Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 07:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'll keep it simple. Moral claims by believers of pretty much any type are questions of facts, even if they are wrong. They are questions of facts in the same sense that claims that the moon landing is a hoax is a question of facts.

If I stated that God forbids us from eating scrambled eggs, I am making a truth claim, i'm not stating a personal preference, and the claim becomes a question of facts.

No. Totally wrong. You're claiming your OPINION is true. Opinions are not facts. It
doesn't even come close to being about "facts" except in the heads of delusional Fundies.

A "fact" is something that is verifiable. NOTHING about the opinion claims of believers is verifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Your opinions are not verifiable.

Oh well. Another bad day for ACME Apologetics.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-12-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 06:49 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, it's been my experience that atheists tend to appeal to an objective morality all the time. They seem unwilling to admit that someone who disagrees with their moral positions, is not wrong in any objective sense.
A valid moral proposition is in the form:
If you accept <value> then <objective reality> compels you to view <action> as <consequence of action in objective reality on value>.

This is kind of the problem, and it should be apparent from the beginning, the "If you accept <value>". This in your view is expressed as an option, a preference. Compare this to a view in which man is created for the purpose of obtaining certain values, to love others, to seek justice, that he has obligation to be a person of such values.

A watch doesn't accept whether or not it should tell time, it was created for the purpose of telling time, and a watch that doesn't tell time, is one we can refer to as not working properly, as failing, to be as it was intended to.

Your point of view is quite different than this of course. It fact the difference can be understand when we view other subjective concepts, like beauty, or taste.

If you accept (all blonds over 5'4 are attractive) the (objective measure), then this compels you to view (Gwyneth Paltrow as attractive).

Notice what it is that you are referring to as objective. You are in essence stating what you like, and then stating the reason for why you like this. And since these reasons, the criteria for things you like, can be somewhat measurable, we can likely find other things that fit this criteria that you would like as well. It's sort of like what iTunes does, it knows what songs I like by my purchases, and then attempts to suggest songs that I might like similar to those purchases.

What you are referring to as objective, is akin to the sort of algorithm iTunes use to make those suggestions. So in some sense you are right that there is an objective components to our subjective moral preferences, but this is only true in the sense that they are objective components to all of our other subjective preferences, like songs we like, and clothes we like to wear, or the sort of woman we find attractive.

But I hope you can see why these objective components, the rulers we use, don't change the fact that it's all relative, in your particular view of things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 09:20 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 08:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. Totally wrong. You're claiming your OPINION is true.

Well, that's kind of the point. That the moral proclamations of believers, are truth claims, they are not merely expressing an individual preference.

The claim that the universe posses a moral arc, that bends towards justice, is not the same as a statement that I like green eggs. It's equivalent to statement that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is round, Obama is the president of the US, or there's a tea pot orbiting the sun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 08:32 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  You are basically talking about - questions about facts which are still wrong - OK? Have fun in your own special bubble!

That's the point. That a claim is being made that can in fact be wrong. That a truth claim is being made, compared to just an expression of preference, such I like sports cars.

You can say I am just as wrong as a person claiming the moon landing was a hoax, but this is all besides the point I'm making.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 09:38 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 09:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 07:37 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Likewise in a system that contains a god the subjective component of morality either reflects the gods values, the creation's values, or a synthesis of the two. Rather than being more objective it seems that the objective component is the flexible one in such a system. For example god may face a terrible moral choice between allowing his chosen people to be corrupted by foreign religion and commanding an ethnic cleansing... but being a god he can change objective reality and artificially separate the two whereas a mere human would be left to consider their values in the face of this objective reality.
(10-12-2014 06:49 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  A valid moral proposition is in the form:
If you accept <value> then <objective reality> compels you to view <action> as <consequence of action in objective reality on value>.

This is kind of the problem, and it should be apparent from the beginning, the "If you accept <value>". This in your view is expressed as an option, a preference. Compare this to a view in which man is created for the purpose of obtaining certain values, to love others, to seek justice, that he has obligation to be a person of such values.
...
But I hope you can see why these objective components, the rulers we use, don't change the fact that it's all relative, in your particular view of things.

I'm glad we agree. No matter whether it's a system with a god or without a god it's all relative to subjective values... and of course that "benevolence" in context of a creation describes the level of correspondence between the values of a god and its creation, and the fidelity with which the god acts according to those shared values.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
11-12-2014, 09:54 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 09:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 08:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. Totally wrong. You're claiming your OPINION is true.

Well, that's kind of the point. That the moral proclamations of believers, are truth claims, they are not merely expressing an individual preference.

The claim that the universe posses a moral arc, that bends towards justice, is not the same as a statement that I like green eggs. It's equivalent to statement that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is round, Obama is the president of the US, or there's a tea pot orbiting the sun.

That's your opinion, and as was just pointed out to you, there is no way to verify it.
Nice try.
It's not about a "fact".
They ARE just expressing individual preferences as about almost every "moral" subject, believers differ, and your Holy Book CHANGED its mind about.


"The claim that the universe posses a moral arc, that bends towards justice, is not the same as a statement that I like green eggs."

That's hilarious as YOU YOURSELF just yesterday used the same example to conflate those very two things.

You aren't feeling well, are you ?

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-12-2014, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 11:33 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 07:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, that's kind of the point isn't it. The view that man is required to do as God desires, and God's desire for man is found in the bible. Is not a question of opinion. It's not a subjective claim, but rather a question of fact.

Fact?

[Image: youkeepusingthatword.jpg]

Fact is something that can be proved via empirical evidence. Fact can be tested and retested.

There are no "facts" in the Bible in regards to morality. Why? Because morality is subjective in regards to the situation and the society. God says to not murder but then commands his people to commit genocide. This wouldn't have happened if morality was objective. Jacob wouldn't have stolen Esau's birthright if morality was objective.

Quote:The claim is not a statement of personal opinion, but asserting a fact, which may be wrong.

[Image: joawbrmjx0xu1dchntwu.jpg]

Quote:I'll provide a series of quotes for people of various religious backgrounds.

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." - Rev. King

" Morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality" - Bhikkhu Bodhi, a Buddhist monk and scholar

" In the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right" -Plato

Irrelevant nonsense. Having a bunch of quotes from famous, smart, dead people in no way makes morality objective.

Quote:I hope you can see why these are not subjective statements, they are not questions of opinions, but questions of facts. Religious moral statements are appeals to such and such supposed realities. Rather than just asserting an opinion, they are in fact making truth claims.

See... this... this is why I said what I said... and it's a perfect segue into...

Quote:I don't think I took a personal swipe at you, so I'm not sure as to why you decided to sink this low. But I'm guessing it was just a lapse in judgement, a line you can you find yourself easily crossing online, which you likely wouldn't do so in real life. But I'm hoping you refrain from taking it here in the future, rather than having this dissolve into nastiness.

Yes, it is necessary. It's buffoons like you that perpetuate the stereotype that Christians are disingenuous assholes. You change definitions... you are intentionally vague... use semantics... create words salads... use mental gymnastics... refuse to use logic except when it supports your own mental fallacies.

We've seen your types. I've seen your types. You are a bane and are hurtful to Christians who are trying to bridge the gap between believers and unbelievers based on factual and fruitful discussions and mutual understanding instead of pulling turds from your butt and trying to polish them up to convince others you have a piece of rare china.

It's your type that perpetuate the retardedness of Christians thinking that men have one less rib... or that the US was founded as a Christian nation. These unnecessary lies destroy the very fabric of ministry because it exposes Christians as frauds and liars. It doesn't have to be. It's completely unnecessary.

There are so many things that Christians lie about that it detracts and hurts the core truth of what Christ's ministry was and is; moreover, it creates doubt and disdain and pushes people away while simultaneously pissing people off.

Quit being this type of Christian, and I will quit with my nastiness. That or you can just ignore me for speaking FACT.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like kingschosen's post
11-12-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 10:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  //Yes, it is necessary. It's buffoons like you that perpetuate the stereotype that Christians are disingenuous assholes. …….

It's your type that perpetuate the retardedness of Christians thinking that men have one less rib... or that the US was founded as a Christian nation.

Whatever fucking chip you have on your shoulder you need to lose it.

I don’t want to be a dick to you, but you do it make it pretty tempting. But let’s just clear a few misconceptions up. I’m not some fucking white dude from the south, walking around with a rifle, pissed off at Obama, and making plans to visit the creationist museum. I don’t have a poster of William Lane Craig on my wall, or masterabate to Lee Strobel books. I’m not a conservative, nor am I an evangelical. I'm not your father, or whatever other fundie in you life you can't stand.

I don’t believe there was a historical Adam whose rib God used to make a chick, or that there was a talking snake. Or that the Bible was dictated by God, or even that morals are derived from it. It’s a book written by men, with all the problems associated with any other human form of literature, with all the fragility and contradictions.

I’m not here to defend Christianity, or to be anyone's fucking model Christian.

I’m not a Christian by choice, rather because I can’t deny the truth of it, anymore so than I can deny I have two hands. If I can cease believing in it, I’d likely say good riddance. Because then I can be an asshole without any accompanying pang of guilt. I can finally crucify the voice in my head, that tries and tells me I should know better, that I should be behaving with far more grace that I’m capable of mustering.

If I could start over again, I would probably kept the fact that I’m theist to myself, and presented myself as a person whose beliefs are unknown, or one lacking them. I’m a participant who happens to believe in God, but would like to engage in discussions as if this were irrelevant, so I don’t have to deal with your sanctimonious horse-shit.

Nothing I’ve argued is for the superiority of religious views of morality over secular ones, I’ve only made claims about how they differ in form. They are points that I would be making even if I didn’t believe in God.

But if you pulled that stick out your ass, and lost the butt hurt, and quit sucking the dick of every atheists that walks in the room, you’d probably have know this already.

I’ve ignored anything substantial you may have said about subjectivity and morality, until you clean off the sheets of the bed you wet.

When you want to come back correctly, you let me know and I’ll stop being a dick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
That was a decent rant Smile Now say 500 000 Hail Marys and beat yerself with a dead rabbit. Can't be fighting with your Christian brothers, not in the citadel of the Enemy.

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
11-12-2014, 01:09 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 08:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It can get nasty and aggressive real quick, a sewage almost. It's my cup of tea; my idea of a good time.


You wasn't kiddin', was ya? Big Grin

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: