Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(16-04-2015 06:16 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  "You don't know Him like I do. He really loves us. He wouldn't treat us this way if we only listened."

Stockholm syndrome No

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
16-04-2015, 08:56 AM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2015 09:02 AM by Variant.)
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(16-04-2015 06:16 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Most apologists will say that whatever God says is morally right, and he's not bound by the rules he gives us. It might be logically consistent, but it does involve a god who kills babies when he's mad at their parents. It also involves apologists making excuses for this sort of behavior.

"You don't know Him like I do. He really loves us. He wouldn't treat us this way if we only listened."

Genocides are OK when God does it?

At this point the apologist gives up the ghost though that objective morality is somehow desirable.

Here we have a claimed objective morality where believers can claim any act is moral simply by also claiming to speak for God.

Since God can do anything it wants and be objectively good, actions done in Gods name can not be questioned simply because they do not meet the usual standards of morality.

So the question becomes: What is the POINT of an objective morality that doesn't apply to the most powerful being?

Objective though would imply true in all cases, so if we have a God that shows us cases where it is not true, then it is not objectively true. So, I don't agree with our apologists on the terminology. What they have proposed in this instance is a subjective morality based upon the most powerful beings views on Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Indeed. What's the point of objective morality if it has nothing to do with wellbeing?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(16-04-2015 06:16 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(15-04-2015 08:35 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Continue asking your questions and demanding your answers. If he doesn't like you being "argumentative", that's his problem.

My last post to him was me asking him to defend his stance, and he never responded.

Good. Let his silence speak volumes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
I was having an online discussion with someone about morality. He believed all morality came from god. One needs to ask that person if god changed his mind on morality and made rape or murder ok would this make rape and murder ok? I asked him, how do could you, as a mere mortal, possibly know what god might do? You just assume god won't change morality.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(16-04-2015 08:12 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  If you can get them to admit that certain things in the bible were moral "at that time" or "in that society" then you win everything.

They won't. They'll say God commanded it (cuz mysterious ways), so it was moral. Luckily for us, God stopped commanding genocides 2,700 years ago.


(16-04-2015 08:56 AM)Variant Wrote:  What they have proposed in this instance is a subjective morality based upon the most powerful beings views on Good.

This is true. They just don't like to explain it like that. God gets a pass on an awful lot of things, solely for being God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(16-04-2015 08:56 AM)Variant Wrote:  Objective though would imply true in all cases, so if we have a God that shows us cases where it is not true, then it is not objectively true. So, I don't agree with our apologists on the terminology. What they have proposed in this instance is a subjective morality based upon the most powerful beings views on Good.

Dennett's quote about real magic vs magic that isn't real could probably be reworked for morality. They claim objective morality exists and is the subjective dictates of a god. That means that objective morality is subjective and subjective morality is objective.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(16-04-2015 10:05 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Dennett's quote about real magic vs magic that isn't real could probably be reworked for morality. They claim objective morality exists and is the subjective dictates of a god. That means that objective morality is subjective and subjective morality is objective.

Regardless of what we call it, these conversations come down to the "virtue" of objective morality in saying certain things are always wrong.

That is it's only virtue, and it can't even cut it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
The idea that we cannot have objective morality without God assumes that there is an objective morality in the first place. If there is, as these folks argue, it is incumbent on them to produce it. Where do we find this "objective morality"? In their holy books? GREAT! Let's take the argument to their holy books. When they see that their holy books fail any modern standard of morality, then they will say God imprinted morality in our hearts. But that just raises the question, if it was imprinted in our hearts, why don't their holy books reflect it? Also, if God implanted morality in our hearts, how (in practical terms) can that be distinguished from a subjective morality based on conclusions drawn from reason?

There is no difference.

"Subjective" morality is not necessarily correct or incorrect. But reason-based morality is an ideal to which we all strive. People will always THINK their personal standard of morality is the most compatible with reasonable conclusions, but it remains important to recognize that our values evolve, and thus what we consider moral today may not be considered moral in the future. THAT explains why God never condemned slavery better than any theist ever could (frankly, because it assumes this "God" to be an imaginary construct).

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Man, I would love talking to my religious friends about this stuff, but am too worried I would offend them or make them feel attacked. Oh well.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: