If you had unmistakable proof that God didn't exist...

[Keres]

Nobody is arguing that people without a belief in God can't come to a belief in moral values. They just cannot logically do so.

Actually, it's quite easy to come by moral values logically.

It's really quite simple.

You simply ask yourself 'would I want to be treated in such a manner?' and if the answer is no, the logical conclusion is 'well I shouldn't treat others in such a manner'.

There you go, the simple logic of the system of moral values. If only all religious folks subscribed to the same moral value, the world would be a great place.

 

[lux et lex]

Oh I would tell people if I knew for certain God did not exist, and I am a theist.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yes, but you've not proven that your moral code is objective to anyone other than yourself. In other words, if someone has a different moral code than yours, there's no logical way to reconcile the two without transcending the two people.

Yes, hence law. I fail to see where God figures into this unless you choose to crowbar him in somewhere. There is no objective morality, the closest thing we have is the law.

 

[Jnwaco]

Yes, hence law.

Law comes from individuals, and is subjective and relative, not objective. Our constitution says that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Was that moral?

I fail to see where God figures into this unless you choose to crowbar him in somewhere. There is no objective morality, the closest thing we have is the law.

Really? I bet you think stealing is wrong, and that if I stole something from you you would not say "well, his morality is different from mine, it's okay he stole from me".

 

[lawtonfogle]

I know it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, but hypothetically, if you stumbled across some evidence that you were certain would convince everyone that God didn't exist, do you think you would release this evidence into the public domain or would you keep it wrapped up?

Hmm... considering that evidence that will convince the public and proof are two different things... I would likely release it to the public, just to see what would happen.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Law comes from individuals, and is subjective and relative, not objective. Our constitution says that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Was that moral?



Really? I bet you think stealing is wrong, and that if I stole something from you you would not say "well, his morality is different from mine, it's okay he stole from me".

No, you would go "I understand why he stole from me, but I am still going to beat him over the head so he doesn't do it again."

Just because someone else believes something different doesn't mean you have to roll over and accept what they believe.

 

[quatona]

I would live life for my own pleasure and if what pleases me discomfited you too bad.

As opposed to now when the mere fact that it discomforts me would be sufficient to keep you from doing what you´re doing?

 

[quatona]

Because I don't want to be around someone who is a moment of doubt away from putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger.

Well, no matter what conviction our belief that putting a gun to someone´s head and pull the trigger is based upon - we are only one moment of doubt away from doing it.
Even if we work from the assumption that empathy etc. can be explained by physical processes and functions we would be only one moment of a temporal malfunction or chemical imbalance away from losing it.

 

[Letalis]

Actually, it's quite easy to come by moral values logically.

It's really quite simple.

You simply ask yourself 'would I want to be treated in such a manner?' and if the answer is no, the logical conclusion is 'well I shouldn't treat others in such a manner'.

There you go, the simple logic of the system of moral values. If only all religious folks subscribed to the same moral value, the world would be a great place.

Why should one logically place morals above personal self-interest? Why, logically, should one even give any consideration to morality?

 

[quatona]

They just can't claim any higher objective morality.

Sure they can claim any higher objective moral authority - just like you can by introducing a god. That´s the easiest thing in the world. Unfortunately claims are a dime a dozen.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Law comes from individuals, and is subjective and relative, not objective. Our constitution says that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Was that moral?

Not in my opinion. In theirs, maybe.

Really? I bet you think stealing is wrong, and that if I stole something from you you would not say "well, his morality is different from mine, it's okay he stole from me".

The law supersedes my own personal morality and says that stealing is wrong. The robber is of course welcome to try to change the law, but good luck with that, because it's not going to happen easily. Under the current law, what the robber did was wrong.

Everyone has different views on what is right or wrong, hence why we need a general consensus by society to determine rules for all of us to follow. I don't necessarily agree with all of them but by becoming part of society I agree to follow them or be punished, regardless of what my own personal opinions are. So by the law (and my own morality) it's not ok.

'Objective morality' is just an excuse peddled about by people who wish to impose their views upon other people. It does not exist.

 

[quatona]

Yes, but you've not proven that your moral code is objective to anyone other than yourself.

That´s true, but neither have you. Simply claiming it doesn´t a proof make. Not even evidence.

On another note, even if there were unmistakable proof that a god exists I still wouldn´t know why to accept this god´s personal moral code as objective.

 

[Letalis]

'Objective morality' is just an excuse peddled about by people who wish to impose their views upon other people. It does not exist.

Without a doubt. Who are the culprits?

 

[Letalis]

That´s true, but neither have you. Simply claiming it doesn´t a proof make. Not even evidence.

On another note, even if there were unmistakable proof that a god exists I still wouldn´t know why to accept this god´s personal moral code as objective.

'"I would persist in my indignation even if I were wrong." Which means that even if God existed, even if the mystery cloaked a truth, even if the starets Zosime were right, Ivan would not admit that truth should be paid for by evil, suffering, and the death of innocents. Ivan incarnates the refusal of salvation. Faith leads to immortal life. But faith presumes the acceptance of the mystery and of evil, and resignation to injustice. Under these conditions, even if eternal life existed, Ivan would refuse it. He would accept grace only unconditionally, and that is why he makes his own conditions. He throws in his lot with the damned and, for their sake, rejects eternity. If he had faith, he could, in fact, be saved, but others would be damned and suffering would continue. There is no possible salvation for the man who feels real compassion.' - Camus

 

[SithDoughnut]

Without a doubt. Who are the culprits?

Those who wish to impose their views on others and use objective morality as a reason...

 

[Letalis]

And who among our society does that?

 

[SithDoughnut]

And who among our society does that?

Objective morality is used by religions occasionally and the odd dictator or any leader who wishes to establish themself as the person who 'respresents what the country wants' - in actual fact, what they want.

Probably some other people too.

 

[Jnwaco]

Objective morality is used by religions occasionally and the odd dictator or any leader who wishes to establish themself as the person who 'respresents what the country wants' - in actual fact, what they want.

Probably some other people too.

Kind of like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.... oh wait, they were fans of moral relativism, Hitler a huge fan of Neitzsche, for example. I don't think you want to compare body counts.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Kind of like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.... oh wait, they were fans of moral relativism, Hitler a huge fan of Neitzsche, for example. I don't think you want to compare body counts.

Your point?

"Moral subjectivism is EVILLLLL!!!!!!!1111!!11!!1" doesn't change the fact that objective morality doesn't exist. Add to that the fact that pretty much every moral subjectivist is a nice person and you have yourself a terrible argument.

Also Godwin's Law = you lose the argument. I'm sorry but that's how the rules work. Don't mention Hitler because all that means is that you've run out of real arguments.

Can we extend Godwin's Law to include all dictators?

 

[Letalis]

Objective morality is used by religions occasionally and the odd dictator or any leader who wishes to establish themself as the person who 'respresents what the country wants' - in actual fact, what they want.

Probably some other people too.

Would you agree that atheists are just as likely to use statements of objective morality just as often as Christians?