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, 08:03 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 07:09 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Genuine question: How would the existence of a god make morals objective? Or make moral "laws" a thing?

Even if those things are a part of that gods makeup then that still wouldn't make them "objective" or fundamentally different than the values that we, near universally, hold. (Baby in pain = Bad. Me in pain = Bad. Food = Good.)

blah blah blah... some kind of universal meaning and definitive structure of things mattering. I guess it's like that.

As for non-god objective morality. I would say there is plenty of it proclaimed in Woo. A part of the Integral Theory which is a woo brand of existence that tries to explain everything in layers building upon eachother think there is a stage pattern to morality and that there is a higher pure objective way to judge morality.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 06:49 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... because we recognise that morality has an objective component, which is the consequences of actions in reality. However, it doesn't become morality without some subjective "values" component.

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>.

For example:
If you accept <human suffering is undesirable> then <the permanent physical and mental scarring that results> compels you to view <genital mutilation> as <undesirable>.
Now you can argue the components:
- Is human suffering really undesirable? Is it more or less desirable than life, or some other value?
- Is the consequence of genital mutilation true in objective reality?
If you accept the components of the proposition then a society that participates in genital mutilation is objectively worse than one that does not, and we can measure the effect various decisions made in various societies have on our value propositions to verify whether or not the objective component is true.

Whereas the theist in this case chooses to argue in the form:
God is omni-<value>. Just because <value> is harmed by his actions does not mean he is not omni-<value>.
For example God is omni-<human welfare>. Just because <human welfare> is harmed by his actions does not mean he is not omni-<human welfare>. I mean, who are you to decide what words mean? I mean, he just knows more about <human welfare> than you do. He's just doing it for your own good. I mean, it will turn out ok in the end. No, I mean just because I say god is omni-<human welfare> doesn't mean he needs to be held to some infinite standard of <human welfare> or something. What are you, crazy?

Whereas an honest theist concedes: God is not omni-<human welfare>. To say so given the record of his deeds would be to render the term meaningless. God operates according to his own purpose and that purpose is one we are subject to. We cannot hope for him to act in a way that is against his purpose or his nature just to benefit us. There is no omni- about it when it comes to god doing what pleases us, or what we value.

This is so not a boxing ring thread any more. Is that's objective enough for you?

This!

All of this!

That's what's I'm going to steal for my debate tomorrow.

Thank you.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
11-12-2014, 09:21 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(09-12-2014 12:43 PM)tear151 Wrote:  THIS IS BOLD AND IN ALL CAPS TO AVOID EVEN THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION, I SPECIFICALLY MEAN OBJECTIVE MORALS NOT SUBJECTIVE, THIS IS NOT A THEIST "ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS THREAD", THIS IS A SERIOUS SECULAR DEBATE I AM OPENING ON THE NATURE OF SECULAR ETHICS. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THAT MISTAKE

I am very much a moral anti-realist, I hold that no moral truths exist in the world, and that any statements one makes about morality are entirely subjective, it is even perfectly acceptable to reject the concept whatsoever.

If anyone is the following

1. Not religious

2. Believe in secular objective morality

3. Is interested in a debate with me

I'm to directly engage someone 1 and 1, my thread on philosophy generate a lot of discussion, now I want to take this seriously one and one with someone who believes in objective ethics.

The problem is, even in a world of 7 billion people, morality/reality is subjective. Which is a perfect explanation for "EVERYTHING". We are all individuals. There is no outside force. There is only the collective-subjective.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Drake's post
11-12-2014, 09:32 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 09:21 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:43 PM)tear151 Wrote:  THIS IS BOLD AND IN ALL CAPS TO AVOID EVEN THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION, I SPECIFICALLY MEAN OBJECTIVE MORALS NOT SUBJECTIVE, THIS IS NOT A THEIST "ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS THREAD", THIS IS A SERIOUS SECULAR DEBATE I AM OPENING ON THE NATURE OF SECULAR ETHICS. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THAT MISTAKE

I am very much a moral anti-realist, I hold that no moral truths exist in the world, and that any statements one makes about morality are entirely subjective, it is even perfectly acceptable to reject the concept whatsoever.

If anyone is the following

1. Not religious

2. Believe in secular objective morality

3. Is interested in a debate with me

I'm to directly engage someone 1 and 1, my thread on philosophy generate a lot of discussion, now I want to take this seriously one and one with someone who believes in objective ethics.

The problem is, even in a world of 7 billion people, morality/reality is subjective. Which is a perfect explanation for "EVERYTHING". We are all individuals. There is no outside force. There is only the collective-subjective.

I forgot to add...resistance is futile.Tongue

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Drake's post
11-12-2014, 10:02 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I’m not atheist by choice, rather because I can’t deny the truth of it, anymore so than I can deny I have two hands. ~ FC ex-RCC

Are you saying because you are Christian being an asshole makes you feel guilty?
And you wish you weren’t so that you could delve into assholism and not feel guilty?

Let me let you in on a little secret Tomasia. If tomorrow you shed the manacles of Christianity you would still feel pangs of guilt for being an ass to your fellow human beings. Christinsanity likes to believe it is the “light of the world” without which humans would be ammoral. It’s not. The Hindu Vedas precedes anything written in the Bible by thousands of years as an example and imo much more humane and enlightened http://history-of-hinduism.blogspot.com/...nduct.html
"twenty ethical guidelines called yamas and niyamas, “restraints and observances.” These “do’s” and “don’ts” are found in the 6,000 to 8,000-year-old Vedas, mankind’s oldest body of scripture...”

Anyway that voice in your head is YOU, not some mythical god. The only way to silence it is to cease to exist. You don’t give yourself enough credit as a human being. You don’t need god to be “good” or “graceful”.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Full Circle's post
12-12-2014, 06:52 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 10:02 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Let me let you in on a little secret Tomasia. If tomorrow you shed the manacles of Christianity you would still feel pangs of guilt for being an ass to your fellow human beings.

Do you feel guilty when you don't go to church on Sunday?

I'm sure if you were once a believer there's probably plenty of thing you might have felt guilty about, because your religion viewed those things as wrong, and if you left this religious worldview, and acquired one where these things are no longer seen as wrong, then you perhaps you can see why the guilt becomes lost?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 07:07 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 07:09 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Genuine question: How would the existence of a god make morals objective? Or make moral "laws" a thing?

It would imply that human life has some sort of moral direction, some sort of purpose and meaning. In essence you would speaking of human life as if it posses the qualities of narratives, and stories. We could always continue living our lives talking solely about the story, while others will acknowledge that stories have authors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 07:19 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It would imply that human life has some sort of moral direction, some sort of purpose and meaning.

Things like that always sounds to me like a desperate plea to be relieved of all responsibility and be allowed to exist solely as a cog in some machine. I find it sad that people aren't interested in living life on their own terms to the best of their ability and instead glorify the idea of being a slave.

Quote:In essence you would speaking of human life as if it posses the qualities of narratives, and stories. We could always continue living our lives talking solely about the story, while others will acknowledge that stories have authors.

That's what happens when you take an analogy too far. The "story of my life" is mine to write.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
12-12-2014, 07:25 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Your fear and intolerance make you a dick.

Have you considered just going away? Your preaching is annoying, you won't convert anyone, and this place obviously upsets you.
However, your participation serves as an example of religious stupidity, so that's a plus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Machias's post
12-12-2014, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2014 07:54 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 06:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think this is a poor analogy. Quite clearly you have two hands, you can see them, you can feel them, you can manipulate your environment with them.

My analogy was only to illustrate my sense of obviousness. Just as I’m sure there are a number of atheists, like Full Circle, for which it appears quite obvious that God doesn’t exist. It’s not a matter of choice for me, over the years of dealing with the question, I find myself unable to acquire any real undermining doubt, though I can toss around a possibility or two.

Also keep in mind, that I’m not saying that I can argue the obviousness of it to someone else, such I would be able to do so with my two hands.

Quote:That many believers have a belief that morality is unchangeable and is based on moral truths which are perceived as facts rather than the whim of their own personal opinions.

I think the evidence for this is that many believers go to church or synagog or temple or whatever to listen to their spiritual advisers and to learn what is moral and what is immoral.

Well, I don’t think the problem is one that plagues believers, but in fact many unbelievers as well. You should perhaps know this just from your own experiences here.

A claim that morality is subjective, amounts to nothing more than a claim that I like Taylor Swift, is likely not to make you any friends among atheists either. I think Bertrand Russell expressed this conflict best: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.

I think you and Tear are the only two individuals here, who likely will accept that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that you don’t like it.

If you’re going to make a diagnosis of the predicament I find myself in, it should be diagnosis of humanity and society as a whole to some extent, in fact it would likely be better to explore why many unbelievers are uncomfortable, and will fight you tooth and nail before accepting yours or Tears perspectives of morality. Such insights, and reflection will likely give you better perspective on why I believe what I do.

My view is that throughout human history, man has taken as a given that life has some sort of moral direction, and the we are just folks attempting to point in it’s direction, and orient ourself to it. It’s why we come up with concepts such a moral compass, or listen to your conscious, or heart, yada yada. I think this belief arises quite naturally to us, like children who believe pointy rocks exists for porcupines to scratch their backs on. A father or a mother who feels strongly about their children, might be led by their strong feelings to assume that they have some sort of sacred obligation to them, that these are the roles and obligation of being a parent, a purpose they are called to serve. (In fact I might argue that from a purely naturalistic perspective, it’s these sort of impulses that led to the creations of religions to begin with.)

These sort of views are so intrenched in our cultures, arts, films, so seeped into the fabric of our own being, that even atheists have a hard time letting go of it, and accepting a sort of nihilism.

If it’s not true, than we’re so wrapped up, so deep in the lie, that we unlike yours and tears brave souls, can’t seem to let go of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: