If when we die....

[Skavau]

My point exactly. You and every other person who wants to be a law unto themselves need only deny the existence of objective moral standards and values and then plug into the equation whatever agrees with your heart's desire. This becomes your morality, this becomes your value. You are taking the place of God, which you reject as existing, and make yourself to be god.

This is true regardless of whether someone believes in God or whether God exists.

So what's your point?

 

[Gadarene]

My point exactly. You and every other person who wants to be a law unto themselves need only deny the existence of objective moral standards and values and then plug into the equation whatever agrees with your heart's desire. This becomes your morality, this becomes your value. You are taking the place of God, which you reject as existing, and make yourself to be god.

No. This is predicated on your wholly unjustified assumption that god and only god is the source of objective moral values. God could exist and not be the only source of moral values. In addition none of us consider ourselves to be gods.

 

[SharonL]

Wow - the athiests really come out on questions like this - how sad to have no hope for eternity.

The Bible says that the angels escort your soul into Heaven if you are a Child of God - it also says absent from the body present with the Lord.

 

[Gadarene]

Wow - the athiests really come out on questions like this - how sad to have no hope for eternity.

Not at all.

Again, just because you can't handle the idea doesn't mean we can't.

And reality has nothing at all to do with our wishes.

The Bible says that the angels escort your soul into Heaven if you are a Child of God - it also says absent from the body present with the Lord.

The Bible says a lot of things.

 

[Gadarene]

In summarizing the various points that I have been making in this thread, I will say this. As a human with the capacity to reason and make judgments on moral matters, you can adhere to whatever ethical or moral system you desire. You can choose to live a eudaimonistic life, or you can choose to live according to the consequentialistic moral ethic, or the nihilistic view, etc. etc. It is your choice. You can believe in a god that requires you to engage in "holy war" or a God that requires you to love your neighbor as yourself.

However, the moment you begin to impose your particular view upon someone else, you are making it an objective standard.

Er....no. It means nothing about whether the standard is objective or subjective. Whether or not you choose to impose your standard on someone or not says nothing about whether its frame of reference is objective or subjective.

Out of curiosity, is this why you have been repeatedly telling atheists what to do while rejecting the same from them? Because you think you have an objective moral system and we don't so you get to impose and we don't?

You are making an appeal to someone on the basis that they understand what you are saying and you assume that they will see the validity behind the standard. If you see a man getting ready to rape a woman in a dark alley and you approach him and say: "Hey man! You should'nt do that. It is wrong!" You are expecting that man to understand why you are saying that it is wrong. You are expecting the man to respond with something like: "You know what, you are right. Raping this woman would cause her great emotional, physical, and mental pain. I should not do this."

Nor would saying "Hey man! You shouldn't do that because God said so!" deter him from doing as he pleased.

What is your point?

You make your appeal based on the fact that the man can understand that is inherently wrong to rape someone. You are making this appeal to another person about another person, which makes it an appeal to an objective standard.

No, what makes it an objective standard is that it is based on something objective. What makes it an objective standard is that it is based on the pain suffered by people, which is something that can be objectively determined.

As long as your view is held to yourself and yourself alone, it is subjective. The moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are making it objective. You are appealing to the fact that this man has a conscience (the inner voice that accuses or excuses one's actions), and hopefully, he will not carry out the atrocious act of rape. It has been said that the most dangerous man to himself and to others is the man whose conscience no longer convicts him of wrongdoing. Such a man is capable of anything. Not only that, but such a man will find grounds to excuse whatever he approves. I know this to be true because I lived as such a man for several years.

You were a rapist?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow - the athiests really come out on questions like this - how sad to have no hope for eternity.

The Bible says that the angels escort your soul into Heaven if you are a Child of God - it also says absent from the body present with the Lord.

Cite?

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible about angels escorting souls to Heaven.

Maybe you got it from Shakespeare? "Flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

 

[Elioenai26]

This is true regardless of whether someone believes in God or whether God exists.

So what's your point?

Hopefully I can make it a bit more clearer by saying this: If a theist for example, seeks to do away with the objective moral standards and values which they affirm as being prescribed by God, and plug in his or her own values and morals (whatever they might be), he is acting in willfull contradiction to the prescribed objective moral standard. In other words, the objective moral standard still makes a claim upon the person, they just refuse to adhere to it.

On the other hand: when one who does not believe in God denies the existence of objective moral standards and plugs in his or her own values and standards, they are acting in accordance with their view of life. When he or she rejects the belief in God, then someone (the individual themself) has to become the prescriber of some set of morals and standards, however noble or base these standards might be. Because a moral law or standard is a prescription and prescriptions come only from prescribers. For example, unlike the laws of nature (which are only descriptive), moral laws are prescriptive. Moral laws do not describe what is; but they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way people do behave, but are imperatives as to how they should behave.

I hope this clears things up a wee bit.

 

[Skavau]

Hopefully I can make it a bit more clearer by saying this: If a theist for example, seeks to do away with the objective moral standards and values which they affirm as being prescribed by God, and plug in his or her own values and morals (whatever they might be), he is acting in willfull contradiction to the prescribed objective moral standard. In other words, the objective moral standard still makes a claim upon the person, they just refuse to adhere to it.

Okay.

That's on the theist. Only a concern a theist should worry about. What makes an objective standard actually objective? That is what is the criterion that decides that someting is objectively right or wrong and something that is not? Argumentation? Reason?

On the other hand: when one who does not believe in God denies the existence of objective moral standards and plugs in his or her own values and standards, they are acting in accordance with their view of life. When he or she rejects the belief in God, then someone has to become the prescriber of some set of morals and standards, however noble or base these standards might be. Because a moral law or standard is a prescription and prescriptions come only from prescribers. For example, unlike the laws of nature (which are only descriptive), moral laws are prescriptive. Moral laws do not describe what is; but they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way people do behave, but are imperatives as to how they should behave.

I hope this clears things up a wee bit.

I'm not seeing the problem with this. Someone who rejects a unquestionable source for morality has to come to their own conclusions on how they ought and ought not behave.

I've said this myself, and so have others. I'm not seeing where you're going with this.

 

[Elioenai26]

Er....no. It means nothing about whether the standard is objective or subjective. Whether or not you choose to impose your standard on someone or not says nothing about whether its frame of reference is objective or subjective.

A better phrase for me to have used would have been to say that: the moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are suggesting that it is an objective standard. Thank you for correcting me.

Out of curiosity, is this why you have been repeatedly telling atheists what to do while rejecting the same from them? Because you think you have an objective moral system and we don't so you get to impose and we don't?

I have'nt been telling atheists what to do while rejecting the same from them. I have however recommended that some of the people here do a little more research with regards to the discussion at hand. But only for their benefit. Of course, they dont have to listen.

You were a rapist?

For a time I lived as a selfish, self-centered, egotistical, heartless, reprobate, who willfully sought to silence the voice of my conscience and arrived at the point where I was a cold, callous individual. I never committed the act of rape, but at the time, I took no thought for the sanctitiy of women. I saw them as only means to an end, just like anything else in the world.

 

[Elioenai26]

Okay.

That's on the theist. Only a concern a theist should worry about. What makes an objective standard actually objective? That is what is the criterion that decides that someting is objectively right or wrong and something that is not? Argumentation? Reason?


I'm not seeing the problem with this. Someone who rejects a unquestionable source for morality has to come to their own conclusions on how they ought and ought not behave.

I've said this myself, and so have others. I'm not seeing where you're going with this.

You and I agree, but I am addressing this namely to those who have so far wanted to argue this very simple point.

 

[Gadarene]

A better phrase for me to have used would have been to say that: the moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are suggesting that it is an objective standard. Thank you for correcting me.

Er....no. Still a non sequitur. What you do with a moral standard including recommending it has nothing to do with whether it is objective or subjective.

Subjective moral standards don't stop the holder of them from prescribing morals. It just means they aren't going to be always applicable. Remember, subjective moral standards do not rule out a large degree of commonality and are thus still can be effectively prescribed for the bulk of situations.

Look at the basis of a moral system to determine whether it is objective or subjective, not its implementation.

 

[Elioenai26]

Er....no. Still a non sequitur. What you do with a moral standard including recommending it has nothing to do with whether it is objective or subjective.

Subjective moral standards don't stop the holder of them from prescribing morals. It just means they aren't going to be always applicable.

Look at the basis of a moral system to determine whether it is objective or subjective, not its implementation.

Let me see if I can clear this up a bit.

Do you believe that committing the act of rape upon an individual is:

1. objectively wrong - wrong for all people, at all places and all times
2. subjectively wrong - wrong depending upon the situation.

 

[Gadarene]

Let me see if I can clear this up a bit.

Do you believe that committing the act of rape upon an individual is:

1. objectively wrong - wrong for all people, at all places and all times
2. subjectively wrong - wrong depending upon the situation.

1.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If death is the final end, if there is no judgment or time for accounting of the things that one has done in this life, then it stands to reason that one should try to live life to the fullest does it not? It seems you agree with me, no? The whole idea of: "hey, whatever floats your boat, do what you feel" kind of attituide would flourish under this view. The idea of: "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" mentality would obviously be more desirable right? If there is nothing, and if there is no ultimate meaning, then a strong case could be made for saying: "to each his own", right?

Depends how you define living life to it's fullest. If your concept of living life to it's fullest involves eat, drink and be merry, that's a rather unfulfilling existence to most.

Instead, since we believe we don't have an eternity... we only have roughly 60-100 years of existence, we feel a strong drive to make the most of it.

Explore the wonders of the world, find out how things work, try to do something positive that future generations will remember us for.

I may never be around to witness it, however if I'm laying on my deathbed decades from now knowing that 200 years from now people will still remember me for all the cool stuff that I did... that will let me die a happy person.

Just because our existence is finite, doesn't mean we can't enjoy it. In fact, the finite nature of our existence makes it infinitely more valuable than the infinite nature of the religious concept of existence.

We should be happy we're here. When you look at the odds, we are extraordinarily lucky to even be born, It's a one in a trillion shot. We should enjoy and make the most of it.

 

[Elioenai26]

1.

Then you and I agree. Some however would be willing to argue even that. But I am thankful that there are some here who recognize the intrinsic worth and value of an inviolable human life.

 

[Gadarene]

Then you and I agree. Some however would be willing to argue even that. But I am thankful that there are some here who recognize the intrinsic worth and value of an inviolable human life.

Well, not entirely. I still don't agree that subjective moral standards magically become more objective-seeming just because someone projects them onto someone else. Subjectivism doesn't imply that at all.

 

[Elioenai26]

Depends how you define living life to it's fullest. If your concept of living life to it's fullest involves eat, drink and be merry, that's a rather unfulfilling existence to most.

Instead, since we believe we don't have an eternity... we only have roughly 60-100 years of existence, we feel a strong drive to make the most of it.

Explore the wonders of the world, find out how things work, try to do something positive that future generations will remember us for.

I may never be around to witness it, however if I'm laying on my deathbed decades from now knowing that 200 years from now people will still remember me for all the cool stuff that I did... that will let me die a happy person.

Just because our existence is finite, doesn't mean we can't enjoy it. In fact, the finite nature of our existence makes it infinitely more valuable than the infinite nature of the religious concept of existence.

We should be happy we're here. When you look at the odds, we are extraordinarily lucky to even be born, It's a one in a trillion shot. We should enjoy and make the most of it.

A most thorough, heartfelt, and respectable response. I sincerely thank you for sharing that with me and all the others.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, not entirely. I still don't agree that subjective moral standards magically become more objective-seeming just because someone projects them onto someone else. Subjectivism doesn't imply that at all.

But we can agree that life, specifically, human life is exceedingly precious and should not be violated. Upon this we can build.

 

[Gadarene]

But we can agree that life, specifically, human life is exceedingly precious and should not be violated. Upon this we can build.

Indeed.

 

[quatona]

A better phrase for me to have used would have been to say that: the moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are suggesting that it is an objective standard. Thank you for correcting me.

Ok, now your post makes some more sense (i.e. the oxymoron that your original way of putting it contained is solved).
Nonetheless, I feel misrepresented by your statement (and I guess the reason is - like is often the case - projection on your part: i.e. just because you are appealing to an alleged objective standard when questioning someone else´s behaviour doesn´t mean I do the same).
When I offer my values I am fully aware that these are my subjective values.

For a time I lived as a selfish, self-centered, egotistical, heartless, reprobate, who willfully sought to silence the voice of my conscience and arrived at the point where I was a cold, callous individual. I never committed the act of rape, but at the time, I took no thought for the sanctitiy of women. I saw them as only means to an end, just like anything else in the world.

Personally, I welcome this change. And if it is in any way dependent on your religious convictions by all means please keep them. Just don´t make the mistake to assume that everybody needs the belief in an afterlife and a punishing god in order to be empathetic.