Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2014, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2014 08:51 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Objective Morality
Quote:Objective morality is a standard of right and wrong that is unchanging. This standard exists and persists throughout time regardless of outside or opposing factors such as culture or religion. The “what” of this question is actually quite easy to answer and so the more difficult question becomes the most important and it is this: Is objective morality a reality?

At least you have defined your term.


Quote:Is Objective Morality A Reality?

First, let’s look at the implications of this reality if indeed it is so.

Cart before the horse much?


Quote: If there exists a universally objective moral standard then it follows that “right” is right regardless of personal beliefs. This means that objective morality is the same whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Agnostic or Atheist or any other religion or non-religion.

Which IMMEDIATELY obviates your claim of a need for an entity to dictate it. FAIL.


Quote:Many of the proponents of objective moral values are Christians and for good reason.

We'll see about that.

Quote:In this case objective morality is not independent of religion or personal beliefs but is actually the cause of it.

Really. Your statement if incoherent. You say OM is "not independent" -- meaning that it DEPENDS upon religion/personal beliefs -- and then you turn around and claim that it is the CAUSE of religion/personal beliefs. FAIL.


Quote: Christians believe that their moral values are objective because God has given these values and holds to them Himself and also that God is unchanging and the ultimate being.

Yes because the xtian gawd in your fairy tale didn't kill off the entire population save for Noah and his menagerie.

Oh wait...

FAIL


Quote: If God is the cause of objective morality

STOP. You haven't demonstrated that this gawd-thing exists. AND you are using a circular argument.



Quote: then because He is the ultimate being and never changes then so too must His values be ultimate and unchanging.

Circular Argument Is Circular (CAIC}.

Quote: It is not hard for Christians to believe that stealing a penny is evil because of their objective and absolute moral values.

Doesn't stop them from stealing all the time, though.


Quote: And if God exists then Christians are totally right in this respect.

Which you haven't shown. I note that you are using WLC's bullshit construct of "If gawd exists then...." when we all know that this is ABSOLUTELY your presumption.



Quote: This being true,

SEE? Your presumption.


Quote: let’s look at a culture that holds different moral and ethical values than that of Christians.

HUGE Straw Red Herring in 3...2...1...

Quote:A People Very Different Than Us

The Aztec culture was very different from our own. To the Aztecs, human sacrifice was just one of many ways to repay their gods for sacrificing themselves for them. Huitzilopochtli was one of the Aztecs primary gods. Human offerings to this god would be placed upon a sacrificial stone where the abdomen would be cut through with obsidian or flint blade. The still beating heart would be torn out and the priest would hold it high towards the sky in honor to Huitzilopochtli; they would carry the body away and it would be either cremated or given to the warrior responsible for the capture of the victim.

If the warrior received it, then he would be responsible cut it up for use in either ritualistic cannibalism or the pieces would be sent to people of importance as offerings. The warrior would then attain a higher status in the social class system of the Aztecs. This system rewarded the success of the warriors by doing this.

When comparing the Aztec culture to our own we can see the stark contrast in what was considered right and wrong. This is where many would say something along the lines of “See here! The moral values of the Aztecs were completely different than those of our modern culture, but that is what was “right” for them.” However, we should note that there is a big difference between what is right and wrong (or good and evil) and certain perceptions of the same. Our perceptions can and most likely do on many cases differ from the actual set standard.

Sort of like the judeo-xtians sacrificing animals. Oh, and no, you can't Special Plead that we are "higher" then animals -- that's just your xtian anthropocentric arrogance.


Quote:For instance, let's use an example from the criminal justice system.

Yeah, this is going to be stupid....


Quote: There is a standard set by the Federal Government of the United States that says that using marijuana for any purpose is illegal.

You really don't know what you are talking about here. Aside from the fact that the US govt has licensed a small amount of people to use it and actually supplies them with it...


Quote: It is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, which means that it is considered highly addictive and having no medicinal value.

And you have no idea of the history of this action -- specifically that it was a political move designed to prevent people who were protesting the Vietnam war (many of whom also used marijuana) from voting by making them felons.



Quote: Nonetheless there are multiple states that have legalized its use for medicinal purposes and in Washington and Colorado marijuana usage is totally legal.

NO, it's NOT "totally legal". Not by a LONG shot.

Quote: It is obvious that in these states the most commonly held opinion is that marijuana should be legalized because otherwise it would not have been voted to be so by the residents of said states.

That's how a Democracy works.


Quote:Still though the Federal Government holds the law that it is illegal for consumption, cultivation, possession or distribution and so as the higher authority holds,

Except that you missed the part where the federal govt is not doing anything about it.

Quote: it is illegal and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) has the legal right to arrest and charge anyone who consumes, grows, has or sells it for any reason and it will be backed by the Federal Government.

NO, it won't be backed by the feds, and the President has said so.


Quote:I know that this example is subjective, as the federal law prohibiting use of marijuana may very well change in the future based on societal changes in opinion, but nevertheless it does do a good job of describing the issue of objective morality.

Which destroys your own comparison.

Quote:The higher standard (in this case the Federal Government) states that marijuana is illegal but the opinion (society’s perceptions) is in many cases that marijuana is good and should be legal.

Except that you forget States' Rights, and state laws are NOT "opinion".

Quote: Such is the case with the Aztecs. The higher standard (objective morality)

STOP. The fedderal law is NOT "objective morality". It's based on 70 years of DISinformation, corruption, and lies. It's not OBJECTIVE at ALL. Your analogy is puerile, uninformed, and moronic.


Quote:says that murder and cannibalism is wrong regardless of reasoning but the opinion (Aztec perceptions)

For ATECS, that was the law of the land. Like the federal law" you are comparing to "objective morality". Your analogy FAILs again.


Quote: was that it was good and pleasing to them and to their gods.

Who dictated THEIR "objective morality".


Quote: And one would be hard pressed to give an argument that argues for the validity of murder and/or cannibalism as a good and healthy practice.

Fallacy appeal to personal incredulity.


Quote:Perceptions And Reality

As you can clearly see, there is a difference between popular perception and what is actually right and wrong or good and evil.

You haven't established this.


Quote: Just because the Aztec people thought a thing was right does not make it so and so it is with any other peoples or cultures.

Same with xtians. For example. the genocide that is happening in Africa right now because the catholiKKK church refuses to acknowledge that condoms prevent AIDS and refuses to endorse contraception (in fact does everything it can to PREVENT contraception -- also contributing to the massive population problem there).


Quote: The point here is that if there are objective moral values

Which you have NOT shown.


Quote: then personal opinion doesn’t really matter because the moral values are not subject to individual perceptions but exist outside of subjective reality, as is the case with the Christian reality

REALITY? REALLY???? That's not a REALITY, that is SUPERSTITION.


Quote: that God is real

You have not demonstrated this. Nor have you even defined this "gawd-thing".

Quote: and that He

HE? Does this gawd-thing have a penis? And if so, what does it use one for?


Quote: does exist outside of this subjective reality

You have not defined what a "subjective reality" is. And your presumption of a gawd-thing is clear. Which you have failed to establish through sufficient evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, BTW, and claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



Quote:and indeed is the cause of both objective moral values and objective/subjective reality.

You have not shown ANY of this. All you are doing is making a bald assertion by fiat. FAIL.


Quote:But this presents another problem because without God there exists neither objective reality

"Objective" REALITY? WTF is THAT supposed to be. You haven't defined this OR "subjective reality", you haven't established that it is a valid concept. Nor have you demonstrated that this non-established sky-fairy has ANY connection at all to your non-established "objective reality". You are now claiming that in the absence of your sky fairy there IS NO REALITY? Kinda stupid. Totally incoherent.


Quote: nor objective morality

Nor have you demonstrated any sort of connection between your non-established sky-fairy and your non-established "objective reality".


Quote:and neither can there be.

You haven't demonstrated anything like that AT ALL. You have merely asserted it by fiat.

But wait -- I sense an effort to dodge your way out of the plot cul-de-sac you have talked yourself coming into coming on....

Quote: But let’s keep this article in an ontological (studying if a thing exists) light rather than stray into the epistemological (studying how we know that a thing exists) although that in itself does frequently present itself as yet another obstacle.

....And yes -- there it is! Run away from the epistemological hole you have dug yourself into by trying to sweep it under the rug. The rug at the bottom of the hole you have dug yourself into.


But wait -- you're still in the hole.

Might be time to start looking for help to get yourself out. Who you gonna call?

Quote:The Argument From Morality

As Dr. William Lane Craig put it:

Oh, you're gonna call YOUR HERO! What kind of sorry excuse for an institution of higher learning would give THIS idiot a doctoral degree? Do you think calling him "Dr" makes him any less of an idiot?

But let's let him have his say:


Quote: “In moral experience we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us.

Do we, really? Or does "Dr" Craig just make this shit up and assert it by fiat.

Quote: There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.”

Because he SAYS SO? There are PLENTY of reasons to dispute a claim of "objective morality". Craig is simply trying to wave away his problems with a fiat assertion. FAIL.


Quote: Dr. Craig argues the following:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

You -- just like "Dr" Craig -- really have no idea how an argument works. The premises of an argument should be statements that are understood to be true. The conclusion is derived from the premises. The above statement fails because it is a fiat assertion that Craig and YOU cannot prove. You can't show that either your sky-fairy OR "objective morality/duties" exist.

AND BY THE WAY -- I don't "agree" with you, as you claim, that "without sky-daddy, 'objective morality' doesn't exist". I dispute the existence of "objective morality" outright, and it has NOTHING to do with my disputing yoru claim of a sky-daddy.

Quote:2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

This is not a premise, this is a bald and unsupported assertion-by-fiat.

Quote:3. Therefore, God exists.

...which FAILs.

Quote:This argument is logically valid,

Not in the LEAST.


Quote:and is ontological in nature

You can't have your Special Pleading and eat it, too. You make an assertion, you need to justify it by ANY AND ALL means. You can't ignore epistemology simply because it raises insurmountable issues for you -- and YOU KNOW that this is why you are trying to avoid it.

Quote:and so is in keeping with the theme of this article.

....actually, the disingenuous, intellectually dishonest nature of this "article" -- really just a bad regurgitation of re-hashed Bill Craig fallacies.

Quote:The first premise of this argument is simply that the existence of God is necessary for objective moral values and duties to exist.

Circular Argument is Circular. You and Craig presume this entity exists in your premise AND YOU ADMIT IT. FAIL.


Quote: Premise two is a claim that objective moral values and duties do exist, as is evident in every day life.

No, it's NOT "evident in everyday life". Not by a LONG shot. You can't make it so by simply asserting it, either.


Quote: And so these two premises draw the conclusion that (3) is indeed true and that God does exist.

And the whole thing FAILs.

Still stuck in your hole. Whatcha gonna do now?

Oh, pull out MORE red herrings....and straw men....


Quote:Evolution and Objective Reality

REALLY????? You admit that you don't know Diddley about evolutionary theory, and yet here you are, making wild claims about it. WOW.

Quote:And so, is there an objective moral standard that persists and exists in spite of the ever changing world? There are many proponents of the evolution theory that believe that the human brain is a product of evolution and change over millions of years and not the product of a Creator,

.....one which you have FAILed to define and FAILed to demonstrate actually exists.

And the bolded part isn't a "belief", that is a FACT.


Quote: and so if the human brain changed in this way then moral values were developed and changed in the same way and so they may be changed again if humanity continues to “evolve”.

Non Sequitur. Straw Man.

Quote: Objective morality could be a problem for evolutionists

If in fact it DID exist, that would not necessarily be true. You would have to assume something stupid...like...


Quote:because there cannot be any objective truth unless there is an objective being or power behind it and according to the evolutionary theory there is no such being.

Yeah. VERY stupid. You haven't demonstrated ANY necessary connection at all between your unproven "objective being" and your unproven "objective reality". You have merely asserted it. And of course, you are again making a circular argument.


Quote:Of course this would only be a problem if God were scientifically proven to be a reality,

Then CRACK ON, Bro -- get to PROVING IT! You claim you talk to it, don't you? Get it to appear on Oprah and do some magic tricks! Have it conjure another planet between here and the moon, so we can send a shuttle up to it and look around to see for ourselves that it's real. It's THAT simple.


Quote: in which case the theory would fall apart.


No, it WOULDN'T. You see, you idiots have this delusion that if evolution weren't true, that would prove your sky fairy, and if your sky fairy existed, then the theory of evolution would be disproved. It's a False Choice Fallacy. And it's wrong.

Are you even aware that there are OTHER idiots who think that your sky fairy is causing evolution to happen? Of course, there are OTHER idiots who think that the world is only 6000 years old, AND your sky fairy is STILL causing evolution. AND finally, the catholiKKK church has given up on fighting evolution to "prove" your delusions, and admits that it's valid.

Quote: But how can one subject an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being to mere humanity’s “scientific method”? How does one keep God in a controlled environment in which circumstances can be repeated and actions and effects be recorded over a lengthy period of time? I don’t really see how to be honest.

Fallacious Appeal to Personal Incredulity. Hard to see with your head in a hole.


Quote:But let’s look at the implications on this side as well. If there exists no objective morality and all moral values are subjective and depend upon the time, place, culture, heritage, religious beliefs, sex, age, and any other number of factors that would have to be taken into account to get an accurate recording of the data, then we could expect many things to change in the future. But how soon in the future?

They change all the time as we speak.


Quote: How long exactly did it take humanity to evolve into what we are today?

Is that supposed to sound all philosophical and shit? It's dumb.

Quote:And how long will it take for the overwhelming population to be settled into a moral code that differs from our own today?

What's an "overwhelming population"? A billion Chinese?

Quote: If morality is subjective then it is good for the Aztecs to murder their victims in sacrifice to their gods then eat their mutilated bodies during rituals, but it is evil for an American citizen to do the same.

That does not follow. That is just an assertion by fiat. A straw man.

Quote:I understand that this example is on the extreme side and that many of you

STOP. Just who is this "many of you"? Are you really so narcissistic and deluded that you think you have some kind of wide audience here? When the reality is that you go trolling atheist forums ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ity--24277 ) and beg for people to read your tripe.



Quote:may be wondering about things that society deems less important in what they consider to be good and evil, so let’s look at that. Is it bad for a starving child to steal one small morsel of food to stop the hunger pangs? Is it wrong for a father to steal medicine for his child to ease their pain? Or does the end justify the means?

If there is objective morality, then yes, these actions are still wrong regardless of the reasons that they were committed.

So you would let either child die. Over your superstitions. I find you and your "objective morality" to be repugnant. As would ANY decent human being.

Quote: I cannot speak for individual perception on this kind of thing because there will be a widely ranging difference in opinion. If morals are subjective then it is right for the child and the father previously spoken of to act in that way because of the end matter, but it is only right for them.

Another straw man.

Quote:Subjectivity is in itself subjective.


Incoherent.

Quote: So it could be right for them, but not for the rest of society.

REALLY? It's wrong for "society" for a child to have food and medicine?

Quote: But that is a non sequitur in this case because no matter what the cause for the thievery, it is of course just that.

And you completely disregard and reject empathy and the natural human (AS WELL as OTHER ANIMALS) social response to care for others.

Quote:I’ll go so far as to admit that there are many, many people who do this and they have good reasons.

...completely destroying your own thesis.

Quote: The world is not perfect

Meaningless tripe.

Quote:and that means that not everyone gets what they need. However, the lack of human perfection and compassion in the world is a topic for another time.

No, it's not. You can't just wave this away so you don't have to deal with it. That's completely dishonest and disingenuous.

Quote: So, that child and that father above would of course be punished with a punishment fitting the crime if they were to be caught.

RELALY? And what do you think THAT might look like? In Saudi Arabia, that looks like CUTTING OFF that child's and the father's HANDS. BECAUSE of THEIR belief in a "God-given objective morality". And you are OK with that.


Quote:There is obviously, in the civilized nations at the very least,

You really think there actually IS such a thing?

Quote:a certain standard of moral values that are set in place because of their universality.

Not really. You are simply waxing romantic (and asserting by fiat) and feeding your own delusions. If it were the case, then there would be NO ARGUMENTS going on and NO CONTROVERSY about such things as gay rights, contraception, marijuana, etc.


Quote:Does it then follow that this seemingly objective moral standard


SEEMINGLY? You have asserted it by fiat. You keep shifting back and forth between declaring your assertions by fiat and pretending that you are treating them as if they were conditional. You learned this bit of semantic prestidigitation from YOUR HERO Bill Craig. It's disingenuous as hell.


Quote:that we live by every day in civilized America

WHO IS THIS "WE"? You are on the INTERNET, and in case you haven't figured it out, not everyone on the planet lives in the US, or agrees with your parochial visions of how the world works or should work. Or even that the US is "civilized".


Quote: comes from a higher objective truth?

Yup, Gawd provides us UhMurriKKKins with hiz objective truth, so everythin' we do iz RIGHT, by Gawd. <HURL>


Quote: Or is it just a product of human evolution and societal norms? To believe the former, because of its inherent need to have a so far “scientifically unproven”

NOT just "scientifically" -- and you reveal far too much about yourself with your use of quotes on that phrase. Your sky fairy hasn't been proven BY ANY MEANS.



Quote: higher power, requires the faith of the individual in said higher power as is the case with the Christian belief in God.

"Faith" -- meaning gullibility, credulity, willful ignorance.


Quote: The latter however requires no faith and is therefore much easier to be believed individually and corporately, and there is also evidence in favor of this view.

Not "also" There IS evidence for the latter.There is NO evidence for your sky fairy.


Quote:In conclusion, I would urge you to seek the answers and study this further.

Who is this "you"? Your legions of followers? You fancy yourself some sort of heroic Bill Craig wannabe? Who asked your advice? Why do you have to troll atheist forums to get people to read your puerile tripe?

Quote:Proponents of both sides

WHAT sides? False Chouce Fallacy much?


Quote: have much evidence to be dug through by the determined student,

You have already admitted that there is no evidence whatsoever for your sky-daddy. IF there were, and if YOU had any, you would be on Oprah showing it to the world.


Quote: and the truth can be sought.

....and determined through examination of EVIDENCE. AND LACK OF EVIDENCE.

Quote: Indeed, if God exists, as Christians believe,

And here you go again with this Craigian disingenuous nonsense of "IF gawd exists". When it is clear that you are presupposing and asserting it by fiat.


Quote: then the truth can be known in certainty and the topic of this article is a reality as well.

That does not follow, nor have you demonstrated such existence with sufficient (or ANY) evidence. AND your whole "argument" -- and I use the term EXTREMELY loosely -- hinges on that.

Quote:I hope that you do seek and find what you are looking for,

WHO are you talking to? Who says that anyone who reads your tripe is "looking for something"? AGAIN your narcissism reveals itself. The only reason I have read this is because you showed up on an atheist forum trolling and begging atheists to read it. Don't flatter yourself.

Quote: if indeed this article did spark a desire in you for the truth.

You have not "truth" to offer. More self-stroking narcissistic delusion.

Quote: And so I’ll end with a verse from the Bible,

Why? You connect this with your delusional assumption that anyone (including the atheists you BEGGED to read it) reading this tripe is "looking for something"?

Quote: even though I’m certain that some of you won’t like it,


"Liking" has nothing to do with it.


Quote: but it has spurred me forth in my quest for the truth

Your superstitious delusions are not "truth".


Quote: and in truth I believe that I have found it.


That doesn't speak well for you.


Quote: In the book of Luke chapter 11 and verse 9 it says this:

“So I say to you, ask and keep on asking and it shall be given you; seek and keep on seeking and you shall find; knock and keep on knocking and the door shall be opened to you.”


Translation: "If you can just suspend disbelief enough, get a lobotomy and drink, drink, drink the Kool-Aid, then you too can be just as deluded as Jon Harrington, who laughably calls himself 'the thinking christian'."


Quote:God bless America and the right to write!

Do you have ANY idea how stupid that statement reveals you to be?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
29-03-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(29-03-2014 01:03 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Objective morality is something people argue for in defense of controlling other people by telling them that they personally know what that objective morality is. "I know what is right because someone you can't see whispered it in my ear while I was sleeping"

BINGO. It's their sad attempt at Ad Baculum army-building. "I say so" didn't cut it, so they resort to "Gott Mit Uns, und Gott sagt!"

[Image: amy61f.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: Objective Morality
The F is objective morality? I know what morality is but please explain something.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2014, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2014 10:04 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Objective Morality
Posted to TheUnthinkingXtian's blog:

(quotes were used instead of BBCode quote tags)

"1'd like to justify my faith. Faith is not, as you said, illogical. It is true that I believe in the God of Christianity and I know that without having faith one cannot believe in any gods especially the God who says that it is impossible to please Him without faith. But isn 19t faith a logical thing? For instance, when you turn around to sit in a chair you have faith that the chair will still be there when you go to rest upon it, even though you aren 19t looking at it. You have faith that when you wake up in the morning, you will still be in your bed , in your room, in your house. Faith is a properly basic belief, or one that does not require the justification of other beliefs. Faith is a part of everyone 19s life everyday. It is not a product of the outside world and therefore can be called properly basic. You have faith in something as does everyone else, and therefore faith as a properl y basic belief cannot be called illogical because logic itself rests upon our individually held properly basic beliefs.
Faith isn 19t anything religion specific and is in fact a common practice in every-single-day life. We have faith in people and in things. Personally, I do not see any less logic in having faith in God than I do in having faith that my apartment is going to be in the same location when I return to it. Faith and logic go hand in hand if anything and are only made incompatible by those who refuse to think logically and instead believe 1Cbecause the Bible says so 1D. I don 19t know if this is coming across as I 19m intending it to, but I hope so."

Equivocation Fallacy much?

Believing your house is still going to be there when you get home is NOTHING like believing in a sky-daddy you have never seen.

"Next, I believe that the first premise is concrete and is indeed unassailable. There simply cannot be objective reality or objective morality without an objective force behind it."

You haven't shown that. And you can't make it so just by declaring it.

"The point simply is that without a God then morality and reality are subjective or relative."

That is totally incoherent. REALITY, REALLY? That's BEYOND STUPID.

"If objective morality were in existence without an objective cause, where would this unchanging standard of right and wrong come from?"

Buddhists posit it with their belief in karma and reincarnation as a cause. You don't believe that? It has PRECISELY as much backing as your assertion of a sky fairy. Which is to say, NONE.

"As is well known, a thing cannot go from disorder to order, but must go from order to disorder. "If you were to bring all of the supplies needed to build a house to a property and leave it there, the house would not build itself but would instead remain in disorder. But if you were to observe a house that has been built, this house wouldn 19t stay in order, but it would decay over time and return to its disordly original state."

Irrelevant Red Herring.

"Anything opposite this is completely unobservable and unprovable and therefore requires far more faith than does believing in God."

Oh, look -- you ADMIT just what flimsy grounds your belief in this sky fairy really stands on. You just shot yourself in the face, and you're too dumb to figure it out. You really ought to put that gun down. Doubt you will, though...

"How about the argument that there is absolute truth."

WHAT argument. You have neither presented nor proven such a thing.

"The argument against absolute truth"

STRAWMAN MUCH? Present your argument, but you and your hero Bill Craig have failed to realize that pointing out that you haven't proven your claim isn't asserting the opposite of your claim.

"is self-defeating because in order to claim that there is no absolute truth, you have to make that 1Cabsolute 1D statement that there are no absolutes."

...which no one has done. But I sense yet another strawman coming into play....

"And if you say that there is only one absolute which is that there are no absolutes,"

Yup, there it is!

"then you are there again making an absolute statement and therefore have given me two absolutes. So we can see that denying the existence of absolutes is illogical because of the above given examples."

Look, the Fire Chief is rolling up and gonna declare this place a FIre Hazard, with all this straw laying everywhere....

"If absolute or objective truth exists as seen here,"

WHERE? You haven't show that AT ALL! You have merely asserted it by fiat.

"then there must be an absolute or objective being behind it."

NOR does that follow, even if your bald assertion by fiat were true!

"Since absolutes or objectivity are proven, then it follows that God exists."

Only in the most deluded and brainwashed of minds.

"As stated above, I believe in the God of Christianity for various evidence,"

WHAT evidence? You have presented NOTHING.

"logic..."

Not by ANY stretch of the imagaination.

"...and faith based reasons."

That's ALL it has been. You believe in fairy tales, and draw your conclusions from there. That's it. Nothing more.

"Figuring out which 1Cgod 1D or 1Cgods 1D are really in existence is a matter for another debate however,"

That's just a sad attempt at a dodge. FAIL.

"as this one is on the 1Cif 1D and not the 1Cwhy 1D."

Because you would prefer to set THAT insurmountable problem aside indefinitely. FAIL.

"For the reasons given above I believe that the first premise of the argument made by Dr. William Lane Craig is unassailable and so those following it are equally true."

All you have demonstrated is your gullibility and an infinite capacity to exercise willful ignorance.

"As far as skewing this article into a subjective realm, how is that so? If, as discussed above, God exists,"

You have FAILED to demonstrate this.

"then it follows that He is objective and absolute,"

No, it DOESN'T. You merely declare it by fiat. That is disingenuous and dishonest.

"otherwise He wouldn 19t be God."

You haven't supported this with...ANYTHING. You merely fallaciously assert it by fiat.

"So holding a belief in an objective being cannot subjectify an argument, but actually further strengthens it."

Only in your most deluded fantasies.

"If that is unacceptable to you, then let me go another route."

SO you KNOW that it's a pathetic excuse for a claim. Check.

"Isn 19t every argument made by Theist and Atheist alike skewed?"

Not at all. But thanks for admitting your own willful ignorance and dishonesty.

"Theists make every argument from the belief that God exists,"

You are revealing far more about yourself and your intellectual dishonesty than you can possibly imagine.

"and Atheists make every argument from the belief that no God exists."

INCORRECT. We don't even necessarily present any arguments at all. We challenge your bald assertions. YOU make wild claims, and we RIGHTLY cast doubt on them. We don't hold a positive belief or claim. All we are saying is that The Emperor Has No Clothes.


"I offer then that any argument made against the existense of objective morality"

We are under no obligation to "offer an argument against" your claims. You are disingenuously attempting to shift your burden of proof.

"is itself tinged with the color of disbelief"

Disbelief in your claims isn't "tinging". YOU are making the claim. YOU can't back it up with evidence.

"and following your line of reasoning"

....Our only "line of reasoning" is a matter of pointing out that "The Emperor Has No Clothes".


"it is therefore a subjective argument and just doen 19t work."


NO, it's NOT. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. We have no need at all to offer any sort of argument. We are simply pointing out the holes in YOUR claims and pseudo-arguments.

" An Atheist 19s belief that there is no God"

STOP. There IS NOT "atheist belief". Doubting your unsupported claim ISN'T A BELIEF.


"has subjectified that argument just as, as you said, has my belief in God."

STRAW. MAN. You have no idea what you are talking about. My rejection of your unsupported claim doesn't constitute an argument for a positive claim of its opposite.


"Then I suppose that only an agnostics standpoint is valid because they are objective in that they do not know anything for certain."

AND THERE IT IS. Again you shoot yourself in the face. What you FAIL to realize is, that ALMOST EVERY atheist is an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST, meaning that they do NOT claim, "I know there is no gawd" -- that is what is referred to as a "gnostic atheist" position --, but instead points out that you idiots have failed to prove YOUR claim of a sky daddy -- an AGNOSTIC standpoint.


SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOUR STANDPOINT IS INVALID. AND YOU UNKNOWINGLY ADMIT THE VALIDITY OF AGNOSTIC ATHEISM. WELL DONE. There is really nothing more to discuss, beyond a little "mopping up".



" But that brings us full circle to the argument of the existence of absolutes. It is in effect 1Cbegging the question 1D."


No, it doesn't. It's moot.

"As far as my relation of our society to that of the Aztecs, I argue that the Aztecs thought that human sacrifice and canibalism was good, but that doesn 19t mean that it actually was."

Their belief in their warrior gods is no less invalid than your belief in yours.


"The existence of an objective God"

You haven't proven this.

"(which if God exists"

...and you haven't shown.

"He must be an objective being, otherwise He is not God)"

You haven't shown that "objective being" means ANYTHING.


"means that there is in fact an objective morality/reality."

Nor have you shown that assertion to follow your unproven assertion of such a being.


"Also, you mentioned that I didn 19t take into account whether or not those acts were beneficial to them but that was because even if it were beneficial that doesn 19t make it good. Robbing a bank would be beneficial but that doesn 19t make it right. You 19re correct in that there is no proof that those acts weren 19t beneficial to them, but I don 19t see how that impacts the objective morality that I 19m speaking of."

Hard to see with your head in a hole.


"By definition, God is a being who is worthy of worship"

What does this "worship" even MEAN? You haven't demonstrated this definition in the least. And CERTAINLY YOUR mythical murderous sky fairy isn't worthy of worship".

"and anything that is not God is not worthy of worship (not adirmation or awe, but worship)."

Which you have neither defined, nor shown that YOUR murderous fairy tale monster is "worthy" of.


"Any being worthy of worship must be morally perfect"

Which COMPLETELY disqualifies YOUR mythical jealous, capricious, cruel serial-killer imaginary friend.

"or that being is not worthy or worship and is therefore not God."

...making it painfully clear that your YHWH is, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, "not God".

"Not that I am saying that their 1Cgods 1D didn 19t give them stuff,"

So you believe THEIR fairytale stories, too. Weird.


"I 19m simply saying here that if there were beings that provided them with benefits for their sacrifices that those beings were not God or gods because the sacrifices that they required speak to the fact that these beings were or are not morally perfect."

Um sort of like your fairy story of your gawd demanding Abraham sacrifice his son -- how cruel -- and at the last minute saying "NOT -- but you have to kill a goat instead". I'm sure the goat would have preferred a different outcome. Your fairy tale sky daddy is a true MONSTER. If it were real.

"I do appreciate your feedback and in fact I must admit that I was hoping for feedback when I wrote it."

Translation: "I am an attention whore".


"I 19m not claiming to know everything, I 19m simply trying to make sense of the world around me as is the rest of the populace."

...and THIS is the best you can come up with? For crying out loud.

"I 19m not sure if this response came off exactly as I intended it to because there was a lot of thinking involved and sometimes my brain works faster than my fingers and sometimes it 19s the other way around. Anyway, looking forward to your response."

It's' OBVIOUSLY the latter, and not the former.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2014, 12:26 AM
RE: Objective Morality
"I understand object permanence. I hope you remember that the entire theme of the article was an ontological one and not an epistemological one. The point was not trying to figure out how we know that objective moral values exists but rather it was to address whether or not objective moral values exist at all. I was intending to stay with that theme, but I may have strayed. But, this is why I said 1Cif God exists 1D. If God exists then my relation between faith in the physical and faith in the spiritual is logical."
Your disingenuous attempts to avoid justifying your assertions do not exempt you from your obligation to do so.

"I see what you 19re saying about how my faith is real for me but not for you."
...but you'll attempt to dodge it just the same."

But if God exists..."

You haven't supported that assertion.

"then He is real for everyone regardless of whether or not a person believes that He is real or not. Just as my hypothetical disbelief in alternate universes doesn 19t actually mean that they aren 19t there. If they are there then they are real for everyone and that is not impacted by what I believe.

What a crock. There are karma-believers who claim that if you don't believe in karma in this live, you will in the next. You aren't saying anything.

"I can see that you haven 19t had any personal revelations for the existence of God."
I can see that you haven't had any personal revelations for the existence of the Flying SPaghetti Monster. Your assertoin holds PRECISELY as much weight as mine. ZERO.

"And so by me saying that I 19ve seen the sick healed before my eyes,"
You might THINK you did. Delusion runs deep.

"feel the witness of the Holy Spirit"
What does that even MEAN? Nothing.

"and sense God 19s presence just as keenly as I sense the presence of my wife who is physically next to me it would sound subjective."
ANd I can feel the presence of The Fllying Spaghetti Monster's Noodly Appendage werapping around my soul as we speak. You believe me? Just as much as I believe you.

"But if God exists "
You haven't shown that.

"then those things are objective"
You haven't shown that.

"because they are for everyone and exist despite being individually experienced.
Word. Salad.
"I 19m with you on one point at least, and that is that without God, there are no objective morals or reality."
You tried that garbage on me, as well. He didn't say that, he didn't agree to that. You are putting words in his mouth. You haven't demonstrated a case for yoru claim or EITHER "objective morality" OR your fairy tale monster. AND your claim of an "objective" and a "subjective" reality is an UTTER FAIL.


"And I see your point in that what was considered right and wrong across history has changed, but if God exists"
You haven't shown that.


"then humanity's perceptions of good and evil do not change that fact that there is an objective morality."
Your fairy tale gawd, in your fairy tale book, is a fairy tale monster. NO good and decent person would embrace the hateful, genocidal "morals" espoused by your mythical fairy tale monster.

"As in the example with the Aztecs, their perceptions were 1Cthis 1D, while reality was 1Cthat 1D. And with the marijuana example, the higher standard says one thing while society says something else."
BOTH of your examples fail. And BOTH are based upon yoru abject ignorance of the issues at hand.

"I don 19t suppose it has to be the Christian God. That is the God that I believe in, but as stated in my last response, this isn 19t directed at figuring out which god or gods actually exist but is instead directed at if objective moral values exist and their dependence upon an objective force or God behind them."
You are a damned liar. You are merely mealy-mouthing around facts that you cannot address.
"I am using the Christian God because He is the God that I believe in, and if God exists then this God is most logically the correct one."
The genocidal, capricious, baby-killing fairy tale monster? Of COURSE you want to distance yourself from its purported actions when you are confronted with the truth of your fairy tale stories. They are horrific.

"Christianity is in fact the most logic and evidence based religion on the face of the planet today."
BS. You have no idea.


"If God exists, then I want to be talking to Him and not to some lesser being or non-existent one, you see."
Your mythical god is a monster. You can have it.

"My line of thinking has led me to the existence of God, and logic further leads me to the God of Christianity."
You wouldn't kmnow logic if it bent you over and buggered you.

"I'm certain I haven't thought of everything,"
THAT much is TRUE. THere is A WHOLE LOT that you have failed to think through.

"but who has?"
Fallacious appeal to your own ignorance.

"As far as the 1Chouse building 1D metaphors, the point here is that there has to be a cause of the order and that it doesn 19t happen on its own. I say that the premise is unassailable because absolutes do exist as is evidenced by my ability to say that there are absolutes. However, there cannot be absolutes (order) unless there is a cause for it."

Non Sequitur. Straw Man.

Again, if God exists, then we can attain perfection and every other absolute. I bring this argument into play simply as a way to show that there are absolutes just as there is objective morality. No God = no absolutes or objective morals. God = absolutes and objective morals.

"How is it a leap? I plainly make the point that disorder can 19t turn to order and that it must be order to disorder. There must be an order before there can be disorder. For there to be order there must be someone to 1Corganize 1D so to speak. That is the correlation. Organizer 13 order 13 disorder. Order = absolutes or objective morals. Disorder = relative or subjective morals."
Non Sequitur. Straw Man.

"In order for there to be subjective moral values there must be something to base them off of (objective moral values)."
Non Sequitur. You are diving deeper and deeper into insanity and incoherence.


"And in order for there to be objective moral values there must be a being that put them in place."

You have shown neither, and your assertion does not follow. But it gets even worse:

"The fact that you believe your friends and family when they tell you about their experiences means that you must believe in God."
Yes, the deepest depths of delusion. In yoru desperation, you claim that an atheist believes in yoru sky daddy, no matter what. Could anyone ever be more dishonest and delusional that you? No. But here you go, dancing your little dance:

"How can you believe that God is real for me and not for you? If God is real then He is in no way, shape or form subjective and neither can He be. If one refuses to believe in God then one must also refute the claims of each person claiming the existence of God. I appreciate that you have respect for their faith and mine, as many people do not. I 19m no master apologist for sure, and in fact I haven 19t been studying for very long so I apologize if I have been unclear. I respect your position as well. I do not see how you can deny the logic of my arguments though."

No, you dln't "respect" his position, and again, you wouldn't konw logic if it shafted you with a snake in a sandstorm.

"I am not trying to prove God 19s existence to you or to anyone"
THAT IS A BALD-FACED LIE.

", but I am simply trying to say that if there is a God,"
...how disingenuous. Anyone with more than two brain cells can see right through your ruse.

"then so too is there an objective morality."
You haven't shown that. You have merely asserted it ad nauseum.

"I did give some evidence for His existence but that was not my overall objective."

No, you didn't, and yes, your objective was to fallaciously and frudulently claim that your sky daddy exists. You SAID AS MUCH when you pulled out yoru hero Craig's pathetic and laughable "moral argument".

"If God exists, then it follows that He is objective and absolute, otherwise He wouldn 19t be God; If God exists."

You haven't demonstrated ANY of that to be true. You merely asserted it.

"I didn 19t start with the existence of God as a conceded point, I simply said 1Cif God exists 1D."

You took it as an unstated assumption. You are a damned LIAR.

"And again I say if God exists, then He exists regardless of perception."
You have no proof or basis for that bald assertion.

"My entire argument is made from the statement 1Cif God exists 1D."
WHICH YOU ASSERT, PRESUME, AND ASSUME TO BE TRUE.

"I did try to offer evidence for His existence"
No, you DIDN'T. You are LYING again.


"but I never said 1CGod is definitely real and so this is the way it is and I don 19t care what you say. 1D I am trying to make my points saying 1Cif 1D."
All you are doing here is admitting your own disingenuous intellectual dishonesty. You ADMIT that you are doing everything you can to avoid admitting your own presumptuous assumptions, which you nonetheless wish to force inot your arguments through the back door. NO ONE IS FOOLED.

"So, there is no God because He doesn 19t come up in your arguments? If Atheistic arguments"
OH YES, the strawman of "atheistic arguments" again.

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. YOU HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE. *REAL* EVIDENCE.


"are world centric,"
That doesn't even MEAN anything.


"doesn 19t it them follow that you must take into account the world itself and particularly how it came to be?"
NO. Tat is only your sacc attempt at a strawman and shifting YOUR burden of proof.

"What of the first cause?"
YOU are the one claiming knowledge of a cause.


"What of the countless arguments for the existence of God?"
Your desperation is showing. There aren't "COUNTLESS" arguments, and NONE of them have proven to be valid, and you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to substantiate your claim of this fairy tale monster.
"What of the Atheists like Lee Strobel or even Antony Flew turned Creationists?"
How pathetic. You are making a fallacious appeal to supposed authority, and inviting us to do the same. I don't know anything about either of those people, and I don't care WHAT they think, and what they think makes no difference to MY REJECTION OF YOUR FAIRY TALES.

"Then I 19m sure you know of at least a couple of ex-religious who turned Atheist. I 19m certain that you know of some in depth Atheistic arguments against the existence of God."
You have no idea. There ARE NO "arguments against the existence of" your fairy tale monster, simply refutations of your fallacious assertions.
"I guess this is all pointless really because neither of us, nor anyone else for that matter, can prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God without having personal interactions with God or the lack thereof."
And the problem for YOU is that your assertion is a positive claim, and you can't back it. All we are doing is pointing out that The Emperor Has No Clothes.

"I said that beneficial and good are not the same thing and that 1Cif God exists 1D then He must be morally perfect."
And your own fairy tale stories put the lie to that claim.

"Since He must be morally perfect then so too must His law be morally perfect."
Like when "he" ***supposedly*** sends bear to maul children, and commits, and orders his people to kill every child and baby. Yes, moral perfection at its finest. /rolleyes

"That is the objective morality I speak of."
And there you have it. FAIL.

"If God exists."
You keep resorting to that mealy-mouthed ruse, a Craigian trick. No one is fooled.

"That is how I can say that what they did wasn 19t 1Cgood 1D."
You can't claim that your fairy tale monster is in ANY way "good". Not to any reasonable person.


"Let me ask this: if God exists would you worship"
What IS this "worshiping" business? You are SO damned brainwashed.

"Him if He were morally imperfect?"
It's clear from your myths that your fairy tale monster would be FAR form perfect, if it actually existed. Answer's NO.

"Any imperfect being cannot be worthy of worship and thereby cannot be God."
And thus you admit that your bible YHWH CANNOT BE GOD.

"Do you see that in order for God to be God then He must be morally perfect and therefore worthy of worship?"
YES. And yet you REFUSE to see what is plainly in front of your face, that your capricious, jealous, hateful, angry, childish fairy tale monster, as depicted in YOUR OWN MYTHS, is FAR from anything any reasonable person would call "perfect".
UNBELIEVABLE. You take the damned cake.

"Just because these beings were worshiped does not mean that they were worthy of worship."
Same with YOUR mythical gawd.

"What I mean is that most religions require blind faith and fear without real and logical explanations."
First amd foremost, xtianity.

"These beings were worshiped out of fear and in the hope of getting goods like rain and other such blessings. Not because of their moral perfection."

First and foremost, xtianity.

"When you talk about sacrifices in the Bible you are equating animal sacrifices with human. You cannot equate animal life with that of our own because they are obviously lower life forms. Killing a cow is nothing like killing a human."
You didnt ask the damned COW about that, did you. Your statement is horribly anthropocentric and capricious. If you think that all other animals are "lower" than us, then just take a stroll out in the Alaskan wilderness and tell that to the next Kodiak Grizzly that you run into.

"Jesus volunteered for the cross and to die for humanity."
So you pull out your fairy story again. FAIL.

"Aztec victims did not volunteer. They were victims and therefore it was murder. Communion is a symbolization of Jesus 19 willing sacrifice of Himself. No one eats flesh or drinks blood; it is just a cracker and some cranberry juice instead of bread and wine. It is in remembrance of Jesus because His body was broken and so we break bread, and His blood was spilled and so we drink the juice. Just to remember because remembrance is very important."
Word. Salad.


"You may be referring to Abraham in the Old Testament as well. He did not however actually sacrifice his son. God told Abraham to do so because it was a common practice at the time to sacrifice children to 1Cgods 1D, and so God wanted to test Abraham 19s loyalty. Once God saw his loyalty, He provided a ram as a sacrifice."
Even if this fairy story were true, the trauma of a father being fcorced to make a choice of killing his child is horrific. And yet you are so brainwashed that you cannot see this. Pathetic.
"God is not a murderer and does not accept murder."
This has got to be the stupidest thing ever said on the internet. Your own myths put the lie to this claim, even though it's only a myth. Sodom. Gomorrrah. The "Flood" story, in which your fairy tale monster supposedly kills all life on eath save for Noah and his little menagerie. You are a liar and a fraud, and no one is fooled. Youe mythical deity is a monster.


"At the end of this looooooooong response, I say thanks. Thanks for taking the time to offer your opinions. I don 19t know if I hit everything or if I missed some things. My basic point overall is this: If God exists then objective moral values exist and without Him there are no objective moral values."
You hzve demonstrated NONE of this, and you have failed to make your main case, which is that without yoru fairy tale monster, there is no reason for humans to behave morally at all. AS IF your bastards had ANY claim to moral high ground in the first place, which you don't.


"My arguments may not be articulated as well as they could be but I do hope that my writing was clearly put on screen. Anyway, I don't see where else this could go except deeper into my headache, so I guess that's it for me. Feel free to PM me though if you'd like to talk about this subject or any other!"
You are a delusional WLC wannabe. And just like WLC, you fail at every turn. One can only hope that at some point you wake up from your willful ignorance. Not holding out much hope for you, though.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2014, 01:13 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I don't get the definition people are using for it.

Objective = Goal or ideal , it does not mean absolute or unchangeable.

So Objective morality is just our ideal morality, "do no harm"
Subjective morality = is deciding whether or not to harm, ignoring the goal of "do no harm".

Objective morality is real enough, its the dentition of it being set in stone that's incorrect.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2014, 02:01 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Yes and no. The definitions that do get brought up are Kant's Categorical Imperetive, and as convinced of God as Kant was, he assigned it to moral moral maxims. Sounds good, doesn't work.

It would be nice and easy if morality were a clear-cut (hedonic) calculus equation, but it's simply not that easy.

Show me someone who is a hard line believer the only morality is the objective morality of God, and I'll show you someone with some skeletons in their closet who excuses questionable behavior with "but I'm a Christian now".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
30-03-2014, 03:32 AM
RE: Objective Morality
"God bless America and the right to write!"

And may Jebus bless 'Merica that totally unsubstantiated ignorant non-sequitor bullshit assertions can still pass for "thinking", and that snake oll salesmen professors at Biola, Liberty U, and the Talbot School For the Intellectually Challenged of Theology can still get paid for indoctrinating the young with this presuppositional crap and make them think it actually has intellectual value.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-03-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Goodness. Walls of text on the part of all sides.

To the OP- The very foundational idea upon which your discussion is built essentially boils down to: "objective morality can only emanate from some deity that is beyond our understanding."

This is patently absurd. First of all, it is a false dichotomy that even if some sort of omnipresent deity existed, he/she/it is the only thing capable of objective thinking and rational construction of a moral framework. Secondly, throughout your article it is clear that you are working from the idea that objective morality is somehow innately superior and more desired to subjective morality in nearly every situation. This is again absurd, and highlights the bias of your thinking style that automatically prefers anything that is in line with your religious belief system.

I applaud your effort to have an honest discussion but in the end you have just buried your ideas too far under a mountain of logical and factual inaccuracies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Superluminal's post
30-03-2014, 08:16 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(30-03-2014 07:27 AM)Superluminal Wrote:  To the OP- The very foundational idea upon which your discussion is built essentially boils down to: "objective morality can only emanate from some deity that is beyond our understanding."
This is patently absurd.

Agreed, regardless of my disagreement in the definitions, the theistic view of "Moral absolutism" can equally apply to gene/meme evolution.

We all (unless abnormal), respond to certain tastes, smells the same and hormones trigger motherly behaviours in animals the same as humans (more so I think).

God did not make mothers care for their young, the mothers who were able to keep their offspring alive best passed their genes along until protection of young was innate to almost all descendent fauna, including us.
Since all fauna are genetiic brothers, the moral absolute of harm no infants make perfect sense, NO GOD NEEDED HERE, MOVE ALONG PEOPLE !!

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: