opinion about the existence or non-existence of such a thing. Specific gods though with specific attributes, such as omnipotence, benevolence, intelligent, cares about humans, writes to humans through scrolls, created the whole universe 6000 years ago...etc -- those are the gods I think are likely _not_ to exist due to the attributes of God conflicting with each other or conflicting with observation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ...except that I quoted him.
> 
> 
> 
> You're excused, but there's no reason to anticipate a response when you were told by him his beliefs the prior day.


Wow, okay.  How do you know you're not the one misrepresenting his views?  I'm sure Crashland can speak for himself so I don't need you to tell me whether something is a straw man or not.  It clearly wasn't just because of the simple fact that I asked him if this characterization was correct.  

There's absolutely nothing wrong with anticipating the direction I think he's going to go via deduction and then making a response to that.  I'm always open to the idea that the thing I was responding to was not his idea at all, but I decided to respond to it to answer a broader point that many people have, which is faith in the natural origins of the universe.

Now either come up with an original thought or let me and Crashland have our own discussion.  We don't need you to clarify things.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I am not saying there is evidence to support atheism. There is the exact same lack of evidence on both sides of those positions, because both effectively posit statements that have an actual "truth value" in sentential logic.
> 
> I take an agnostic stand on the issue because I feel that it is the most intellectually honest - it answers the question by saying "I don't know." Both religious and atheist people answer the question with "I know the answer, and it is X." You can fill in the blank for X, but the structure of both arguments is the same.
> 
> *Now, that said, there are many atheists who (correctly) place the burden of proof on the theist side of the argument,* as they are the ones making a positive claim (i.e. God exists); but strictly speaking (in terms of formal logic), neither position has a settled truth value - which is why faith ~equal logic.


No, that's wrong.  The burden of proof is on both sides equally because both beliefs require faith.  You can't require evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and assume the natural origins of the universe without evidence because neither of them have any empirical evidence whatsoever.

In fact, the very idea of empirical evidence assumes naturalism, which cannot be assumed to be the entire scope of available knowledge.  The "positive claim" or argument from the null hypothesis, is only valid within a framework where we have prior knowledge of a norm.  We have no "norm" when it comes to the origin of the universe.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "_God comes from the philosophical necessity of being_" is a statement I could agree with; however, I don't think it gets you where you want to be. God may, in fact, be a philosophical need in our current description of the universe. That, however, in no way makes him a logical, physical, metaphysical, spiritual, or in any other way, necessary being. It's only a necessary premise based on the circular argument we have created for ourselves, which parades as our description of the way the universe is and operates. It could very well be that there was _not_ a beginning to our universe, and it may well be without end - it is an unanswered question. Science currently can only "see" back about 14 billion years. Maybe we'll be able to detect exactly what caused it sometime soon...who knows.
> 
> It is simply our lack of understanding, lack of creativity, lack of perception, missing scientific instrumentation, or incomplete mathematical description that means _we don't know_ where (or how) the universe formed or came from. Yet.


Not sure if you realized you misquoted me there.  I said "beginning", not "being".

By the way, when you say "gets me where I want to be", you assume I have to go somewhere and you don't, as in I have to prove my case and you don't.  That is not a valid assumption when we're talking about something of which we have no knowledge.  You talk about the "necessity" of God, but I see just as little "necessity" for us to assume that the universe had natural origins.  Why would you assume the universe had natural origins?

The fact that you have to rely on "could be" answers to this question should prove this to you.  We're both coming to it with the same lack of evidence but you're saying we can assume naturalism when naturalism, by its own definition, cannot explain its own origins.  There had to be something supernatural like an eternal universe or, you know, a Creator, but you're saying it's more reasonable to accept your supernatural explanation without evidence.  That's just flat out wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> As otherone already pointed out, I direct you back to Post #577 where I already explained that I do not "believe in" any particular origin theory because I do not think there is sufficient evidence to accept any one of them as an accurate description of what really happened. I do not claim to know or even have any idea at all about the circumstances which might have caused the universe as we know it to begin.


And yet you live your life as if there is no Creator.  Why?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *No, that's wrong.  The burden of proof is on both sides equally* because both beliefs require faith.  You can't require evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and assume the natural origins of the universe without evidence because neither of them have any empirical evidence whatsoever.


Speaking very strictly, I think you are correct. Except the faith part...it's not faith, it's belief. If two parties are making alternative claims to certain knowledge, then there is a truth value associated with each of those claims.

A: There is a God.
B: There is no God.

You should note two things, however;

1. It is _impossible_ to prove a negative (claim B), so if your position is to believe something because the counter-argument to your claim is such that it _can never be proven_, then congratulations - you are on *VERY* solid ground. I suggest you take the counter-position to every "X does not exist argument," and you'll be right forever 

2. When someone in the scientific community makes a claim, it is the generally accepted position that it is then they, who must provide evidence and reason to demonstrate their case.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "Believing in a hypothesis that there is no God" is not the same thing as "not believing in a hypothesis that there is a God". This is one of the most common misconceptions I encounter when debating theists. Non-belief in X does not imply belief in not-X. For example, my uncle Bob lives 300 miles away. I don't know anything about his schedule for today. Right now there is no evidence to support the idea that uncle Bob is sitting down on a chair right now. I would have no reason to accept that claim. This does not mean that "I believe uncle Bob is not sitting down on a chair." That *does not follow*. There is no reason for me to believe that, either. It is the same thing with regard to whether a deity caused the universe or if the universe was not caused by a deity. I simply do not know.
> 
> As I have stated previously, if we are talking about a generic deistic "God" without any particular attributes assigned to it, then I really have no opinion about the existence or non-existence of such a thing. Specific gods though with specific attributes, such as omnipotence, benevolence, intelligent, c*ares about humans, writes to humans through scrolls, created the whole universe 6000 years ago...etc --* those are the gods I think are likely _not_ to exist due to the attributes of God conflicting with each other or conflicting with observation.


Let's examine your list there.  A core misunderstanding you are lumping in attributes that God must have in order to still be God with specific attributes of the specific _identity_ of that God.  In order for God to be a God capable of creating the universe we live in, He must be omnipotent, benevolent and intelligent.  Why, you ask?

It's simple.  If God created the universe, then it follows that He knows everything about it; that is, everything there is to know in the universe and possibly some things beyond it.  He has to be intelligent because without intelligence He's just another atheistic or naturalistic explanation for origins, which is essentially saying if God is real, then He is not God.  That is not an argument against God.  But like I said, there are two plausible explanations for the existence of the universe.  Either an intelligent being created it, or it was not created.  God has to have certain attributes in order to be God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Speaking very strictly, I think you are correct. Except the faith part...it's not faith, it's belief. If two parties are making alternative claims to certain knowledge, then there is a truth value associated with each of those claims.
> 
> A: There is a God.
> B: There is no God.
> 
> You should note two things, however;
> 
> 1. It is _impossible_ to prove a negative (claim B), so if your position is to believe something because the counter-argument to your claim is such that it _can never be proven_, then congratulations - you are on *VERY* solid ground. I suggest you take the counter-position to every "X does not exist argument," and you'll be right forever 
> 
> 2. When someone in the scientific community makes a claim, it is the generally accepted position that it is then they, who must provide evidence and reason to demonstrate their case.


What other grounds are we supposed to speak on besides strict grounds?  We're talking about logic here, not baseball.  I do appreciate your half-since concession, though, especially since you had previously claimed that the burden of proof was not on both sides equally and now you seem to be re-examining that key assumption.

Your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative applies to your side, too.  If you believe the universe had natural origins, then I can't prove you wrong, but it does not mean your belief in the natural origin of the universe is reasonable.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Not sure if you realized you misquoted me there.  I said "beginning", not "being".
> 
> By the way, when you say "gets me where I want to be", *you assume I have to go somewhere and you don't, as in I have to prove my case and you don't*.  That is not a valid assumption when we're talking about something of which we have no knowledge.  You talk about the "necessity" of God, but I see just as little "necessity" for us to assume that the universe had natural origins.  Why would you assume the universe had natural origins?
> 
> The fact that you have to rely on "could be" answers to this question should prove this to you.  We're both coming to it with the same lack of evidence but you're saying we can assume naturalism when naturalism, by its own definition, cannot explain its own origins.  There had to be something supernatural like an eternal universe or, you know, a Creator, but you're saying it's more reasonable to accept your supernatural explanation without evidence.  That's just flat out wrong.


Ooops, I didn't - my apologies...my response was to your argument of the necessity of a "beginning" however - I just mistyped.

I'm not saying I don't have anything to prove - I agree that both sides have something to prove. What I am saying is that you are further down the logic train than you think you are. You are presupposing the notion that there must be an origin at all...I am questioning if there does need to be an origin. I'm not yet to the question if it is of natural or supernatural origin. It's a subtle language thing. We (humans) think in terms of beginnings and ends, yet that is not a sufficient reason why that _metaphor_ gets to reign freely upon the physical reality of the universe.

You need to show that an "origin" is necessary before you can prove that it must be supernatural or natural; that is where your argument is.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *What other grounds are we supposed to speak on besides strict grounds?  We're talking about logic here, not baseball*.  
> 
> Your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative applies to your side, too.  If the universe had natural origins, then I can't prove you wrong, but it does not mean your belief in the natural origin of the universe is reasonable.


I qualified it because of my second point outlined above (i.e. that it is incumbent upon those making claims to demonstrate them), which is a generally accepted scientific principle. Your argument takes the form A OR B, where 'OR' is the logical 'or.' In science however, actual arguments don't _quite_ take that form as there are not _strictly_ two alternatives in any argument. So I said _strictly_ because in the case presented (A OR B), you were correct.

Look at it like this, I could say A: God is the flying spaghetti monster. Do you now have a responsibility to prove B: God is NOT the flying spaghetti monster? No, of course you don't. See what I'm talking about?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ooops, I didn't - my apologies...my response was to your argument of the necessity of a "beginning" however - I just mistyped.
> 
> I'm not saying I don't have anything to prove - I agree that both sides have something to prove. What I am saying is that you are further down the logic train than you think you are. You are presupposing the notion that there must be an origin at all...I am questioning if there does need to be an origin. I'm not yet to the question if it is of natural or supernatural origin. It's a subtle language thing. We (humans) think in terms of beginnings and ends, yet that is not a sufficient reason why that _metaphor_ gets to reign freely upon the physical reality of the universe.
> 
> You need to show that an "origin" is necessary before you can prove that it must be supernatural or natural; that is where your argument is.


If you believe there was no origin, then you are still accepting something supernatural, namely, an infinite regression of causes.  It is illogical to say that the first cause was forever ago because that would mean we never got to where we are now.  It's completely illogical.  The universe cannot have existed forever because forever ago is an inherently invalid concept because there would be no way to get to where we are now.  Since we are here, though, at this point in space and time, we can ascertain that we had a beginning.

Furthermore, and not least, is the fact that you STILL have to suspend natural laws to believe that the supposedly infinitely existing universe, as a closed system could overcome the laws of thermodynamics to create ordered systems, not to mention the laws of physics since there would have to be a certain point in the vast expanse of infinity that the universe initiated the big bang sequence of events that led to our arrival.  Something clearly had to change in order for us to be here now because we clearly didn't exist before.

Unless, of course, you are going to take the illogical position that things have been changing forever and it simply took us forever to get to this point, which, like I said, is an inherently invalid concept.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I qualified it because of my second point outlined above (i.e. that it is incumbent upon those making claims to demonstrate them), which is a generally accepted scientific principle. Your argument takes the form A OR B, where 'OR' is the logical 'or.' In science however, actual arguments don't _quite_ take that form as there are not _strictly_ two alternatives in any argument. So I said _strictly_ because in the case presented (A OR B), you were correct.
> 
> Look at it like this, I could say A: God is the flying spaghetti monster. Do you now have a responsibility to prove B: God is NOT the flying spaghetti monster? No, of course you don't. See what I'm talking about?


That's not what we're talking about.  You're trying to act like I'm making specific claims about God's identity, when I'm really just using a valid definition of what God must be in order to be God.  

We are both making claims here.  I am claiming that the existence of the universe can be explained with God and you are claiming the universe's existence can be explained by natural processes.  Both of those have a positive and a negative claim.  I can just as easily use your same argument against you and say you have to prove your positive claim that the existence of the universe can be explained with natural processes.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> If you believe there was no origin, then you are still accepting something supernatural, namely, an infinite regression of causes.  It is illogical to say that the first cause was forever ago because that would mean we never got to where we are now.  It's completely illogical.  The universe cannot have existed forever because forever ago is an inherently invalid concept because there would be no way to get to where we are now.  Since we are here, though, at this point in space and time, we can ascertain that we had a beginning.


An infinite regression of causes is supernatural? Why? We can add an infinite amount of numbers and get a finite sum - nothing supernatural there. At one point in our understanding that notion created all kinds of paradoxical situations, but they were all based on different _formulations_ of the problem. Once we "shed" some of our old assumptions and misconceptions, we were able to progress past our incomplete metaphors and arrive at a higher understanding.

In this description, I'm suggesting that the very notion of a beginning is _inherent_ in the concept of time. What if there was a time when time had no meaning? Or what if there is a plane of consciousness where time is understood differently, and it resolves your attachment with beginning and end? We can _not_ necessarily ascertain that there was a beginning - at least in the sense that we currently comprehend it. Nor could we say that there was "nothing" before any presupposed beginning. Words are breaking down because the definitions are bleeding, but I hope I'm making my point clear.

----------


## Crashland

> Let's examine your list there.  A core misunderstanding you are lumping in attributes that God must have in order to still be God with specific attributes of the specific _identity_ of that God.  In order for God to be a God capable of creating the universe we live in, He must be omnipotent, benevolent and intelligent.  Why, you ask?
> 
> It's simple.  If God created the universe, then it follows that He knows everything about it; that is, everything there is to know in the universe and possibly some things beyond it.  He has to be intelligent because without intelligence He's just another atheistic or naturalistic explanation for origins, which is essentially saying if God is real, then He is not God.  That is not an argument against God.  But like I said, there are two plausible explanations for the existence of the universe.  Either an intelligent being created it, or it was not created.  God has to have certain attributes in order to be God.


I would agree that at least some degree of intelligence (or consciousness) in inherent in the word "deity", but not necessarily _perfect_ intelligence. Some degree of power would be necessary in order for a deity to bring about the universe, but not necessarily _total_ power and total control over that universe. There are plenty of gods in other religions who are not always particularly intelligent, are not all-powerful, are not benevolent all the time, and did not choose to communicate with humans the way the Christian God does. There could also be multiple gods. When I consider the possibility that a deity (or deities) brought the universe as we know it into existence, there are really only two attributes I see as being required in order for me to consider it a "god" -- (1) it would have to be a "being" (as in, a living thing or consciousness), and (2) it must have had enough capability or power to bring the universe as we know it into existence. Other than that, all other attributes are things that can differ wildly from one person/religion's view of god to another. It is not even required that the deity is immortal, it could have died a long time ago, or it could have gone somewhere else, created other universes and we are just living in some kind of abandoned lego set project.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> That's not what we're talking about.  You're trying to act like I'm making specific claims about God's identity, when I'm really just using a valid definition of what God must be in order to be God.  
> 
> We are both making claims here.  I am claiming that the existence of the universe can be explained with God and you are claiming the universe's existence can be explained by natural processes.  Both of those have a positive and a negative claim.  I can just as easily use your same argument against you and say you have to prove your positive claim that the existence of the universe can be explained with natural processes.


Ok fine, we can change the subject and avoid the question. I hope you got my point though - I wasn't trying to imply that you said God had a certain identity. I was showing how in a set of two mutually exclusive events which cover the entire universe of potentialities, one of them must be true. That's the point from above.

Yes, you have claim A above and I have claim B above - your statement that both those claims have opposite propositions is also true. They are ~A and ~B. In this case, however, the argument you are outlining doesn't take the form I outlined above which was "A OR B" because those are not "mutually exclusive opposing claims." Said another way, it is not the case that B = ~A OR that A = ~B. There could be a God (A), and the universe could be explained by natural processes (B). Right? Do you intend to claim that if it were somehow shown that the universe can be explained with God (A), that makes it _impossible_ to explain the universe by natural processes (~B)? That at some level of reality, it will become impossible to capture what is occurring via some natural law (~B)?

Science demonstrating that the universe can be explained by natural processes or natural laws (B) also does not demonstrate that the universe cannot be explained by God (~A). The claims are not opposing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> An infinite regression of causes is supernatural? Why? We can add an infinite amount of numbers and get a finite sum - nothing supernatural there. At one point in our understanding that notion created all kinds of paradoxical situations, but they were all based on different _formulations_ of the problem. Once we "shed" some of our old assumptions and misconceptions, we were able to progress past our incomplete metaphors and arrive at a higher understanding.


It is a common philosophical axiom that has been determined to be logically valid.  You cannot explain how we got to now by saying something caused something which caused something which caused something else, back into infinity.  There had to be an original cause that started the whole thing going or else you can never get to where we are now because it would take infinity to get here, which would mean that we never got here and, therefore, we don't exist.  




> In this description, I'm suggesting that the very notion of a beginning is _inherent_ in the concept of time. What if there was a time when time had no meaning? Or what if there is a plane of consciousness where time is understood differently, and it resolves your attachment with beginning and end? We can _not_ necessarily ascertain that there was a beginning - at least in the sense that we currently comprehend it. Nor could we say that there was "nothing" before any presupposed beginning. Words are breaking down because the definitions are bleeding, but I hope I'm making my point clear.


If there was a time when time had no meaning, then you still have to explain how it came to be that time suddenly inherited meaning.  What was it that gave time meaning?  I'm positing that this can be adequately explained by a benevolent Creator outside of the constraints of time, but you're claiming it came to have meaning via natural processes.  Both claims hold equal weight before we examine the evidence.  You cannot say that we must explain this with natural processes before we accept a supernatural explanation because natural processes cannot explain there own origins.

The fact that your position takes faith should be obvious to you since you have to use all of these "what if" scenarios to explain why you believe it and yet you feel comfortable claiming that your position is more valid than mine even though there is just as little empirical evidence for yours as there is for mine.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would agree that at least some degree of intelligence (or consciousness) in inherent in the word "deity", but not necessarily _perfect_ intelligence. Some degree of power would be necessary in order for a deity to bring about the universe, but not necessarily _total_ power and total control over that universe. There are plenty of gods in other religions who are not always particularly intelligent, are not all-powerful, are not benevolent all the time, and did not choose to communicate with humans the way the Christian God does. There could also be multiple gods. When I consider the possibility that a deity (or deities) brought the universe as we know it into existence, there are really only two attributes I see as being required in order for me to consider it a "god" -- (1) it would have to be a "being" (as in, a living thing or consciousness), and (2) it must have had enough capability or power to bring the universe as we know it into existence. Other than that, all other attributes are things that can differ wildly from one person/religion's view of god to another. It is not even required that the deity is immortal, it could have died a long time ago, or it could have gone somewhere else, created other universes and we are just living in some kind of abandoned lego set project.


God's intelligence must be perfect because the idea that He was wrong about something would imply that there was some other standard for rightness above Him, which would then become the God I am referring to instead of the imperfect one.  Every time you claim that there is something above God, that thing then becomes God, or at least a part of God's nature.  You can't escape the idea of God by referring to something more godly than God.

It's the same with power.  God MUST be all-powerful in order to create the universe or else He is not God.  If God created the universe, then He must at least be powerful enough to have control over every single facet of existence in the universe, which is the same as saying He is all-powerful.

And no, there could not be multiple Gods because then God would not be all-powerful or all-knowing.  In any case, your idea that the totality of knowledge and power possessed by these multiple gods must be split up into different entities that you refer to as deities has no basis.  Why not simply refer to those multiple gods as the source of all knowledge and power, or God, singular?

The reason gods in other religion don't seem to be all-powerful is because they are made-up.  If we are going to assume God is real, though, we cannot say He is a made-up reflection of imperfect human thoughts.  If you are going to assume that He exists, then He must be perfect because He is the entire basis for all existence, meaning He is the highest standard for perfection that you can refer to.

When you say things like "God could have gone some*where* else", you are also assuming that He is limited by the constraints of space, which is completely illogical since He has to be outside of space in order to create it.  He cannot be limited or defined by space and simultaneously be the basis for the existence of space, just like He cannot be limited by time (death) and simultaneously be responsible for the creation of time.  Everything you are saying is just so completely illogical I don't even understand how you can possibly believe them, but I do have to admire your faith.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> It is a common *philosophical axiom that has been determined to be logically valid*.  You cannot explain how we got to now by saying something caused something which caused something which caused something else, back into infinity.  There had to be an original cause that started the whole thing going or else you can never get to where we are now because it would take infinity to get here, which would mean that we never got here and, therefore, we don't exist.


That is fine to take as axiomatic - if that's your position, then fine, just realize not everyone in the world accepts that claim. Some of us think that there are other valid assumptions which can be made about the universe.

And no, there doesn't have to be a first cause because it would take "infinity to get here." Read about Zeno's paradox for an example of an argument that uses infinity to reach invalid conclusions - like yours.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok fine, we can change the subject and *avoid the question.* I hope you got my point though - I wasn't trying to imply that you said God had a certain identity. I was showing how in a set of two mutually exclusive events which cover the entire universe of potentialities, one of them must be true. That's the point from above.


What question are we avoiding?  




> Yes, you have claim A above and I have claim B above - your statement that both those claims have opposite propositions is also true. They are ~A and ~B. In this case, however, the argument you are outlining doesn't take the form I outlined above which was "A OR B" because those are not "mutually exclusive opposing claims." Said another way, it is not the case that B = ~A OR that A = ~B. There could be a God (A), and the universe could be explained by natural processes (B). Right? Do you intend to claim that if it were somehow shown that the universe can be explained with God (A), that makes it _impossible_ to explain the universe by natural processes (~B)? That at some level of reality, it will become impossible to capture what is occurring via some natural law (~B)?
> 
> Science demonstrating that the universe can be explained by natural processes or natural laws (B) also does not demonstrate that the universe cannot be explained by God (~A). The claims are not opposing.


That's my entire point.  You cannot require evidence for the existence of God and simultaneously assume natural processes with no evidence.

I never made the claim that the possibility of God explaining the existence of the universe would eliminate the possibility of natural processes explaining it, so I don't even know where you're going with that.  My whole point is that you cannot assume that natural processes are responsible for the universe's existence because we have no empirical, natural evidence for either ontological claim.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That is fine to take as axiomatic - if that's your position, then fine, just realize not everyone in the world accepts that claim. Some of us think that there are other valid assumptions which can be made about the universe.


It's not just an axiom.  It's logically valid.  Not all axioms are logically valid, but that one is.  Everything I said is logically true and the people who disagree with it are wrong.




> And no, there doesn't have to be a first cause because it would take "infinity to get here." Read about Zeno's paradox for an example of an argument that uses infinity to reach invalid conclusions - like yours.


Why don't you sum it up for me?  Why do you believe there doesn't have to be a first cause?

----------


## Crashland

> God's intelligence must be perfect because the idea that He was wrong about something would imply that there was some other standard for rightness above Him, which would then become the God I am referring to instead of the imperfect one.  Every time you claim that there is something above God, that thing then becomes God, or at least a part of God's nature.  You can't escape the idea of God by referring to something more godly than God.
> 
> It's the same with power.  God MUST be all-powerful in order to create the universe or else He is not God.  If God created the universe, then He must at least be powerful enough to have control over every single facet of existence in the universe, which is the same as saying He is all-powerful.


Again, in order to create  the universe, god would only need to be intelligent *enough* and powerful  *enough* to perform that act. Why does this require ultimate power over every facet? I don't agree with the implication you are making that any being which has X intelligence or Y power necessitates the existence of another being which has X+1 intelligence and Y+1 power, up to infinity. It's funny though I have the exact opposite view. I think a being with X intelligence necessitates another being with X-1 intelligence, all the way down to zero or until it can no longer be considered an intelligent being.




> When you say things like "God could have gone some*where* else", you are also assuming that He is limited by the constraints of space, which is completely illogical since He has to be outside of space in order to create it.  He cannot be limited or defined by space and simultaneously be the basis for the existence of space, just like He cannot be limited by time (death) and simultaneously be responsible for the creation of time.  Everything you are saying is just so completely illogical I don't even understand how you can possibly believe them, but I do have to admire your faith.


I didn't mean somewhere else as in a physical place in our universe, I meant somewhere else as in some other universe, or heaven, or really anywhere except for this universe.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *It's not just an axiom.  It's logically valid.  Not all axioms are logically valid, but that one is.*  Everything I said is logically true and the people who disagree with it are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *Why don't you sum it up for me?*  Why do you believe there doesn't have to be a first cause?


You are simply not correct. Do a favor to argument, and read up on what an axiom is. In short, it is a statement that is defined as true, and is _expressly_ without proof. It is not possible to "prove" axiomatic statements. Axioms are statements; Logic is the set of legal operations conducted on those statements.

I did. Please see post #606. Our attachment to "beginnings" comes from how we metaphorically interpret our own human experience. Then, please rectify your statement that an infinite regression of causes must have a first cause, in light of Zeno's Paradox.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Again, in order to create  the universe, god would only need to be intelligent *enough* and powerful  *enough* to perform that act. Why does this require ultimate power over every facet? I don't agree with the implication you are making that any being which has X intelligence or Y power necessitates the existence of another being which has X+1 intelligence and Y+1 power, up to infinity. It's funny though I have the exact opposite view. I think a being with X intelligence necessitates another being with X-1 intelligence, all the way down to zero or until it can no longer be considered an intelligent being.


All you're doing is delaying the inevitable conclusion that there is an all-powerful being by saying there is something beyond God that is more powerful.  That, then, by default, would become the real God instead of the less-powerful deity you're referring to.  If God exists, then He is all-powerful because He is the entire basis for existence, meaning there is nothing beyond Him that can create challenges that He cannot overcome.  He cannot make a square circle or make a rock so big He can't lift it because logic is a part of His nature, not because logic is above Him.  If logic is above Him, then that would imply that there is a mind more perfect than God's to possess that logic, which would then become God.  God, by definition, must be all-powerful because He is the entire basis for existence and there is nothing that exists beyond Him that He does not have control over.  When you say God doesn't have to be perfect, all you are doing is referring to another, more perfect standard which would then become the standard of the real God.




> I didn't mean somewhere else as in a physical place in our universe, I meant somewhere else as in some other universe, or heaven, or really anywhere except for this universe.


What makes you think the universe and heaven can be separated?  Why do you think of them in terms of location?  If God is not limited by space, then such concepts as "somewhere else" make no sense.  There is no "somewhere else."  He is already omnipresent.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are simply not correct. Do a favor to argument, and read up on what an axiom is. In short, it is a statement that is defined as true, and is _expressly_ without proof. It is not possible to "prove" axiomatic statements. Axioms are statements; Logic is the set of legal operations conducted on those statements.


People can claim to have axioms that are not valid or do not have to be accepted, but that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying it's both an axiom AND logically valid and, therefore, it has to be accepted because it is true.  It's axiomatic because it is my starting point for knowledge, but it is also logically verifiable.  




> I did. Please see post #606. Our attachment to "beginnings" comes from how we metaphorically interpret our own human experience. Then, please rectify your statement that an infinite regression of causes must have a first cause, in light of Zeno's Paradox.


Please don't make me start jumping around and searching for what you're talking about in your past posts.  If you have an argument to make, then make it here.  I'm asking you to explain why you believe that there doesn't have to be an un-caused cause.  Please tell me in your own words in a way that makes sense.  I'm not going to go read about Zeno's Paradox.  I want you to explain it to me right now so that I can speak directly to you instead of to some other thing that you're referring to.

Besides, your non-answer to the Zeno's Paradox problem still doesn't help your case since you still have to suspend the laws of physics and thermodynamics to believe that this all evolved within the closed system of the universe.  If you want to believe in an infinite regression of causes, you're free to do so, but realize that you do so on the basis of faith, not science.

----------


## Crashland

> All you're doing is delaying the inevitable conclusion that there is an all-powerful being by saying there is something beyond God that is more powerful.  That, then, by default, would become the real God instead of the less-powerful deity you're referring to.  If God exists, then He is all-powerful because He is the entire basis for existence, meaning there is nothing beyond Him that can create challenges that He cannot overcome.  He cannot make a square circle or make a rock so big He can't lift it because logic is a part of His nature, not because logic is above Him.  If logic is above Him, then that would imply that there is a mind more perfect than God's to possess that logic, which would then become God.  God, by definition, must be all-powerful because He is the entire basis for existence and there is nothing that exists beyond Him that He does not have control over.  When you say God doesn't have to be perfect, all you are doing is referring to another, more perfect standard which would then become the standard of the real God.


No, what is happening is you are describing a concept of perfection. You are arbitrarily defining A, and then saying that A=A. The argument is that a perfect being would necessarily have to be perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. This is equivalent to claiming that a highest number would necessarily have to be the highest number, because otherwise it wouldn't be the highest, and so on. This is a lovely demonstration of a concept, but there is nothing to substantiate the claim that your definition actually reflects something real, that there is a highest number in the first place, or that there is such a thing as a perfect being in the first place. I am only responding to the start of the universe as we know it, and I don't see how that necessitates your concept of perfection being a real thing.





> What makes you think the universe and heaven can be separated?  Why do you think of them in terms of location?  If God is not limited by space, then such concepts as "somewhere else" make no sense.  There is no "somewhere else."  He is already omnipresent.


I mean it in the *exact* same sense that you mean it when you say that God is "outside" space and time. Why does it only make sense when you refer to it but not when I refer to it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, what is happening is you are describing a concept of perfection. You are arbitrarily defining A, and then saying that A=A. The argument is that a perfect being would necessarily have to be perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. This is equivalent to claiming that a highest number would necessarily have to be the highest number, because otherwise it wouldn't be the highest, and so on. This is a lovely demonstration of a concept, but there is nothing to substantiate the claim that your definition actually reflects something real, that there is a highest number in the first place, or that there is such a thing as a perfect being in the first place. I am only responding to the start of the universe as we know it, and I don't see how that necessitates your concept of perfection being a real thing.


Ugh!  We are *assuming* God is real.  I am not using this demonstration of a concept to prove that God is real because we are assuming it, remember?  That's why I say *if* God is real, then He is a, b, c, and so on.  You have to have a solid definition of God before you can argue against His existence and all you are doing is messing with the definition so that you don't have to argue against it.  God must have these attributes in order to be God.  That doesn't prove that God is real, but it does provide a definition of God so you can't just change the definition and say, *if* God exists, then he is not a, b, and c because then you are not arguing against God, but some naturalistic concept.  




> I mean it in the *exact* same sense that you mean it when you say that God is "outside" space and time. Why does it only make sense when you refer to it but not when I refer to it?


If you're referring to it in the same sense I am, then that's fine, but I'm not really sure you are.  You seem to be suggesting that God can "go" somewhere even though He is already everywhere.  God is outside of it in the sense He is not beholden to it, but He is not outside of it in the sense that He is apart from it.  He is greater than it, above it, but not apart from it.

----------


## Crashland

> Ugh!  We are *assuming* God is real.  I am not using this demonstration of a concept to prove that God is real because we are assuming it, remember?  That's why I say *if* God is real, then He is a, b, c, and so on.  You have to have a solid definition of God before you can argue against His existence and all you are doing is messing with the definition so that you don't have to argue against it.  God must have these attributes in order to be God.  That doesn't prove that God is real, but it does provide a definition of God so you can't just change the definition and say, *if* God exists, then he is not a, b, and c because then you are not arguing against God, but some naturalistic concept.
> 
> If you're referring to it in the same sense I am, then that's fine, but I'm not really sure you are.  You seem to be suggesting that God can "go" somewhere even though He is already everywhere.  God is outside of it in the sense He is not beholden to it, but He is not outside of it in the sense that He is apart from it.  He is greater than it, above it, but not apart from it.


That is fine if that is what we are assuming, but "a perfect God must be  perfect" is not a meaningful statement. I do not think your definition  of "God" necessarily follows from "deity which caused the universe as we  know it to exist." A living being which is "above/outside" our universe does not imply perfection or full knowledge. If the universe is a work of art by this deity, then maybe it is some piece of modern art where he made splatterings on a page without knowing or caring where all of the pieces landed. Maybe universes are born whenever this deity farts in his above-our-universe dimension. I don't know, I have no idea whatsoever. But I don't think that a deity like this could be considered a "naturalistic concept". Your omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God is not the only possibility when considering the nature of a supernatural deity that could have brought about the universe.

When I consider the entire range of possible deities that could have been behind the origin of the universe, then I don't argue against it because I have nothing to go on. I only argue against specific claims about that deity when they are self-contradictory or when they conflict with observation.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That would be the intellectually honest position to take.  But most people when they say they don't know, they really mean they're assuming some null hypothesis that says God doesn't exist until we have proof.  But in reality, there is no null hypothesis.  Both beliefs require faith and both beliefs require just as much evidence in order to be "proven" if such a thing is possible.
> 
> So do you live your life as if there is a creator of the entire universe or do you live as if there is not one?


I've thought about this question, and I'm not sure if the way the universe was created should affect how I live my life.  It's here, and I'm here in it, and I just have to deal with it and make the best I can of the situation.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> People can claim to have axioms that are not valid or do not have to be accepted, but that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying it's both an axiom AND *logically valid and, therefore, it has to be accepted because it is true*.  It's axiomatic because it is my starting point for knowledge, but it is also logically verifiable.


You're making my head hurt, but I will try...

An example of an axiom is a + b = b + a. That equation establishes the _commutative_ property of numbers. I know it _seems_ as if it can be logically verified, but I assure you, it only _seems_ that way because it is so "evident" in our everyday experience that no one would ever even think to question it, let alone claim anything different.

That said, there are systems in which the _commutative_ property does not hold - you would say that "it's not true." On the contrary, however, such systems do exist, and are 100% as valid and _true_ as any other. One such familiar operation is matrix multiplication - usually it is _non-commutative_ - i.e. A*B != B*A. Attempting to format an example for you in this text editor is going to be a bridge too far, though, so you'll either have to take my word for it, or do your own research.




> Please don't make me start jumping around and searching for what you're talking about in your past posts.  If you have an argument to make, then make it here.  I'm asking you to explain why you believe that there doesn't have to be an un-caused cause.  Please tell me in your own words in a way that makes sense.  I'm not going to go read about Zeno's Paradox.  I want you to explain it to me right now so that I can speak directly to you instead of to some other thing that you're referring to.


Hit post #606 if you still care. I'm literally not going to re-answer a question I already answered because you just skimmed a post or didn't read it closely enough to ask a pointed question, but I will explain Zeno's paradox and how it relates to your assumption that because something depends on an _infinite_ regression of causes, it is therefore invalid:

Zeno argued that in order to get anywhere (lets say from 0 to A...), you need to first cover 1/2 the distance to get there (1/2 A, makes sense). Zeno then argued that in order to get _there_ you have to cover 1/2 the remaining distance yet again, now you're only 3/4 of the way (1/2 A + 1/4 A, makes sense). Zeno takes another step, and says to get _there_, first you have to cover 1/2 the remaining distance, now you're 7/8 of the way (1/2 A + 1/4 A + 1/8A - makes sense). Zeno says that you can carry out this argument adding term after term after term, and never get to A. He concludes that it is impossible to get to your destination. Yet, from common experience, we know that we actually _can_ get places, so he was left befuddled because he couldn't see where _his reasoning_ had somehow fallen apart...hmmm...I'll save the punch line for your own research.

You are in the same boat with your claim that an "infinite regression" of causes is somehow a logical impossibility. It isn't.




> Besides, your non-answer to the Zeno's Paradox problem still doesn't help your case since you still have to suspend the laws of physics and thermodynamics to believe that this all evolved within the closed system of the universe.  If you *want to believe in an infinite regression of causes*, you're free to do so, but realize that you do so on the basis of faith, not science.


Thank you, but faith isn't necessary, and I don't believe in an infinite regression of causes as somehow "creating" the universe. My actual position is that we haven't the faintest idea yet where it came from or how it "sprung" into existence. That's a little tongue in cheek for you there...It's interesting to note how difficult it is to even _talk_ about the universe without referring to a "beginning." Stated again though, this is a limitation of our linguistic and descriptive system in collusion with how we interpret the world; it makes no imposition on how the universe actually must behave.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That is fine if that is what we are assuming, but "a perfect God must be  perfect" is not a meaningful statement. I do not think your definition  of "God" necessarily follows from "deity which caused the universe as we  know it to exist." A living being which is "above/outside" our universe does not imply perfection or full knowledge. If the universe is a work of art by this deity, then maybe it is some piece of modern art where he made splatterings on a page without knowing or caring where all of the pieces landed. Maybe universes are born whenever this deity farts in his above-our-universe dimension. I don't know, I have no idea whatsoever. But I don't think that a deity like this could be considered a "naturalistic concept". Your omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God is not the only possibility when considering the nature of a supernatural deity that could have brought about the universe.
> 
> When I consider the entire range of possible deities that could have been behind the origin of the universe, then I don't argue against it because I have nothing to go on. I only argue against specific claims about that deity when they are self-contradictory or when they conflict with observation.


I am saying God must be perfect if He is the Creator of the universe because that would mean there is nothing greater than Him.  You could theoretically say that God created the universe but there is something greater than God, but then you would just be delaying getting to the real God.  If there is something greater than God or outside of God that is not beholden to God, then whatever possesses that which is greater than God then becomes God.  You can say the thing that is greater than God is not intelligent, but then you're just making the same argument that you were before on a different level, to which I have responded.

All you're doing is darting to and fro and playing hard to catch so that you can slip deftly from one concept to another without specifying what you're talking about and trying to act like that's a rational argument.  It's not rational, it's just avoiding the issue.

If you want to argue against limited deities, then you're not arguing against God.  You're arguing against something else that I'm not arguing for.  In essence, it's a straw man.

----------


## otherone

> Stated again though, this is a limitation of our linguistic and descriptive system in collusion with how we interpret the world; it makes no imposition on how the universe actually must behave.


BINGO.
All of human knowledge and understanding; like living in a cardboard box and pretending to understand the world outside.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I've thought about this question, and I'm not sure if the way the universe was created should affect how I live my life.  It's here, and I'm here in it, and I just have to deal with it and make the best I can of the situation.


Every human being in existence has to deal with the questions, "Who am I?  Why am I here? and where am I going when I die?"  

Would you say the answers to these questions are important?

----------


## Crashland

> I am saying God must be perfect if He is the Creator of the universe because that would mean there is nothing greater than Him.  You could theoretically say that God created the universe but there is something greater than God


No, I am theoretically saying that a non-perfect deity could have brought about the universe, period. There is no reason to assume that there must be something even greater than it.




> If you want to bring up limited deities, then you're not arguing against God.  You're arguing against something else that I'm not arguing for.  In essence, it's a straw man.


I am bringing up the wide range of possible deities because that is precisely what I am *not* arguing against. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. I don't argue against the idea that a deity could have brought about the universe, because I do not know anything about this possible deity and thus there is nothing that can be contradicted. I do, however, argue against deities like the Christian deity, the one you are referring to as "God."

----------


## VIDEODROME

> No, I am theoretically saying that a non-perfect deity could have brought about the universe, period. There is no reason to assume that there must be something even greater than it.


Yep.  

Look at the 3D worlds that can be created on Desktop computers or the particle physics that can be done in Super-Computers.  Would an AI living in such a world think we're super-beings because we created it's 'Universe' even though it does not take God-like power to create these worlds?  

With what your suggesting, could the whole Universe actually not need that much power to be created?  It just appears that way from our point of view inside it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're making my head hurt, but I will try...
> 
> An example of an axiom is a + b = b + a. That equation establishes the _commutative_ property of numbers. I know it _seems_ as if it can be logically verified, but I assure you, it only _seems_ that way because it is so "evident" in our everyday experience that no one would ever even think to question it, let alone claim anything different.
> 
> That said, there are systems in which the _commutative_ property does not hold - you would say that "it's not true." On the contrary, however, such systems do exist, and are 100% as valid and _true_ as any other. One such familiar operation is matrix multiplication - usually it is _non-commutative_ - i.e. A*B != B*A. Attempting to format an example for you in this text editor is going to be a bridge too far, though, so you'll either have to take my word for it, or do your own research.


Why are you making it so complicated?  What does this have to do with the existence of God?  All I'm saying is that you cannot assume a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe.  




> Hit post #606 if you still care. I'm literally not going to re-answer a question I already answered because you just skimmed a post or didn't read it closely enough to ask a pointed question, but I will explain Zeno's paradox and how it relates to your assumption that because something depends on an _infinite_ regression of causes, it is therefore invalid:


I re-answer things all of the freaking time!  What makes you above explaining your thoughts in more detail?  What makes you think what you said before is going to help me understand?  If the goal of debate is understanding, then it doesn't help to make me jump back to what you said before because we've already advanced beyond that in the search for understanding.  I am testing your ideas, so you can't just insist that I keep responding to your same old points because that does not advance the discussion; it stagnates it.  

]quote]Zeno argued that in order to get anywhere (lets say from 0 to A...), you need to first cover 1/2 the distance to get there (1/2 A, makes sense). Zeno then argued that in order to get _there_ you have to cover 1/2 the remaining distance yet again, now you're only 3/4 of the way (1/2 A + 1/4 A, makes sense). Zeno takes another step, and says to get _there_, first you have to cover 1/2 the remaining distance, now you're 7/8 of the way (1/2 A + 1/4 A + 1/8A - makes sense). Zeno says that you can carry out this argument adding term after term after term, and never get to A. He concludes that it is impossible to get to your destination. Yet, from common experience, we know that we actually _can_ get places, so he was left befuddled because he couldn't see where _his reasoning_ had somehow fallen apart...hmmm...I'll save the punch line for your own research.[/quote]

The problem is that you're talking about fractions, which presuppose a beginning and an end.  If we're talking about eternity, then fractions are meaningless and you can never even get half of the way to anywhere or all the way to anywhere because the entire concept is invalid.




> You are in the same boat with your claim that an "infinite regression" of causes is somehow a logical impossibility. It isn't.


No.  As I just discussed, the problem you're proposing presupposes a beginning and an end.  If there is no beginning, then the concept of advancing any fraction of the way is meaningless because every fraction takes forever to get to.




> Thank you, but faith isn't necessary, and I don't believe in an infinite regression of causes as somehow "creating" the universe. My actual position is that we haven't the faintest idea yet where it came from or how it "sprung" into existence. That's a little tongue in cheek for you there...It's interesting to note how difficult it is to even _talk_ about the universe without referring to a "beginning." Stated again though, this is a limitation of our linguistic and descriptive system in collusion with how we interpret the world; it makes no imposition on how the universe actually must behave.


If you want to believe in something infinite, which you have no way of observing, then yes, it does require faith.  If you want to believe that it is not necessary to invoke something supernatural, you can't prove that, so you have to have faith.  The fact that we see beginnings and ends in our universe is actually evidence that beginnings and endings are normal.  It doesn't prove that there is nothing beyond the universe that is without beginning or end, but it does provide strong evidence that this universe cannot be eternal because beginnings and endings are all we experience.  

If you want to believe in something beyond the universe that is not God and is not intelligent, then you're welcome to believe that, but it's faith to believe that.  If you have not the faintest idea, then it makes no sense to assume that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Every human being in existence has to deal with the questions, "Who am I?  Why am I here? and where am I going when I die?"  
> 
> Would you say the answers to these questions are important?


I think their as important as each individual wants them to be.  To me some of this kind of thing is satisfied by saying, "Okay I'm here, what do I do about it?".  This is a more easily answered question since I can deal with the world and take part it in.  Maybe even contribute and enjoy myself while I'm here.  

The question of the afterlife will obviously answer itself someday.  It's fun to speculate on it, but I don't necessarily need to spend my time worrying about it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I am theoretically saying that a non-perfect deity could have brought about the universe, period. There is no reason to assume that there must be something even greater than it.


If God created the universe, then it follows that everything in the universe is based on His very existence.  There is no existence without Him.  To claim that He is not perfect is to claim that there exists a standard beyond God that He can be measured by.  However, if God created the entire universe, then that means He is the entire basis for existence, then He must be perfect because nothing would exist without Him.  If nothing would exist without Him, then what standard can you hold over His head to compare Him to?  Are you going to say He is not as good as things in existence when He is the only reason things exist in the first place?  If you want to argue against some imperfect deity, then go right ahead, but that's not what I mean when I say God, and that's not the God I'm defending.  




> I am bringing up the wide range of possible deities because that is precisely what I am *not* arguing against. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. I don't argue against the idea that a deity could have brought about the universe, because I do not know anything about this possible deity and thus there is nothing that can be contradicted. I do, however, argue against deities like the Christian deity, the one you are referring to as "God."


You are not arguing against deities because they are really just another naturalistic explanation.  But I'm not arguing for that.  I'm saying the God I'm talking about is just as reasonable to believe in as any naturalistic explanation you might come up with.

You are still failing to see the point, however, that, if God exists, then He must be all-powerful and all-knowing because He is the entire basis for the existence of knowledge and He must be all-powerful because He created everything, which means there is nothing He does not have control over.  If you want to bring up some anthropomorphic deity, then understand that that has nothing to do with the concept of God.  Saying that a deity is imperfect implies that there is a standard of perfection to which you can compare that deity, and I am saying God is that standard.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think their as important as each individual wants them to be.  To me some of this kind of thing is satisfied by saying, "Okay I'm here, what do I do about it?".  This is a more easily answered question since I can deal with the world and take part it in.  Maybe even contribute and enjoy myself while I'm here.


If the truth exists, then of course it's important.  And if the truth exists, then it makes no sense to say the answer to these questions doesn't matter.  Whether or not there is any purpose to your life is an important question.  It is more important, in fact, than anything you could ever learn about this finite existence because it may have eternal ramifications.




> The question of the afterlife will obviously answer itself someday.  It's fun to speculate on it, but I don't necessarily need to spend my time worrying about it.


Of course, that would assume the answers to these questions are unknowable.  What if they are knowable and you are expected to know them?  You better darn well find out!  It's no reason, however, to just ignore them.  If you want to live a carefree existence, then you're free to do so, but there is a very good reason people try to understand these questions, and it's because they see the importance of it.  If this life really is all there is, then I want to know that for certain before I behave that way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yep.  
> 
> Look at the 3D worlds that can be created on Desktop computers or the particle physics that can be done in Super-Computers.  Would an AI living in such a world think we're super-beings because we created it's 'Universe' even though it does not take God-like power to create these worlds?


But you're begging the question.  The fact that the AI might judge itself according to our imperfect standards doesn't mean that no perfect standard exists.  If you say an imperfect God serves as our standard, then you are implying that a more perfect standard exists beyond that God to which it can be compared.  I am talking about the truly perfect standard, not the imperfect one.  

All you're doing by positing imperfect gods is delaying the inevitable conclusion that a perfect standard must exist before anything can fail to meet that standard.




> With what your suggesting, could the whole Universe actually not need that much power to be created?  It just appears that way from our point of view inside it?


I'm way ahead of you.  Christians realize that we only understand things from our limited perspective and that the amount of power needed to create the universe might not actually be that much to God, but that does not stop us from comprehending the existence of a perfect standard such as God.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I was just thinking an AI living in some wacky Pixar-like reality believing everything must originate from a perfect creator would be disappointed.  Also, such a world created by a team of programmers and developers wouldn't be perfect.  

So, I could ponder whether the Universe or the planet upon which I live is Perfect.  It's an interesting and often ridiculous planet with a lot of dumb ideas and people that can't get along.  As for the Universe, just because it hasn't fallen apart doesn't give me reason to think it's Perfect either, so why would it's creator have to be perfect?  Also, my understanding is the Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way?  Is that a part of some God's plan?  What if somehow, we humans manage to create a stable space-faring society and even find new sources of energy?  We have a few billion years until Andromeda crashes into our neighborhood.  

For all I know, God could have started this whole mess by accident, and he has been dealing with it ever since.  He may well look at the whole thing as a source of embarrassment. 

Not saying this a concrete belief of mine, but an amusing idea to think about.  Or maybe God hides his imperfection just like we would hide our screw-ups at work.  What how dare you humans question me everything is a part of my grand design for a reason!.

----------


## TER

> What how dare you humans question me everything is a part of my grand design for a reason!.


Yes, this was the Ancient Greek philosophical belief, what is called the _logos_.  What we learn through revelation by the Messiah is that the Logos of God became incarnate in order to overcome sin and destroy the power of death.  Yahweh, the Savior of God, is the _Reason_ of God, the Word of God, the manifestation of His Divine Will and Wisdom.  This divinity became incorporated with human nature through Christ's kenosis and condensation into our humanity.  Why?  Because He is love.

John 1

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”

20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

And he answered, “No.”

22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”

23 He said: “I am

‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
“Make straight the way of the Lord,”’

as the prophet Isaiah said.”

24 Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

26 John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. 27 It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.”

28 These things were done in Bethabara[h] beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

32 And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

----------


## TER

Why the World's Most Notorious Atheist Came to Believe in an Intelligent Creator

Anthony Flew (1923-2010), who was the worlds leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life, said the following a few years shortly before his death:

I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universes intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.

----------


## Crashland

> If God created the universe, then it follows that everything in the universe is based on His very existence.  There is no existence without Him. To claim that He is not perfect is to claim that there exists a standard beyond God that He can be measured by.  However, if God created the entire universe, then that means He is the entire basis for existence, then He must be perfect because nothing would exist without Him.  If nothing would exist without Him, then what standard can you hold over His head to compare Him to?  Are you going to say He is not as good as things in existence when He is the only reason things exist in the first place?





> You are still failing to see the point, however, that, if God  exists, then He must be all-powerful and all-knowing because He is the  entire basis for the existence of knowledge and He must be all-powerful  because He created everything, which means there is nothing He does not  have control over.  If you want to bring up some anthropomorphic deity,  then understand that that has nothing to do with the concept of God.   Saying that a deity is imperfect implies that there is a standard of  perfection to which you can compare that deity, and I am saying God is  that standard.


I really don't like using words like "perfect" because that means different things to different people. To be more specific, we are actually talking about things like omnipotence and omniscience. If some living being caused the universe to exist, it does not necessarily mean that this entity knows everything about its creation or that it has unlimited power over everything in its creation, or that it eternally maintains that kind of power. You are looking at it as in God being the "basis for existence", which has slightly more assumptions in it than describing him as the "cause" or "creator" of it.




> If you want to argue against some imperfect deity, then go right ahead, but that's not what I mean when I say God, and that's not the God I'm defending.





> You are not arguing against deities because they are really just  another naturalistic explanation.  But I'm not arguing for that.  I'm  saying the God I'm talking about is just as reasonable to believe in as  any naturalistic explanation you might come up with.


If your God has unlimited knowledge, power and justice, then that is pretty much all I need to start arguing against him. If some deity did create the universe, then in my opinion based on observation and reasoning, I think it is more likely that this deity is either not perfectly just, or not omnipotent, or not omniscient. Overall though, you are right -- believing in God or some other deity is not really much different from believing in any other explanation that does not involve a deity or God. Or in other words, they are all unsubstantiated beliefs. That is why I do not claim to hold any of them.

----------


## Crashland

> Why the World's Most Notorious Atheist Came to Believe in an Intelligent Creator
> 
> Anthony Flew (1923-2010), who was the world’s leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life, said the following a few years shortly before his death:
> 
> “I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.”


Not the first time anyone has changed their mind by an argument from incredulity. DNA is so complex it just HAD to have been intelligently designed...
People convert from atheism to theism and vice versa all the time. Anyone can point to prominent members of the other side who have since changed their mind.

----------


## TER

> Not the first time anyone has changed their mind by an argument from incredulity. DNA is so complex it just HAD to have been intelligently designed...
> People convert from atheism to theism and vice versa all the time. Anyone can point to prominent members of the other side who have since changed their mind.


You are correct!  The stories about those people who come to personal belief and trust in God after many years of militant disbelief are the ones I most enjoy reading about.

----------


## lilymc

> All you're doing is delaying the inevitable conclusion that there is an all-powerful being by saying there is something beyond God that is more powerful.  That, then, by default, would become the real God instead of the less-powerful deity you're referring to.  If God exists, then He is all-powerful because He is the entire basis for existence, meaning there is nothing beyond Him that can create challenges that He cannot overcome.  He cannot make a square circle or make a rock so big He can't lift it because logic is a part of His nature, not because logic is above Him.  If logic is above Him, then that would imply that there is a mind more perfect than God's to possess that logic, which would then become God.  God, by definition, must be all-powerful because He is the entire basis for existence and there is nothing that exists beyond Him that He does not have control over.  When you say God doesn't have to be perfect, all you are doing is referring to another, more perfect standard which would then become the standard of the real God.
> 
> 
> What makes you think the universe and heaven can be separated?  Why do you think of them in terms of location?  If God is not limited by space, then such concepts as "somewhere else" make no sense.  There is no "somewhere else."  He is already omnipresent.





> Ugh!  We are *assuming* God is real.  I am not using this demonstration of a concept to prove that God is real because we are assuming it, remember?  That's why I say *if* God is real, then He is a, b, c, and so on.  You have to have a solid definition of God before you can argue against His existence and all you are doing is messing with the definition so that you don't have to argue against it.  God must have these attributes in order to be God.  That doesn't prove that God is real, but it does provide a definition of God so you can't just change the definition and say, *if* God exists, then he is not a, b, and c because then you are not arguing against God, but some naturalistic concept.  
> 
> 
> If you're referring to it in the same sense I am, then that's fine, but I'm not really sure you are.  You seem to be suggesting that God can "go" somewhere even though He is already everywhere.  God is outside of it in the sense He is not beholden to it, but He is not outside of it in the sense that He is apart from it.  He is greater than it, above it, but not apart from it.





> If the truth exists, then of course it's important.  And if the truth exists, then it makes no sense to say the answer to these questions doesn't matter.  Whether or not there is any purpose to your life is an important question.  It is more important, in fact, than anything you could ever learn about this finite existence because it may have eternal ramifications.
> 
> 
> Of course, that would assume the answers to these questions are unknowable.  What if they are knowable and you are expected to know them?  You better darn well find out!  It's no reason, however, to just ignore them.  If you want to live a carefree existence, then you're free to do so, but there is a very good reason people try to understand these questions, and it's because they see the importance of it.  If this life really is all there is, then I want to know that for certain before I behave that way.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PaulConventionWV again.

Thank you for your patience here.    Interesting how this topic morphed into a discussion on the existence of God.  Evidently, that's the real issue, and iyam the reason why people so strongly oppose the idea of objective morality.





> You are correct!  The stories about those people who come to personal belief and trust in God after many years of militant disbelief are the ones I most enjoy reading about.


Same here.  Btw, if you like those kind of stories, I think you'll like my new website.     I can pm you the link...Im not sure if I want to post it here yet.

----------


## VIDEODROME

So did he get into Heaven by merely being a Deist?   Oddly enough, I'm not sure he even believed in an after life, only a Cosmic Watchmaker that kickstarted everything.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I was just thinking an AI living in some wacky Pixar-like reality believing everything must originate from a perfect creator would be disappointed.  Also, such a world created by a team of programmers and developers wouldn't be perfect.  
> 
> So, I could ponder whether the Universe or the planet upon which I live is Perfect.  It's an interesting and often ridiculous planet with a lot of dumb ideas and people that can't get along.  As for the Universe, just because it hasn't fallen apart doesn't give me reason to think it's Perfect either, so why would it's creator have to be perfect?  Also, my understanding is the Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way?  Is that a part of some God's plan?  What if somehow, we humans manage to create a stable space-faring society and even find new sources of energy?  We have a few billion years until Andromeda crashes into our neighborhood.  
> 
> For all I know, God could have started this whole mess by accident, and he has been dealing with it ever since.  He may well look at the whole thing as a source of embarrassment. 
> 
> Not saying this a concrete belief of mine, but an amusing idea to think about.  Or maybe God hides his imperfection just like we would hide our screw-ups at work.  What how dare you humans question me everything is a part of my grand design for a reason!.


You're still begging the question: Perfect according to who?  If you say God isn't perfect, then you're already a priori assuming that there is some standard of perfection.  That standard is God.  How could He be embarrassed if He was perfect?  If He wasn't perfect, then what standard did He fall short of to make Him embarrassed?  You don't even seem to realize you're assuming God when you say God isn't perfect, but you're just putting God on a humanistic level and saying there's some standard of perfection above that, but let's not go there because it would challenge my faith.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I really don't like using words like "perfect" because that means different things to different people. To be more specific, we are actually talking about things like omnipotence and omniscience. If some living being caused the universe to exist, it does not necessarily mean that this entity knows everything about its creation or that it has unlimited power over everything in its creation, or that it eternally maintains that kind of power. You are looking at it as in God being the "basis for existence", which has slightly more assumptions in it than describing him as the "cause" or "creator" of it.


What I'm saying is that, if God is not all-powerful, then what power is there to possess that He does not possess?  Where does THAT power come from?  I would posit that you're simply delaying the conclusion that, if God is not perfect in every way, then that means there is another standard or standards above Him that He can be compared to and judged to be imperfect by.  But right there you are automatically assuming that there is another standard for perfection in power, knowledge, whatever, but eventually you have to acknowledge that the REAL God is the standards you are assuming to exist by which you can judge an imperfect deity.  You can't just say something is imperfect and then say there is no such thing as perfection.  They both come together.




> If your God has unlimited knowledge, power and justice, then that is pretty much all I need to start arguing against him. If some deity did create the universe, then in my opinion based on observation and reasoning, I think it is more likely that this deity is either not perfectly just, or not omnipotent, or not omniscient. Overall though, you are right -- believing in God or some other deity is not really much different from believing in any other explanation that does not involve a deity or God. Or in other words, they are all unsubstantiated beliefs. That is why I do not claim to hold any of them.


When you say "not perfectly just", who are you comparing God to?  What standard of justice are you comparing Him to?  We know you're not perfect, so what standard of perfection are you referring to to say that God also falls short of it?  

Deities are naturalistic and unsubstantiated because they don't answer the question about why we should assume a naturalistic origin for the universe.  They are naturalistic, as you said yourself, so you can't just lump them in with the idea of God, who is not naturalistic but *supra*natural.  When you say 'God is not perfect', you are essentially saying God is not God and trying to act like a natural God and a perfect God are one and the same, but they're not.  When you say God is not perfect, then where are you getting your idea of perfection from?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not the first time anyone has changed their mind by an argument from incredulity. DNA is so complex it just HAD to have been intelligently designed...
> People convert from atheism to theism and vice versa all the time. Anyone can point to prominent members of the other side who have since changed their mind.


You're right.  Any rational person who randomly comes across a computer with a built-in program for operating would immediately assume there was a creator even if they didn't see evidence of the creator.  What's more, any 5-year-old can tell you the difference between the Mona Lisa and a few rocks on the ground that kinda look like they might be a face.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Why are you making it so complicated?  What does this have to do with the existence of God?  All I'm saying is that you cannot assume a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe.




I re-answer things all of the freaking time!  What makes you above explaining your thoughts in more detail?  What makes you think what you said before is going to help me understand?  If the goal of debate is understanding, then it doesn't help to make me jump back to what you said before because we've already advanced beyond that in the search for understanding.  I am testing your ideas, so you can't just insist that I keep responding to your same old points because that does not advance the discussion; it stagnates it.  [/quote]




> Zeno argued that in order to get anywhere (lets say from 0 to A...), you need to first cover 1/2 the distance to get there (1/2 A, makes sense). Zeno then argued that in order to get _there_ you have to cover 1/2 the remaining distance yet again, now you're only 3/4 of the way (1/2 A + 1/4 A, makes sense). Zeno takes another step, and says to get _there_, first you have to cover 1/2 the remaining distance, now you're 7/8 of the way (1/2 A + 1/4 A + 1/8A - makes sense). Zeno says that you can carry out this argument adding term after term after term, and never get to A. He concludes that it is impossible to get to your destination. Yet, from common experience, we know that we actually _can_ get places, so he was left befuddled because he couldn't see where _his reasoning_ had somehow fallen apart...hmmm...I'll save the punch line for your own research.





> The problem is that you're talking about fractions, which presuppose a beginning and an end.  If we're talking about eternity, then fractions are meaningless and you can never even get half of the way to anywhere or all the way to anywhere because the entire concept is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  As I just discussed, the problem you're proposing presupposes a beginning and an end.  If there is no beginning, then the concept of advancing any fraction of the way is meaningless because every fraction takes forever to get to.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in something infinite, which you have no way of observing, then yes, it does require faith.  If you want to believe that it is not necessary to invoke something supernatural, you can't prove that, so you have to have faith.  The fact that we see beginnings and ends in our universe is actually evidence that beginnings and endings are normal.  It doesn't prove that there is nothing beyond the universe that is without beginning or end, but it does provide strong evidence that this universe cannot be eternal because beginnings and endings are all we experience.  
> ...


I'm sorry man, I just don't think I can engage on this anymore. It was a good discussion, but I feel like the questions you keep asking me indicate that you're not reading my responses to your questions _in reference to_ your previous posts - i.e. I feel like each post is starting a new conversation.

Sorry.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I re-answer things all of the freaking time!  What makes you above explaining your thoughts in more detail?  What makes you think what you said before is going to help me understand?  If the goal of debate is understanding, then it doesn't help to make me jump back to what you said before because we've already advanced beyond that in the search for understanding.  I am testing your ideas, so you can't just insist that I keep responding to your same old points because that does not advance the discussion; it stagnates it. 
> 
> I'm sorry man, I just don't think I can engage on this anymore. It was a good discussion, but I feel like the questions you keep asking me indicate that you're not reading my responses to your questions _in reference to_ your previous posts - i.e. I feel like each post is starting a new conversation.
> 
> Sorry.


Yeah.  Good cop-out.  I answered your Zeno's Paradox question and you have no response.  I read every single one of your posts.

Either you don't understand how discussions work or you're deliberately trying to get out of it.  I would bet good money it's the latter.

----------


## otherone

> My actual position is that we haven't the faintest idea yet where it came from or how it "sprung" into existence. That's a little tongue in cheek for you there...It's interesting to note how difficult it is to even _talk_ about the universe without referring to a "beginning." Stated again though, this is a limitation of our linguistic and descriptive system in collusion with how we interpret the world; it makes no imposition on how the universe actually must behave.


I believe that the truth is in the fact that "time" is a system of measurement created by man as an aid to understanding reality.  Contemplating that the past and future don't actually exist helps in creating alternative interpretations of existence.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Yeah.  Good cop-out.  *I answered your Zeno's Paradox question and you have no response*.  I read every single one of your posts.
> 
> Either you don't understand how discussions work or you're deliberately trying to get out of it.  I would bet good money it's the latter.


Ok, I'll jump back in and re-focus. You stated:




> The problem is that you're talking about fractions, which presuppose a beginning and an end. *If we're talking about eternity, then fractions are meaningless* and you can never even get half of the way to anywhere or all the way to anywhere because the entire concept is invalid.


When you claim that fractions are meaningless in relation to eternity, it shows me that the Zeno's paradox discussion was lost. What do you mean fractions are meaningless in relation to eternity? I assume you mean eternity is our parallel in the real world for the mathematical abstraction of infinity?




> No. As I just discussed, the problem *you're proposing presupposes a beginning and an end*. If there is no beginning, then the concept of advancing any fraction of the way is meaningless because every fraction takes forever to get to.


Exactly right, and that is the point!...but realize that is the problem _you_ are proposing, not me...the whole point of this discussion is to break your original claim that *because there is an infinite regression of causes, there can be no beginning*. I have just given you a demonstration of an _infinite regression of causes that has a beginning_. That is as clear as I can make it.

The whole point of that discussion was to get you to recognize that just because something may have an "infinite regression" does not mean there is no beginning! In this case there is both a beginning AND an infinity, so your idea that the only alternative to God creating the universe is to accept an "infinite regression of causes because it means there can be no beginning" is invalid. There could be an infinite regression of causes AND still be a beginning - the point is to demonstrate to you that your A OR B argument does not cover the entire universe of possibilities.

In that statement^^, we are very close to the truth, so read, and re-read it to get what I'm saying. The Zeno's paradox question was presented to show you one thing: That a finite thing, or _series_ of finite things, (a fraction, something non-infinite, or something non-eternal) can have _embedded within it_ an infinity, or something _eternal_, which counters your claim that it cannot. I am not arguing that _I_ believe that.

So now, I'll pose a couple questions to see if we're going to get anywhere:

Do you see (not accept) my point that there are other alternatives to your two claims that *it is either God* OR *an infinite regression of causes*?

Do you _accept_ that there can be a beginning and an end to a process (a non-eternal existence), yet which can still contain an infinite regression of causes?

Edited to add the relevant portion of my post (#606):

I felt like adding the portion of post #606 that was important to our discussion. My point there was that there may not be a beginning to the universe. It's relevant here because you were claiming that it is "God AND a BEGINNING," OR "an infinite regression of causes AND NO BEGINNING."

What _I have shown_ is that it could be "God AND a BEGINNING" OR "an infinite regression of causes AND a BEGINNING." Neither of which do I think fully accounts for the universe of possibilities; it was only meant to attack your two claims that you argued account for the entirety of what is possible.




> *It could very well be that there was not a beginning to our universe, and it may well be without end - it is an unanswered question*. Science currently can only "see" back about 14 billion years. Maybe we'll be able to detect exactly what caused it sometime soon...who knows.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I believe that the truth is in the fact that "time" is a system of measurement *created by man as an aid to understanding reality*.  Contemplating that the past and future don't actually exist helps in creating alternative interpretations of existence.


I've had similar thoughts. A huge interest of mine is the relation between our _abstractions_ for things (our thoughts, if you will), and those thing's actual material reality. That connection, or interface between those two realities is a very interesting place.

----------


## Crashland

> What I'm saying is that, if God is not all-powerful, then what power is there to possess that He does not possess? Where does THAT power come from?  I would posit that you're simply delaying the conclusion that, if God is not perfect in every way, then that means there is another standard or standards above Him that He can be compared to and judged to be imperfect by.  But right there you are automatically assuming that there is another standard for perfection in power, knowledge, whatever, but eventually you have to acknowledge that the REAL God is the standards you are assuming to exist by which you can judge an imperfect deity.  You can't just say something is imperfect and then say there is no such thing as perfection.  They both come together.
> 
> When you say "not perfectly just", who are you comparing God to?  What  standard of justice are you comparing Him to?  We know you're not  perfect, so what standard of perfection are you referring to to say that  God also falls short of it?  
> 
> Deities are naturalistic and unsubstantiated because they don't answer  the question about why we should assume a naturalistic origin for the  universe.  They are naturalistic, as you said yourself, so you can't  just lump them in with the idea of God, who is not naturalistic but *supra*natural.   When you say 'God is not perfect', you are essentially saying God is  not God and trying to act like a natural God and a perfect God are one  and the same, but they're not.  When you say God is not perfect, then  where are you getting your idea of perfection from?


Again, this is why I don't like using the word "perfect", because "perfect" means different things to different people. It is very easy, however, to say that something is "not omnipotent" and also hold the view that maybe nothing is actually omnipotent. It is easy to say that something is "not omniscient" and also hold the view that maybe nothing is actually omniscient. These things are simply concepts. Just because we can imagine them doesn't mean there is actually something that has these properties, in the exact same way that there is no highest number.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> YHow could He be embarrassed if He was perfect?


So God creates Adam and Eve.  Gives them free access to Eden, but says don't eat from this one tree.  So of course they do it and all it took was a talking snake.  It seems like the first of many reasons God could feel at least annoyed with how things are going down here.

----------


## Crashland

> What's more, any 5-year-old can tell you the difference between the Mona Lisa and a few rocks on the ground that kinda look like they might be a face.


The universe looks to me like a much of atoms that exploded in every direction. Just because a snowflake looks designed doesn't mean it was designed by a conscious person as opposed to a bunch of unconscious molecules interacting by themselves.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok, I'll jump back in and re-focus. You stated:
> 
> When you claim that fractions are meaningless in relation to eternity, it shows me that the Zeno's paradox discussion was lost. What do you mean fractions are meaningless in relation to eternity? I assume you mean eternity is our parallel in the real world for the mathematical abstraction of infinity?


I mean you can't have a fraction of eternity because there is no whole eternity.  You can't divide up 1 eternity into separate parts because there is no complete part.




> Exactly right, and that is the point!...but realize that is the problem _you_ are proposing, not me...the whole point of this discussion is to break your original claim that *because there is an infinite regression of causes, there can be no beginning*. I have just given you a demonstration of an _infinite regression of causes that has a beginning_. That is as clear as I can make it.




What I'm trying to do is demonstrate that the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past tense.  You just said that there was a beginning, and that was my whole point!  How do you suppose the universe *began?*




> The whole point of that discussion was to get you to recognize that just because something may have an "infinite regression" does not mean there is no beginning! In this case there is both a beginning AND an infinity, so your idea that the only alternative to God creating the universe is to accept an "infinite regression of causes because it means there can be no beginning" is invalid. There could be an infinite regression of causes AND still be a beginning - the point is to demonstrate to you that your A OR B argument does not cover the entire universe of possibilities.


What you have demonstrated is that you can split up a whole into an infinite amount of infinitesimally small parts, but that still doesn't explain the origin of the whole.  It's a proven philosophical concept that you can't have an infinite regression of causes.  Atheists use this all the time by saying, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"  This introduces the problem of infinite regress, but the point they're missing is that all we need to do to stop the infinite regress is have a first, un-caused cause.  This proves that the universe had a beginning.  Keep in mind, this is not an argument against the concept of eternity, just the concept of an eternal universe in which everything has a cause.  Therefore, this fits nicely with the idea of an eternal God and a non-eternal universe.  An infinite regression is only a problem for the universe.




> In that statement^^, we are very close to the truth, so read, and re-read it to get what I'm saying. The Zeno's paradox question was presented to show you one thing: That a finite thing, or _series_ of finite things, (a fraction, something non-infinite, or something non-eternal) can have _embedded within it_ an infinity, or something _eternal_, which counters your claim that it cannot. I am not arguing that _I_ believe that.


In fact, you're right.  Perhaps I should have clarified.  The abstract concept of eternity is clearly valid, but when you say this does not mean there was no beginning, you are exactly right!  God is eternal and the universe had a beginning.  There is no conflict between these two assertions.  Now that we've established that the universe had a beginning, how do you explain that?  What caused the universe?




> So now, I'll pose a couple questions to see if we're going to get anywhere:
> 
> Do you see (not accept) my point that there are other alternatives to your two claims that *it is either God* OR *an infinite regression of causes*?


I see your point and I think it proves my case. 




> Do you _accept_ that there can be a beginning and an end to a process (a non-eternal existence), yet which can still contain an infinite regression of causes?


You're demonstrating that a finite set can contain an infinite number of infinitesimally small sub-sets.  That still doesn't explain the finite set.  The infinite regression only makes sense in the context of the finite.  You can divide 1/2/2/2/2/2 for infinity and never run out of theoretical fractions, but those fractions only make sense in the context of the finite whole.  




> Edited to add the relevant portion of my post (#606):
> 
> I felt like adding the portion of post #606 that was important to our discussion. My point there was that there may not be a beginning to the universe. It's relevant here because you were claiming that it is "God AND a BEGINNING," OR "an infinite regression of causes AND NO BEGINNING."
> 
> What _I have shown_ is that it could be "God AND a BEGINNING" OR "an infinite regression of causes AND a BEGINNING." Neither of which do I think fully accounts for the universe of possibilities; it was only meant to attack your two claims that you argued account for the entirety of what is possible.


Well, fine, but you still haven't shown that the universe can be infinite.  It's a well-established philosophical truth that you can't explain the cause of something with an infinite regression of causes.  Atheists use this argument all the time against God, but you seem to have connected the dots and realized that the fact that the universe is finite does not disprove an eternal God.  Now you just have to interpret it correctly.  I'm here to help.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Just because a snowflake looks designed doesn't mean it was designed by a conscious person as opposed to a bunch of unconscious molecules interacting by themselves.


I like that example showing how something simple or small can lead to perceived complexity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *Again, this is why I don't like using the word "perfect", because "perfect" means different things to different people.* It is very easy, however, to say that something is "not omnipotent" and also hold the view that maybe nothing is actually omnipotent. It is easy to say that something is "not omniscient" and also hold the view that maybe nothing is actually omniscient. These things are simply concepts. Just because we can imagine them doesn't mean there is actually something that has these properties, in the exact same way that there is no highest number.


I knew you would say that.  The concept of "no highest number" is of no relevance here because "perfect" is a value judgment.  As you've said, many value judgments are subjective, but when you say "God is not perfect", you are already assuming there is a perfect because there would have to be a standard of perfect in order for God to fail to meet it.  If there was no perfect, then the entire concept of perfect would be meaningless.  If there was no perfect, then it would be impossible for anything to be imperfect. 

And yes, there are many subjective value judgments, but those don't apply when we are talking about the origin of the entire universe.  The concept of perfect in relation to the entire universe cannot be subjective because it already includes everything in existence. 

You just keep wanting to say "nothing is perfect", but you don't seem to realize the language you're using gives you away.  If you really wanted to say that "nothing is perfect", then you would say that "perfect" simply doesn't exist, but when you posit a God that is not perfect, you are already contradicting yourself because that would mean that something was more perfect than the god you are positing.  All you have to do is take this to its logical conclusion and realize that you can only get "more perfect" so many times before you reach a "most perfect" state.  If something is the "most perfect", then it is *completely* perfect in relation to everything below it, which is the entire point.  Every time you say there's something more perfect than that, you are just delaying the inevitable logical conclusion that there is an ultimate state of perfection.

You can deny the existence of perfection, but my whole point is that you cannot have an imperfect God because God must be perfect in relation to the universe in order to be God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So God creates Adam and Eve.  Gives them free access to Eden, but says don't eat from this one tree.  So of course they do it and all it took was a talking snake.  It seems like the first of many reasons God could feel at least annoyed with how things are going down here.


There's a reason God put the tree there in the first place.  God meant for them to disobey Him.  He was not frustrated by it, which would assume that they had some power to frustrate God's plans that God did not possess.  Everything happens for a reason even though we cannot see it.  Just as the individual ingredients of biscuits taste terrible, our lives seem not to be so great until we see the final product.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The universe looks to me like a much of atoms that exploded in every direction. Just because a snowflake looks designed doesn't mean it was designed by a conscious person as opposed to a bunch of unconscious molecules interacting by themselves.


Actually, the snowflake does look designed, which is a good point.  The snowflake configures into those shapes because of the properties of those water molecules at certain temperatures.  You cannot explain the origin of these properties by referring to the properties themselves.  The explanation must involve how the properties that made the snowflakes arrange themselves into shapes at those temperatures got there in the first place.  

Likewise, you can completely explain what moves the wheel on a car by referring to internal causes within the car, but you cannot explain the origin of the car itself without invoking something greater than the car.  The argument you're using tries to say that we can take the internal workings of the universe and explain individual parts of it by referring to other things within the universe, but you cannot explain the whole thing without referring to something outside of the universe.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I like that example showing how something simple or small can lead to perceived complexity.


The engine can explain why and how the wheel behaves the way it does, but you cannot explain the whole system by referring to things within the system.  You can explain the wheel by referring to the axle and the axle by referring to the pistons, etc, but you can't understand why the whole system behaves the way it does unless you introduce the purposeful creation of the car.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> There's a reason God put the tree there in the first place.  God meant for them to disobey Him.  He was not frustrated by it, which would assume that they had some power to frustrate God's plans that God did not possess.  Everything happens for a reason even though we cannot see it.  Just as the individual ingredients of biscuits taste terrible, our lives seem not to be so great until we see the final product.


This makes God seem like a disturbing prankster God and not much more valuable to me than a clumsy God.  Oh he did it on purpose.  He created us to fail so he could punish us for our failings.  Great.  And this is who we look to for this Objective Morality?

----------


## PaulConventionWV



----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This makes God seem like a disturbing prankster God and not much more valuable to me than a clumsy God.  Oh he did it on purpose.  He created us to fail so he could punish us for our failings.  Great.  And this is who we look to for this Objective Morality?


It really doesn't matter what He seems like to you.  If He is indeed the creator of the universe, then you can't criticize His actions or His morality without borrowing from the fact that a perfect morality or a right action exists, which would be based on the idea that a perfect standard must exist, i.e. God.

Every time you criticize God, you're using God's own standard to criticize God.

----------


## Crashland

> Actually, the snowflake does look designed, which is a good point.  The snowflake configures into those shapes because of the properties of those water molecules at certain temperatures.  You cannot explain the origin of these properties by referring to the properties themselves.  The explanation must involve how the properties that made the snowflakes arrange themselves into shapes at those temperatures got there in the first place.  
> 
> Likewise, you can completely explain what moves the wheel on a car by referring to internal causes within the car, but you cannot explain the origin of the car itself without invoking something greater than the car.  The argument you're using tries to say that we can take the internal workings of the universe and explain individual parts of it by referring to other things within the universe, but *you cannot explain the whole thing without referring to something outside of the universe*.


No, I cannot explain the whole thing *at all*. I cannot explain the origin of those properties. There are many possibilities, some of which involve your idea of "God" and others do not.

----------


## Crashland

> I knew you would say that.  The concept of "no highest number" is of no relevance here because "perfect" is a value judgment.  As you've said, many value judgments are subjective, but when you say "God is not perfect", you are already assuming there is a perfect because there would have to be a standard of perfect in order for God to fail to meet it.  If there was no perfect, then the entire concept of perfect would be meaningless.  If there was no perfect, then it would be impossible for anything to be imperfect. 
> 
> And yes, there are many subjective value judgments, but those don't apply when we are talking about the origin of the entire universe.  The concept of perfect in relation to the entire universe cannot be subjective because it already includes everything in existence. 
> 
> You just keep wanting to say "nothing is perfect", but you don't seem to realize the language you're using gives you away.  If you really wanted to say that "nothing is perfect", then you would say that "perfect" simply doesn't exist, but when you posit a God that is not perfect, you are already contradicting yourself because that would mean that something was more perfect than the god you are positing.  All you have to do is take this to its logical conclusion and realize that you can only get "more perfect" so many times before you reach a "most perfect" state.  If something is the "most perfect", then it is *completely* perfect in relation to everything below it, which is the entire point.  Every time you say there's something more perfect than that, you are just delaying the inevitable logical conclusion that there is an ultimate state of perfection.
> 
> You can deny the existence of perfection, but my whole point is that you cannot have an imperfect God because God must be perfect in relation to the universe in order to be God.


You even quoted me and bolded the part where I said I am NOT referring to the ambiguous term "perfection" yet you still straw-manned me as doing just that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I cannot explain the whole thing *at all*. I cannot explain the origin of those properties. There are many possibilities, some of which involve your idea of "God" and others do not.


If you have a better explanation, I'm waiting...

And you're exactly right.  You can't explain it at all because you want to rely completely on the inner workings of the car to explain the existence of the car.  The whole point is that my explanation has merit and you don't seem to have an explanation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You even quoted me and bolded the part where I said I am NOT referring to the ambiguous term "perfection" yet you still straw-manned me as doing just that.


I quoted and bolded that part because I had a valid explanation.  The explanation is that you cannot have subjective "perfects" when you're talking about perfect in relation to the entire universe.  When you talk about "perfect" in relation to the origin of the universe, that means the standard of perfection necessarily includes everything in existence so it cannot be subjective.

You're the one who used the term and now you're going back on it because it upsets your view and you have nowhere else to run to.  So you can accuse me of straw-men all you want, but that's just an assertion until you actually back up your claims.

----------


## Crashland

> If you have a better explanation, I'm waiting...
> 
> And you're exactly right.  You can't explain it at all because you want to rely completely on the inner workings of the car to explain the existence of the car.  The whole point is that my explanation has merit and you don't seem to have an explanation.


Your explanation has no more merit than anyone else's. They are all unsubstantiated. You are trying to have it both ways. You claim that the existence of the universe *demands* an explanation because of its complexity, yet the existence of your God who would be by definition even more complex than the universe, demands no explanation.

----------


## Crashland

> You even quoted me and bolded the part where I said I am NOT referring to the ambiguous term "perfection" yet you still straw-manned me as doing just that.





> I quoted and bolded that part because I had a valid explanation.  The explanation is that you cannot have subjective "perfects" when you're talking about perfect in relation to the entire universe.  When you talk about "perfect" in relation to the origin of the universe, that means the standard of perfection necessarily includes everything in existence so it cannot be subjective.
> 
> You're the one who used the term and now you're going back on it because it upsets your view and you have nowhere else to run to.  So you can accuse me of straw-men all you want, but that's just an assertion until you actually back up your claims.


I am not talking about "perfect". I am talking about specific attributes like omnipotence. How many times do I have to say it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your explanation has no more merit than anyone else's. They are all unsubstantiated. You are trying to have it both ways. You claim that the existence of the universe *demands* an explanation because of its complexity, yet the existence of your God who would be by definition even more complex than the universe, demands no explanation.


My point is not that you have to accept my explanation.  You can avoid the obvious all you want, but what I want you to realize is exactly what you just said: They are *all* unsubstantiated.  That means atheism requires just as much faith as theism.  Mine just happens to make the most sense.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am not talking about "perfect". I am talking about specific attributes like omnipotence. How many times do I have to say it?


Omnipotence implies perfect knowledge.  That pretty much the definition of it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> It really doesn't matter what He seems like to you.  If He is indeed the creator of the universe, then you can't criticize His actions or His morality without borrowing from the fact that a perfect morality or a right action exists, which would be based on the idea that a perfect standard must exist, i.e. God.
> 
> Every time you criticize God, you're using God's own standard to criticize God.


Is it in God's nature to be self critical?  Because I'm criticizing him based on his own nature or standard?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is it in God's nature to be self critical?  Because I'm criticizing him based on his own nature or standard?


No.  The fact that you're criticizing doesn't mean that He's being self-critical because it's really only criticism from your point of view, not His.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I mean you can't have a fraction of eternity because there is no whole eternity.  You can't divide up 1 eternity into separate parts because there is no complete part.
> 
> What I'm trying to do is demonstrate that the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past tense.  *You just said that there was a beginning, and that was my whole point!  How do you suppose the universe began?*


I don't know how it began.

I know it was your point. Your argument starts out with an embedded assumption that there was a beginning, and then you circularly argue that "see, _therefore_ it has a beginning." You are affirming the consequent.

I'm not saying I know "how it began."

When you ask a question like "how did it begin?," you are using a word ("begin," in this case) which carries with it the connotation that there _is_ a beginning. Asking a question like "Why am I here?" presupposes that there is an answer to the question "Is there a reason I'm here?" and that the answer is "Yes." Do you see the distinction? You first need to address the question "Does the Universe require a beginning?" Yes, or no? In your line of argument, you are taking it for granted that the universe requires a beginning.

This was my point way back when I said you were "further along in your argument, than you thought."




> What you have demonstrated is that you can split up a whole into an infinite amount of infinitesimally small parts, *but that still doesn't explain the origin of the whole*.  It's a proven philosophical concept that you can't have an infinite regression of causes.  Atheists use this all the time by saying, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"  This introduces the problem of infinite regress, but the point they're missing is that all we need to do to stop the infinite regress is have a first, un-caused cause.  This proves that the universe had a beginning.  Keep in mind, this is not an argument against the concept of eternity, just the concept of an eternal universe in which everything has a cause.  Therefore, this fits nicely with the idea of an eternal God and a non-eternal universe.  An infinite regression is only a problem for the universe.


It absolutely does explain the origin of the whole. An infinite sum can end in a finite total. This fully and absolutely explains the whole.




> In fact, you're right.  Perhaps I should have clarified.  The abstract concept of eternity is clearly valid, but when you say this does not mean there was no beginning, you are exactly right!  God is eternal and the universe had a beginning.  There is no conflict between these two assertions.  *Now that we've established that the universe had a beginning, how do you explain that?  What caused the universe?*


Again, it may be that it just "always" was. It may just the 'physical' answer to our abstract question "can nothingness exist?" The universe is the "no" answer. It does not require us to address 'time' or a 'beginning' or 'end.'




> You're demonstrating that a finite set can contain an infinite number of infinitesimally small sub-sets.  *That still doesn't explain the finite set.  The infinite regression only makes sense in the context of the finite.  You can divide 1/2/2/2/2/2 for infinity and never run out of theoretical fractions, but those fractions only make sense in the context of the finite whole.*


That's right. We're getting somewhere. Again, the point is to demonstrate that your argument 'A' OR 'B' is incomplete. It could be 'A' OR 'B' OR 'C' OR ... OR 'N'...your argument that "infinite regressions preclude beginnings" is incomplete.




> Well, fine, but *you still haven't shown that the universe can be infinite*.  It's a well-established philosophical truth that you can't explain the cause of something with an infinite regression of causes.  Atheists use this argument all the time against God, but you seem to have connected the dots and realized that the fact that the universe is finite does not disprove an eternal God.  Now you just have to interpret it correctly.  I'm here to help.


I never set out to do that - only to show you that the argument you use to convince yourself is not complete.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality


Have they been unsuccessfully trying?  For how long?

----------


## Crashland

> My point is not that you have to accept my explanation.  You can avoid the obvious all you want, but what I want you to realize is exactly what you just said: They are *all* unsubstantiated.  That means atheism requires just as much faith as theism.  Mine just happens to make the most sense.


No it does not require faith. I direct you to my previous posts.




> Yes, it would take faith to blindly believe the  claim that the universe inexplicably "popped out of nothing". Good  thing I don't believe that claim either. I don't know if it popped out  of nothing, or if it has always been there, or if it was caused by  something else which could be completely foreign to our current  understanding of how things work. *It doesn't take any faith to  say "I don't know" when there is not enough evidence to substantiate a  claim. It does take faith to believe and trust in a cooked up  unsubstantiated explanation like "a powerful eternal deity did it", or  in any one of the many other hypotheses there are.* Although, some hypotheses are more compelling than others.





> it does not require any faith at all to *not* believe a claim. Failing to believe an unsubstantiated claim is _reasonable skepticism_. Failing to believe a claim in the face of overwhelming evidence is _denial_. Neither one of those is faith.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't know how it began.
> 
> I know it was your point. Your argument starts out with an embedded assumption that there was a beginning, and then you circularly argue that "see, _therefore_ it has a beginning." You are affirming the consequent.


That's not true.  I am answering the question in the affirmative, yes, but I *must* provide a "why" in order to justify my belief.  The very fact that my explanation of "why" includes the imbedded assumption to the first question does not invalidate my argument.  You can't give a justification for your belief until you answer the first question one way or the other.  You would have to do the same thing if you were going to take the opposite stance and say that the universe did not have to have a beginning and then we could compare our reason to see who was correct.




> I'm not saying I know "how it began."
> 
> When you ask a question like "how did it begin?," you are using a word ("begin," in this case) which carries with it the connotation that there _is_ a beginning. Asking a question like "Why am I here?" presupposes that there is an answer to the question "Is there a reason I'm here?" and that the answer is "Yes." Do you see the distinction? You first need to address the question "Does the Universe require a beginning?" Yes, or no? In your line of argument, you are taking it for granted that the universe requires a beginning.


I'm not making any claims about how the universe began in this particular line of reasoning.  I'm simply demonstrating that the universe did, in fact, have to have a beginning via logic.  If you are going to take the opposite stance that the universe did not have to have a beginning, then you would have to demonstrate why you believe that.  




> It absolutely does explain the origin of the whole. An infinite sum can end in a finite total. This fully and absolutely explains the whole.


No, you have to presuppose the finite whole before you can explain the infinite regression, not the other way around.  Proving that an infinite sum can end in a finite total does not mean the finite whole can be explained by the infinite regression because you have to assume the finite sum of 1 before you can divide it infinitely.




> Again, it may be that it just "always" was. It may just the 'physical' answer to our abstract question "can nothingness exist?" The universe is the "no" answer. It does not require us to address 'time' or a 'beginning' or 'end.'


Nothingness cannot exist because nothingness presupposes non-existence, but it most certainly can be the case that nothing exists.  




> That's right. We're getting somewhere. Again, the point is to demonstrate that your argument 'A' OR 'B' is incomplete. It could be 'A' OR 'B' OR 'C' OR ... OR 'N'...your argument that "infinite regressions preclude beginnings" is incomplete.


You'll have to define what the 'A' and 'B' you speak of is referring to.  




> I never set out to do that - only to show you that the argument you use to convince yourself is not complete.


How is it not complete?  All I set out to do was demonstrate logically that the universe requires a beginning.  I believe I demonstrated that by proving you cannot have an infinite regression of causes.  You then brought up Zeno's Paradox and I said the infinite regression requires a finite whole, which is the universe.  Therefore, your reference to an example of an infinite regression does not invalidate my argument that the universe must be finite because the infinite regression assumes a finite whole in the first place.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Have they been unsuccessfully trying?  For how long?


LOL, that's pretty funny actually. I think it's a pretty recent development.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> That's not true.  I am answering the question in the affirmative, yes, but I *must* provide a "why" in order to justify my belief.  The very fact that my explanation of "why" includes the imbedded assumption to the first question does not invalidate my argument.  You can't give a justification for your belief until you answer the first question one way or the other.  You would have to do the same thing if you were going to take the opposite stance and say that the universe did not have to have a beginning and then we could compare our reason to see who was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making any claims about how the universe began in this particular line of reasoning.  I'm simply demonstrating that the universe did, in fact, have to have a beginning via logic.  If you are going to take the opposite stance that the universe did not have to have a beginning, then you would have to demonstrate why you believe that.  
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have to presuppose the finite whole before you can explain the infinite regression, not the other way around.  Proving that an infinite sum can end in a finite total does not mean the finite whole can be explained by the infinite regression because you have to assume the finite sum of 1 before you can divide it infinitely.
> ...


Can anyone else chime in???

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No it does not require faith. I direct you to my previous posts.


You're talking about agnosticism, not atheism.  Agnosticism does not require faith, but atheism does.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Can anyone else chime in???


I rest my case.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I rest my case.


I just realize we're speaking to each other from different "planes," which is why we're just not really communicating.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I just realize we're speaking to each other from different "planes," which is why we're just not really communicating.


Yeah, that's totally the reason.  It couldn't be that I'm right.

----------


## Crashland

> You're talking about agnosticism, not atheism.  Agnosticism does not require faith, but atheism does.


The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.
I am agnostic about the origin of the universe *and* I am an atheist.

I would also consider myself in the camp of "weak atheism"

"Strong atheism" vs. "weak atheism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Yeah, that's totally the reason.  It couldn't be that I'm right.


LOL dude, you going around and around and around until I get exhausted does not make you "right"...but it does highlight for me that you weren't really seeking to understand, but rather to get some anonymous person on the internet to cave in to your narrow world-view.

----------


## otherone

> LOL dude, you going around and around and around until I get exhausted does not make you "right"...but it does highlight for me that you weren't really seeking to understand, but rather to get some anonymous person on the internet to cave in to your narrow world-view.


Sometimes those who do not buy fully into their own viewpoints seek validation by bullying others into agreeing with them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.
> I am agnostic about the origin of the universe *and* I am an atheist.
> 
> I would also consider myself in the camp of "weak atheism"
> 
> "Strong atheism" vs. "weak atheism"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism


Both strong and weak atheism imply non-belief.  You can say you don't know, but the fact that you believe God doesn't exist is apparent.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL dude, you going around and around and around until I get exhausted does not make you "right"...but it does highlight for me that you weren't really seeking to understand, but rather to get some anonymous person on the internet to cave in to your narrow world-view.


I've provided logical explanations to your objections and you have no response.  That's basically it in a nutshell.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sometimes those who do not buy fully into their own viewpoints seek validation by bullying others into agreeing with them.


Keep rationalizing why nobody can seem to respond to my arguments.  It must be because I'm a "bully."  

No, that's good.  Give Mr. Tansill a pat on the back and offer soothing reassurances and rationalizations as to why he couldn't respond to my arguments.  

It *must* be me who won't see reason even though I've consistently applied rock solid logic.

----------


## Crashland

> Both strong and weak atheism imply non-belief.  You can say you don't know, but the fact that you believe God doesn't exist is apparent.


I'm really not sure what else I can say at this point to help you understand the difference between lack of belief and belief. I tried...

----------


## otherone

> Keep rationalizing why nobody can seem to respond to my arguments.  It must be because I'm a "bully."


No dude.
You are AWESOME.
Congrats on your rock-solid logic.
Maybe more comments like "every five year-old" will help convince people of your awesome debate skill.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No dude.
> You are AWESOME.
> Congrats on your rock-solid logic.
> Maybe more comments like "every five year-old" will help convince people of your awesome debate skill.


Is there something wrong with that statement?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm really not sure what else I can say at this point to help you understand the difference between lack of belief and belief. I tried...


I understand what you think the difference is.  But, see, a lack of a belief and a non-belief still mean you don't believe.  

A lack of belief would only be the rational position if we've established a normal course of events, or a null hypothesis.  If someone offers a supernatural explanation for something for which we have a natural explanation, I'm going to assume the the natural explanation is true unless I have evidence to the contrary because my experience tells me what the expected result or explanation would be.  However, there is no expected course of events or natural explanation for the origin of the universe, so there is no null hypothesis, meaning I can't assume a natural explanation.  Therefore, atheism and theism both require faith.

----------


## otherone

> Is there something wrong with that statement?


"Wrong"?  I don't know.  
It does, however, muddy the clarity of your rock-solid logic when you make an argument from authority.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "Wrong"?  I don't know.  
> It does, however, muddy the clarity of your rock-solid logic when you make an argument from authority.


I made no such argument.  You took my comment out of context.

----------


## otherone

> I made no such argument.  You took my comment out of context.





> _Any rational person_ who randomly comes across a computer with a built-in program for operating would immediately assume there was a creator even if they didn't see evidence of the creator. What's more, _any 5-year-old_ can tell you the difference between the Mona Lisa and a few rocks on the ground that kinda look like they might be a face.


Hmmm.  You may be right.  Not sure if this is an argument from authority, popularity, or simply ad hominem.
What did you mean by this?

----------


## Crashland

> I understand what you think the difference is.  But, see, a lack of a belief and a non-belief still mean you don't believe.  
> 
> A lack of belief would only be the rational position if we've established a normal course of events, or a null hypothesis.  If someone offers a supernatural explanation for something for which we have a natural explanation, I'm going to assume the the natural explanation is true unless I have evidence to the contrary because my experience tells me what the expected result or explanation would be.  However, there is no expected course of events or natural explanation for the origin of the universe, so there is no null hypothesis, meaning I can't assume a natural explanation.  Therefore, atheism and theism both require faith.


But, it does not require faith to be agnostic about the origin of the universe. I can't speak for all atheists, but as for myself, I am agnostic about the origin of the universe. I don't know whether it has a natural explanation or not. This however doesn't mean I am not an atheist with regard to the Christian God, and also with regard to all the other specific gods that we both reject as human inventions. If there was a god that created the universe, it seems to me that it is either not interested or not able to communicate in any meaningful way with humans.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But, it does not require faith to be agnostic about the origin of the universe. I can't speak for all atheists, but as for myself, I am agnostic about the origin of the universe. I don't know whether it has a natural explanation or not. This however doesn't mean I am not an atheist with regard to the Christian God, and also with regard to all the other specific gods that we both reject as human inventions. If there was a god that created the universe, it seems to me that it is either not interested or not able to communicate in any meaningful way with humans.


If you don't reject a supernatural origin of the universe, then why do you reject God?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hmmm.  You may be right.  Not sure if this is an argument from authority, popularity, or simply ad hominem.
> What did you mean by this?


It means exactly what it says.  No need to take it personally.

----------


## Crashland

> If you don't reject a supernatural origin of the universe, then why do you reject God?


I reject the Christian God for the same kinds of reasons you reject Allah, Vishnu, or Zeus.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I reject the Christian God for the same kinds of reasons you reject Allah, Vishnu, or Zeus.


I don't think you do.  I'm not rejecting the existence of anything.  I'm rejecting their identity.  Christians, Muslims, and other religions all agree that God exists, they just disagree on His identity.  You, however, reject the existence of God even though you won't reject the supernatural origins of the universe.

----------


## Crashland

> I don't think you do.  I'm not rejecting the existence of anything.  I'm rejecting their identity.  Christians, Muslims, and other religions all agree that God exists, they just disagree on His identity.  You, however, reject the existence of God even though you won't reject the supernatural origins of the universe.


I neither accept nor reject the supernatural origins of the universe. I do reject the identity of the Christian God, same as we both do to all the other religions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I neither accept nor reject the supernatural origins of the universe. I do reject the identity of the Christian God, same as we both do to all the other religions.


I take it that means you don't reject His existence, then (neither accept nor reject)?

----------


## Crashland

> I take it that means you don't reject His existence, then (neither accept nor reject)?


I don't accept or reject the claim that some supernatural entity might have caused the universe, because I don't have any idea what caused the universe I do reject the existence of your Christian God though, as in, the one as described in the Bible. If there is a god, I don't think it would be one roiled with inconsistencies (although who knows, maybe it is). In my view, no religions have made a compelling case as to why their version of god (or gods) is reasonable to assume.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't accept or reject the claim that some supernatural entity might have caused the universe, because I don't have any idea what caused the universe I do reject the existence of your Christian God though, as in, the one as described in the Bible. If there is a god, I don't think it would be one roiled with inconsistencies (although who knows, maybe it is). In my view, no religions have made a compelling case as to why their version of god (or gods) is reasonable to assume.


Is it any wonder if you presuppose the non-existence of God, that you will think a theistic worldview has "inconsistencies"?  What is your proof for naturalism?

----------


## Crashland

> Is it any wonder if you presuppose the non-existence of God, that you will think a theistic worldview has "inconsistencies"?  What is your proof for naturalism?


You don't have to presuppose the non-existence of a generic god to see inconsistencies and blaring human origins of Zeus.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't have to presuppose the non-existence of a generic god to see inconsistencies and blaring human origins of Zeus.


What is your proof for naturalism?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't accept or reject the claim that some supernatural entity might have caused the universe, because I don't have any idea what caused the universe I do reject the existence of your Christian God though, as in, the one as described in the Bible. If there is a god, I don't think it would be one roiled with inconsistencies (although who knows, maybe it is). In my view, no religions have made a compelling case as to why their version of god (or gods) is reasonable to assume.


I'm not trying to get you to accept any religion.  The identity question doesn't matter here.  I've made no appeals to the Bible, although I am a Christian and I think you are wrong about those things you said about it, but the point is not to convince you of the identity of God.  

The point is to convince you that belief in the existence of a God is just as reasonable as a belief in no God.

From what you've said, it sounds more like you are having an identity crisis rather than any actual doubt.  You don't believe in God because you're just not sure which one you should believe in.  Of course, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting.  All the same, the fact that you are confused about which one is right does not mean you should not try to find out.  I think Christianity is very unique in many ways.

----------


## Crashland

> I'm not trying to get you to accept any religion.  The identity question doesn't matter here.  I've made no appeals to the Bible, although I am a Christian and I think you are wrong about those things you said about it, but the point is not to convince you of the identity of God.  
> 
> The point is to convince you that belief in the existence of a God is just as reasonable as a belief in no God.
> 
> From what you've said, it sounds more like you are having an identity crisis rather than any actual doubt.  You don't believe in God because you're just not sure which one you should believe in.  Of course, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting.  All the same, the fact that you are confused about which one is right does not mean you should not try to find out.  I think Christianity is very unique in many ways.


Close, but no. I think that _lack of belief in God or no God_ is more reasonable than either _belief in God_ or _belief in no God_. I am not struggling to choose between various identities of God because I don't think any of those identities are substantiated. I am agnostic about the origin of the universe, but I am atheistic in the sense that I think it is unlikely that there are any gods who interact with humans or reveal themself to humans.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Close, but no. I think that _lack of belief in God or no God_ is more reasonable than either _belief in God_ or _belief in no God_. I am not struggling to choose between various identities of God because I don't think any of those identities are substantiated. I am agnostic about the origin of the universe, but I am atheistic in the sense that I think it is unlikely that there are any gods who interact with humans or reveal themself to humans.


Okay, but I'm curious: Do you accept my claim that belief in the existence of a God is just as reasonable as a belief in no God?  That's the key thing I'm getting at here because a lot of atheists think they that they can assume there is no God until they see evidence of it, but actually it goes both ways.

----------


## Crashland

> Okay, but I'm curious: Do you accept my claim that belief in the existence of a God is just as reasonable as a belief in no God?


Yes, I do accept that claim. But my position is not "belief in no God". That would be strong atheism, and actually most atheists don't hold that view, not even the most iconic atheists like Richard Dawkins.




> That's the key thing I'm getting at here because a lot of atheists think they that they can assume there is no God until they see evidence of it, but actually it goes both ways.


It is better to simply not assume anything at all until there is evidence. That includes assumptions about the existence of a god and assumptions about the non-existence of a god. Specific gods, however, can be argued against by contradiction.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, I do accept that claim. But my position is not "belief in no God". That would be strong atheism, and actually most atheists don't hold that view, not even the most iconic atheists like Richard Dawkins.


I made no claim as to your position.  I simply asked if the two claims were equally reasonable, which you seem to be saying they are.  Many people who believe in even weak atheism really seem to be quite skewed in their "probability"-based evaluations of the idea of God.  Probability really has nothing to do with it.  If you have no way of knowing whether God exists, it would be absurd to try to place a probability on that question.  

It is really a bit confusing, though, when you refer to Dawkins, someone who says Christians should be mocked and ridiculed "with contempt" and actively evangelizes atheism and pushes for its eradication.  I don't know about you, but I would not believe that guy if he claimed to be a "weak atheist."  I tend to think you're really not grasping the gravity of what I'm saying because people like Richard Dawkins really don't think a belief in God is reasonable at all, obviously enough.  On some fundamental level, I suspect you and most certainly Richard Dawkins (without a doubt) hold atheism as being somehow the more reasonable claim as some sort of "neutral" stance which we can just assume to be true with no evidence either way.




> It is better to simply not assume anything at all until there is evidence. That includes assumptions about the existence of a god and assumptions about the non-existence of a god. Specific gods, however, can be argued against by contradiction.


I agree with what you say here, which is basically what I said before.  I do find it interestingly that you still seem to hold a biased position when you say specific gods can be argued "against" without really acknowledging that any of them can be argued for, although you seem to acknowledge that the existence of God is a reasonable conclusion, nonetheless.  I seem to remember resolving one of the issues you have with Christianity in another thread of mine about Hell and eternal hell fire.  I don't see why all of your other issues couldn't be resolved as well.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Crashland probably doesn't believe this.  Does that mean he has a biased position? 




> _The World was Created from the remains of the giant Ymir. The three brothers dragged the dead body of Ymir towards the center of Ginnungagap. This is the place where they created the world from the remains of Ymir.
> 
> The blood was transformed into oceans and water.
> 
> The flesh became the land.
> 
> The bones became the mountains.
> 
> The teeth made into rocks.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Crashland probably doesn't believe this.  Does that mean he has a biased position?


Yes.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Crashland probably doesn't believe this.  Does that mean he has a biased position?


I have said time and again that I'm not debating about the specific identity of God, but you seem to keep wanting to appeal to some specific idea of God in order to disprove the whole idea of God.  This is a fallacy because the question of whether or not God exists has nothing to do with His specific identity.  I think He is biased in that He still believes that the existence of God, whatever His specific attributes might be, is less reasonable a belief in assuming that there is no God but being "open-minded" by accepting the possibility without really considering it.  

That said, however, you bring up a good point.  Notice how the text you provided says that the world was created from the remains of some already-existing thing.  Christianity is unique in that the Bible is the only text that claims God created the entire universe out of absolutely nothing.  That is one of the reasons I chose my specific religion, but I'm not actually arguing about that.  The evidence of the existence of a Creator of the universe is huge, such as the fact that we now know the universe had to have had a beginning, but some people shield themselves from this conclusion with their own bias.

----------


## Crashland

> I made no claim as to your position.  I simply asked if the two claims were equally reasonable, which you seem to be saying they are.  Many people who believe in even weak atheism really seem to be quite skewed in their "probability"-based evaluations of the idea of God.  Probability really has nothing to do with it.  If you have no way of knowing whether God exists, it would be absurd to try to place a probability on that question.


I agree that probability is not the best way to put it. "Certainty" or "Reasonableness" would be more accurate. If someone says that they think God "probably doesn't exist", or if an agnostic theist claims that "a god probably exists" then they are not referring to an actual probability, but rather a measure of how confident they are in making that claim, which hopefully would be based on reason.





> It is really a bit confusing, though, when you refer to Dawkins, someone who says Christians should be mocked and ridiculed "with contempt" and actively evangelizes atheism and pushes for its eradication.  I don't know about you, but I would not believe that guy if he claimed to be a "weak atheist."  I tend to think you're really not grasping the gravity of what I'm saying because people like Richard Dawkins really don't think a belief in God is reasonable at all, obviously enough.  On some fundamental level, I suspect you and most certainly Richard Dawkins (without a doubt) hold atheism as being somehow the more reasonable claim as some sort of "neutral" stance which we can just assume to be true with no evidence either way.


I do think that Dawkins is a weak atheist (as he claims), but it is just that he is *very* convinced that Christianity and other organized religion is wrong. He also thinks that organized religion is positively damaging to society and thus goes on a bit of a crusade against it. This is still possible with weak atheism, although I personally do not quite share his conviction to that extent.





> I agree with what you say here, which is basically what I said before.  I do find it interestingly that you still seem to hold a biased position when you say specific gods can be argued "against" without really acknowledging that any of them can be argued for, although you seem to acknowledge that the existence of God is a reasonable conclusion, nonetheless.  I seem to remember resolving one of the issues you have with Christianity in another thread of mine about Hell and eternal hell fire.  I don't see why all of your other issues couldn't be resolved as well.


Excellent point, I will take care to address this to make my position of non-belief more clear. I don't deny that they can be argued for. They can and have been argued for very eloquently (and also, not-so-eloquently), by apologists or priests or philosophers or anyone really. But I do not find those arguments to be compelling. In fact it was my exposure to more of various Christian apologetics (and the Bible itself) which started planting the seeds of doubt in my faith in the first place. Yes, it is possible that there are things I have not considered that could resolve some of the really bad 'dealbreaker' kinds of inconsistencies. My mind is always open to that and I have put a great deal of time and effort into researching these things. However, even if every single 'negative' problem/inconsistency could be resolved, there would still need to be a good argument 'for' a god, and particularly for the god of the Bible, in order for me to actually change my mind and be able to honestly form an opinion that "there probably is a god, and that god is probably the God of the Bible" (with "probably" not meaning an actual probability of course). Writers and pastors have attempted to do just this, but as of yet I have not found any that are convincing to me. If you happen to have in mind to direct me to God himself rather than human arguments, I have done that as well. I know very well that the Bible makes promises to honest seekers (Matt 7:7, Mark 9:23-25, Deut 4:29, Romans 10:13, Hebrews 11:6,...etc). No dice for several years now. I take it very seriously but at this point there is no way that I can honestly say I believe any of it, from any religion.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I have said time and again that I'm not debating about the specific identity of God, but you seem to keep wanting to appeal to some specific idea of God in order to disprove the whole idea of God.  This is a fallacy because the question of whether or not God exists has nothing to do with His specific identity.  I think He is biased in that He still believes that the existence of God, whatever His specific attributes might be, is less reasonable a belief in assuming that there is no God but being "open-minded" by accepting the possibility without really considering it.


Maybe if someone states that claim of a creator behind that universe, it just makes me naturally curious about said creator.  I just naturally want to know more about what they're going on about.  

I feel that same way about anyone offering way the universe was created without God.  Many such claims are full of interesting detail for me to read about and consider or dismiss.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Maybe if someone states that claim of a creator behind that universe, it just makes me naturally curious about said creator.  I just naturally want to know more about what they're going on about.  
> 
> I feel that same way about anyone offering way the universe was created without God.  Many such claims are full of interesting detail for me to read about and consider or dismiss.


That's fine, but that's not what I'm talking about.  Like I've said, though, Christianity is unique in many ways and there are plenty of reasons I'm not discussing that Christianity makes more sense than any other religion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Well, I think this thread has finally run its course.  There doesn't seem to be anyone who wants to respond to me anymore, and most of those who have been arguing have simply given up.

Therefore, I rest my case and I'm out.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Well, I think this thread has finally run its course.  There doesn't seem to be anyone who wants to respond to me anymore, and most of those who have been arguing have simply given up.
> 
> Therefore, I rest my case and I'm out.


bump

----------


## VIDEODROME

bump bump

C'mon this is exactly the discussion you guys claimed to want to continue.

----------


## lilymc

....Moved from the other thread:




> So...if morality is subjective, then it is not objective. You are using the word "true" as = to "objective". Maybe so, but "subjective" does not = "meaningless"


It is meaningless because if no one morality can be any better than any other, then in terms of value, they're all equal.  The morality of Pol Pot or Jeffrey Dahmer isn't worse than the morality of Mother Theresa or Ghandi.     And if all moralities are equal, then it's useless to even discuss morality.

You cannot even discuss what is "just" or "unjust" unless there is an objective standard that everything is measured against.

You cannot have true progress, if no one morality is better than any other, because you can't aim at a target that isn't there.

It becomes useless and meaningless, because there is nothing to work with, nothing true to aim at.... it's whatever we want it to be.

The only place it might have some meaning is in an individual's mind... but even then, if morality is subjective, it can change from day to day....so even that is ultimately meaningless.

----------


## otherone

> ....Moved from the other thread:
> 
> 
> 
> It is meaningless because if no one morality can be any better than any other, then in terms of value, they're all equal.  The morality of Pol Pot or Jeffrey Dahmer isn't worse than the morality of Mother Theresa or Ghandi.     And if all moralities are equal, then it's useless to even discuss morality.
> 
> You cannot even discuss what is "just" or "unjust" unless there is an objective standard that everything is measured against.
> 
> You cannot have true progress, if no one morality is better than any other, because you can't aim at a target that isn't there.
> ...


The subjectivity of morality is based wholly on having a choice of morality.
Bob says, "don't eat penguins, it's immoral".
Frank says, "That's subjective; you just made that up."
Bob says, "It's objective, it was in a book I read."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The subjectivity of morality is based wholly on having a choice of morality.
> Bob says, "don't eat penguins, it's immoral".
> Frank says, "That's subjective; you just made that up."
> Bob says, "It's objective, it was in a book I read."


You completely miss the point.  We don't claim it's objective because we read it in a book.  In fact, virtually all Christians understand that people can totally hijack the bible for their own selfish purposes.  The point is that objective morality exists.  You're just arguing that it's hard to know what this objective morality is, but on atheism, there's no grounding for the existence of objective morality.  The point is that we know at least _some_ things are truly moral or immoral.  On atheism, there's no basis for ANY knowledge of moral or immoral.  You can have it, sure, but you don't have any basis for why it's objective or why it should be applied universally instead of just to you.  The reason you can still act morally is because you have an ingrained sense of morality written on your heart from the beginning.  Morality is intuitive, but the debate is really about how you can justify its existence and say that it's truly right.  Saying Christians lack in this regard because they get it from a book is a mistake on the atheist's part because their source cannot even be applied evenly because there is no basis on which to disagree with each other.  It's just opinion vs. opinion, whereas Christians can actually verify their moral claims based on the Bible.  This doesn't mean that everyone will interpret it correctly, but it has been pretty reliable in keeping most Christians on similar moral grounds so that they can at least compare themselves to something instead of just saying that everyone should prefer their morality instead of someone else's.  

All that said, I am a bit burned out by this debate.  The point isn't to convince anyone.  The point is to get people to understand, even if they don't want to.  The more Christians advance these arguments, the more atheism will retreat and make room for an enlightened Christianity that understands the logical and philosophical basis for the Christian belief system. 

In fact, I would say the fact that we have atheists arguing over which label they should run to is a very positive sign for Christianity.  They don't know what to call themselves because any definition they place on their belief systems is vulnerable to logical attacks and they know it.  This is a good sign for the growing social influence of Christianity where it's no longer a sign of stupidity to believe in the supernatural and logical defenses can be given for faith in God.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Yeah it seems like this discussion gets repetitive.

----------


## otherone

> You completely miss the point.  We don't claim it's objective because we read it in a book.  In fact, virtually all Christians understand that people can totally hijack the bible for their own selfish purposes.  The point is that objective morality exists.  You're just arguing that it's hard to know what this objective morality is, but on atheism, there's no grounding for the existence of objective morality.  The point is that we know at least _some_ things are truly moral or immoral.  On atheism, there's no basis for ANY knowledge of moral or immoral.


Ah... Thanks for the clarification.  Do atheists believe in "objective" morality?  You're right; it sounds like code language for the supernatural.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ah... Thanks for the clarification.  Do atheists believe in "objective" morality?  You're right; it sounds like code language for the supernatural.


It does entail that.  I'm willing to accept that inference.

----------


## Crashland

I don't understand appealing to an objective morality which is both an intuitive, naturally ingrained thing (which I agree), and yet also inherently _unknowable_, because everyone has a different idea of what it is. That is exactly what it means for morality to be subjective.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't understand appealing to an objective morality which is both an intuitive, naturally ingrained thing (which I agree), and yet also inherently _unknowable_, because everyone has a different idea of what it is. That is exactly what it means for morality to be subjective.


It is not unknowable because it is intuitive.  People know when they're doing something wrong, but sometimes they do it anyway.  Nobody says it's unknowable.  We find this intuitive morality within ourselves and within others, but we can't explain why it's there unless we appeal to an objective moral law-giver.  The fact that it is there is pretty strong evidence against atheism in that these moral absolutes wouldn't exist at all if God did not exist and we would be like animals.  Animals kill all the time, but there's no such thing as morality to them.  Why do we have it?

----------


## Crashland

> It is not unknowable because it is intuitive.  People know when they're doing something wrong, but sometimes they do it anyway.  Nobody says it's unknowable.  We find this intuitive morality within ourselves and within others, but we can't explain why it's there unless we appeal to an objective moral law-giver.  The fact that it is there is pretty strong evidence against atheism in that these moral absolutes wouldn't exist at all if God did not exist and we would be like animals.  Animals kill all the time, but there's no such thing as morality to them.  Why do we have it?


I don't deny at all that people have consciences - that people can think they are doing something wrong and do it anyway. But that doesn't imply moral objectivity. A Jewish person might feel deep down in their heart that failing to keep kosher is wrong. A Christian will have no such inner feeling at all. A gay person who has not been exposed to Christianity might have no problem at all with his own homosexuality. A gay person growing up in a Christian environment might deep down feel incredibly guilty about his sexual tendencies. Everyone has their own moral code that they feel deep down intuitively. That does not make morality objective or knowable. The only morality that you can truly _know_ intuitively is your own, coming from your own conscience. This is exactly what subjective morality is.

As far as I know, we have observed moral characteristics in animals, although not nearly to the extent that we do. Humans, of course, have much higher reasoning and language capabilities which are very important in the construction of moral concepts.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't deny at all that people have consciences - that people can think they are doing something wrong and do it anyway. But that doesn't imply moral objectivity. A Jewish person might feel deep down in their heart that failing to keep kosher is wrong. A Christian will have no such inner feeling at all. A gay person who has not been exposed to Christianity might have no problem at all with his own homosexuality. A gay person growing up in a Christian environment might deep down feel incredibly guilty about his sexual tendencies. Everyone has their own moral code that they feel deep down intuitively. That does not make morality objective or knowable. The only morality that you can truly _know_ intuitively is your own, coming from your own conscience. This is exactly what subjective morality is.


All I'm talking about is the fact that these things are so widespread as to not be explained by mere chance.  People really do hold certain moral values in common.  They may not ALL be common, but at least some things are, which is curious in and of itself.  There is no natural reason why it had to be that way.  After all, it isn't that way in animals.  They don't have a conscience, at least not like we do.  That just proves it didn't have to be that way, but for some reason it is, and chance can't explain that.




> As far as I know, we have observed moral characteristics in animals, although not nearly to the extent that we do. Humans, of course, have much higher reasoning and language capabilities which are very important in the construction of moral concepts.


You say they're important, but that's just because we happen to have both higher reasoning and moral concepts, so it's a non sequitur.  There's no reason that it had to be that way.  You don't know why those things are important.  You just assume that we have moral concepts because of our reasoning and language capabilities because we happen to have both, but it doesn't follow that, because we have both, we needed one for the other.

So it's not necessarily true that animals lack moral concepts because of their lack of higher reasoning.

----------


## Crashland

> All I'm talking about is the fact that these things are so widespread as to not be explained by mere chance.  People really do hold certain moral values in common.  They may not ALL be common, but at least some things are, which is curious in and of itself.  There is no natural reason why it had to be that way.  After all, it isn't that way in animals.  They don't have a conscience, at least not like we do.  That just proves it didn't have to be that way, but for some reason it is, and chance can't explain that.
> 
> You say they're important, but that's just because we happen to have both higher reasoning and moral concepts, so it's a non sequitur.  There's no reason that it had to be that way.  You don't know why those things are important.  You just assume that we have moral concepts because of our reasoning and language capabilities because we happen to have both, but it doesn't follow that, because we have both, we needed one for the other.
> 
> So it's not necessarily true that animals lack moral concepts because of their lack of higher reasoning.


Correct - it does not follow that because we have both, we needed one for the other. When I make this claim I am drawing on my own experience. Whenever I am trying to convince someone else of a moral point, and whenever someone else is trying to change my mind about a moral point, I find that appeal to reason and empathy is by far the most effective way of accomplishing that goal. When I look at different moral systems, I see philosophy. When I consider my own conscience, I think reason and emotions, not fiat. This might be one of the key assumptions that I make in my particular view about morality, but I am pretty comfortable with it. I think this is the most consistent model with what I observe in myself and in the world around me.

----------

