Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2014, 10:27 PM
RE: Objective Morality
If there is a god, was it "moral" for it to allow 1000000 innocent babies DIE from disease and starvation last year, most of which IN NO WAY resulted from ANYTHING any human did or could have stopped ?

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
28-03-2014, 10:28 PM
RE: Objective Morality
What a crock of bullshit. Dodgy

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:20 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Well there are a ton of argments for the existence of God, but that isn't the purpose of the article that I wrote, it was simply to make the case that I don't think there can be objective morality without God or god or gods or whatever...

And those arguments are bullshit.

You are making a case for something, basing it's reason solely on the existence of something else. If you can make your argument without pleading to the existence of "god" then we wouldn't require you to make an argument for "god".

But your whole argument for "objective morality" is an argument for "god"....so yes...that is the purpose of that article you wrote, so yes, you do have to defend the existence of "god". You cannot simply sneak "him" in the back door, which is what you are attempting to do, and we all see it for what it is.

Don't dick us around. We see though your bullshit.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
28-03-2014, 10:31 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:56 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I'm going to break your response into two parts, and answer them in two separate comments for ease (I hope) of conversation.

First part:
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  That is not a very good argument. It seems that you must prove that there is no God or god or gods or any sort of eternally existing, objective and rational being before being able to make such a claim as the one that you have made. The argument begs the question...
I am expressing opinion here, not gnostic (as it would be) fact. I can state opinions as freely as I like. But to be fair to you, I didn't clarify whether I was expressing opinion or a claim.

But regardless, I don't need to prove there is no "God". It's a long warn out point, but you...making the claim that there is a "god", and utilizing the presupposition that there is a "god", have to prove there is a "god".

If we go by your logic that I can't make a claim about the reality of reality without disproving this alternative, then what is the special case about your "god" in this respect. Using your logic, we, you and I both, would be required to disprove all things, even the impossible to disprove based on the concept of them. I'm not just talking about disproving other "gods", but also of disproving even concepts that you have never heard about, thought about, anyone has ever thought about, that anyone is even capable of thinking about, concepts that will never be thought about.

We don't need to disprove things, unless the evidence for them is overwhelming. But it is your responsibility, making the claim of the existent of this "god" concept, to provide that evidence.

I've your concept of "objective morality" is your evidence of "god" concept, but your "god" concept is necessary to explain your concept of "objective morality", then you've just created a closed concept. You need outside supporting evidence or reason to accept either concept first. You've only asserted them.





This second part...
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Now as far as the subjective morality part, I concede that subjective morals could exist without God, but that wouldn't really mean anything, because then right and wrong would only be based on experience and say, rape and murder, wouldn't really be wrong.
I'll respond to in just a sec...

Well okay then if that's your opinion. But it doesn't serve as a viable refutation of my assertion. Anyway, I think you are thinking too much. It's simply this: if you wish to make a claim about God not being in existence and want it to be a plausible option for denying an assertion made by another, then you have to give supporting evidence for your claim that God does not exist. I don't see why we would have to disprove every other thing in the context of this discussion... And I never claimed that God was real, I simply said that if He isn't then there is not foundation for objective moral values and duties, and if He does exist then there is a great foundation for objective moral values and duties.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:59 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:47 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  The 'endless wall of text' is the argument.

Show me a parlarment in which debates start with the handing out of a page long text.

Quote: If you don't want to read it then don't.

If you want to talk with people then tell them what you think instead of refering them to some elaborate description you made of what you think.

Quote: And I'm not trying to start a debate, but simply receive opinions.

To which you intend to and have asnwered - hence debate.

Quote: If you like the article let me know, if not then let me know. If you disagree with it let me know. That's what I was asking for, not for a debate...

For that not to be a debate it would require you not to answere to what people reply.

Quote:It is the first article I have written on theism or any sort of philisophical anything, so I wanted some opinions.

I dont like repeating myself.

Quote:And kindergarteners are rude too.. I have one so I know! lol. I simply asked that everyone remain civil and not call it "bullshit" or "retarted" because I put a lot of work into it. If it's wrong then fine, but tell me you think so like an adult and not a hormonal teenager like some people do...

What is it with this ridicilous notion of political correctness and civility? People who claim horrendous and absolutly idiotic things deserve to be pelted with verbal feces and to be ridiculed. The very essence of wit is the capacity of making your oponent look like a fool. And certain people who make certain claims only deserve a loud and clear "fuck off". Not saying that you do, I am merely disregarding the notion of "civility" in debate.

Okay then, if it is a debate then let be as such, but I am saying that I will not respond if the comment is derogatory. Period. It's just out of respect for another person. I won't respond to you in any disrespectful or derogatory way, and I just ask the same courtesy in return. If you don't want to be civil then you don't have to be civil, but I will not take part in any discussion with you as long as you have a hostile attitude, just as I would not expect anyone to want to converse with me if I were being hostile to them. I am only here to talk, not argue or curse, ya know? I can respect people with totally different paradigms than me and so I should think that everyone would be capable of this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:36 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:00 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  I concede that subjective morals could exist without God, but that wouldn't really mean anything, because then right and wrong would only be based on experience and say, rape and murder, wouldn't really be wrong.

You mean rape and murder wouldn't really be wrong so long as God placed his stamp of approval on it, which the Christian God inconvienently happens to do quite frequently.

No. I don't mean that. I mean that, as I've said three times now, that God cannot do the logically impossible task of going against His own nature. And this article was only using the Christian God as an example, I didn't claim that it must be that God that is the foundation for objective morality...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:39 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:01 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:27 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Oh man! That's a horrible mistake that I hadn't even thought of lol. Seriously, I'm going to change it now. Right now. And I'm usually great with grammer.

Um, it's grammar, an even worse mistake than ending with that preposition in the title. And, by the way, it's "either-or" and "neither-nor" it's never "neither-or" or "either-nor" ok? It's very simple to remember because the N's stay together.

Not sure if I'll read your piece because, as an editor for 25 years, I can be brutally honest about writing style and grammar, plus even if a god existed, his morality would still be subjective, so your entire piece is likely moot.

EDIT: I wrote this long before everyone remarked on "grammar" but the system bounced into CloudFlare and my post was in cyber limbo. I just want it to be clear I wasn't piling on here.

Well I appreciate the literary teaching. And if you do read it, try to focus on the topic please and not so much on the grammar and spelling. I tried to make it all good on that note but I'm sure I messed up a bit. I would just rather hear a critique of the argument than of my spelling. And how would God's morality be subjective if God Himself is an objective being? I don't see how an objective being could be subjective in any way. I could be wrong though, maybe I'm not thinking it through in the same way that you are...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:18 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  No lol, I explained in another response that the nature of God is that He is omnibenevolent.
you made the assertion that he is omnibenevolent,but you have not offered any argements or evidence that this is indeed the case
Quote: He could not say "rape is good now" because it would go against His very nature. Just because a God would be all-powerful does not mean that He can do things that are logically impossible like that. And no, it's not okay to kill homosexuals and I'm not even sure if that's in the Bible?
yes,but you have yet to show that omnibenevolence is in his nature. And have you even read your bible?
Quote:And yes, God's standard would be objectively moral if indeed He does exist, because nothing about an objective being could be subjective.
define "objective being"

Quote: If it can be that way then I don't see how... Anyway, murder is immoral. Killing someone to save a life is not immoral.
see,like i said,wether action x is moral or not is depending on the situation

Quote: I believe that presmie 1 is true because without an eternal, objective, rational being, then there would be no good foundation for objective moral values and duties.
and can you support this claim?
The amount of harm an action causes is a standard for morality,and we do not need a eternal being. We only need rational observers


Quote:I believe premise 2 is true because of things like this: murder is wrong, period. hatred is wrong, period.
you just said murdering someone who is attempting massmurder is not immoral

Quote: There is no instance in which taking innocent life is right, and no instance in which hating another is right.
the first may be true, the latter isn't in my oppinion. Hatred against a serial killers,child abusers,dictators,oppressors is IMO right. That is not one instance,these are 4 instances and there are many more

Quote: Those are just two examples. Even Sam Harris admits the objectivity of morality, though he has different reasons for it.
but sam harris is not the autorithy on morality,or atheists,or humans in general. He says. It is his opinion.
And i never said morality isnt objective. Strawmanning much?
Quote: Forgive me on the evolution part. I didn't know much of evolution at the time and I was merely trying to add weight to my argument.. Total honesty here Smile

you do not add weight to a possition by adding false assertions Drinking Beverage
Quote: If it's wrong then I apologize! I didn't copy but I did read a few articles and take from those articles what I thought were key points.
without even researching if the stuff you wrote was correct Drinking Beverage

Quote: Again, the last part I can correct in the future if need be...
it certainly needs to be

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:09 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:35 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Well thanks.. so what is your take on the topic? Do you think there can be objective moral values and duties if there is not God?

Oh! You've changed the evaluation criteria from intrinsic to contextual!

OK, no worries. Actually, you can see my perspective in the link I posted earlier but a quick summary:

Do I think there can be objective moral values?
Yes but only once an axiology (or framework) has been agreed upon.

Do I think there can be objective moral duties?
I'll have to think about this. My instinct tells me that no one is obliged to do anything they don't want to do unless they have agreed (tacitly or explicitly) to do so.

"if there is not God?"

No gods required.
Your summary section covers my position regarding human morality being based on the evolution of empathy, reciprocity, disgust, loyalty etc.

What would be the axiom needed there? I ask because I don't see any framework plausible that would explain objective morality. And it's not so much that objective moral values are something one must do, but simply duties that are objectively good or bad. Atleast that's the way I see it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:42 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:13 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 10:03 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  My piss starts boiling with rage everytime someone critizises my spelling and grammer on a forum rather than making an actual point.

So I will say that this is a cheap shot.

She asked for criticism of her piece, I gave it, and in a minor fashion. And I made an "actual point" after that. I could also point out that you made quite a few mistakes in your post, but since you use "English isn't my first language" as a crutch I won't tell you what those mistakes are. Is that a good enough point for you?

Actually... I'm a guy. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: