I'm still waiting for the answer to my question-
Demonstrate how morals must be absolute to be worthwhile?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are sidestepping the main discussion. YOU said there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES.
How then can you say murdering or cannibalism is "ridiculous". If someone decides it is right for them how do YOU tell them it is wrong?
Please answer that question directly. Thanks.
It is circular reasoning.
Assuming God exists (which we have no objective evidence of)
he could be “good”, or maybe only partly “good”/partly “bad,” or even all “bad.”
He is the only one saying he is good. If he was lying, we would have no way of knowing. A God that was only partly good or even all bad would explain “the problem of evil” as well.
You are answering my question in a way to lead us to your personal beliefs.
You also already had the answer to your personal beliefs before you even started asking questions.
There is no reason to assume that that inherent feeling of ‘wrongness’ comes from an external source, especially a supernatural source that has no evidence to support it.
There is also no reason to assume that that feeling is “built” into us, which implies a creator.
That’s begging the question.
The simplest answer is usually the best (law of parsimony),
and it seems most logical to believe it comes from nothing more than a sense of empathy.
Human beings live in a natural world, and have the same basic needs and desires for food, warmth, and acceptance.
The average person does not wish to have harm upon her because it is painful (physically or emotionally).
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question-
Demonstrate how morals must be absolute to be worthwhile?
Well, the reasoning I gave was not circular and trumpeting a statement like this doesn't make it circular.
I see I will have to live up to my comment earlier and show how you also reason in a circle and do so every day without realizing it. I will define the principle of induction as Webster's Dictionary does: inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances. Example 1: The sun was burning yesterday and it burns right now, so it will burn tomorrow too. Example 2: My car will remain a car when I start it up next time and it will not melt into a puddle of hot liquid because that doesn't happen on a normal basis. Example 3: There was a past, there is a present, so there will be a future.
Now in all those examples I used the principle of induction to arrive at a conclusion.
We all use this principle every day. We just assume it and we cannot live without assuming it. Now, justify your use of the principle of induction. (Your answer will be circular reasoning).
Really? How would you know? Have you surveyed all the evidence?
Why do you assume He doesn't exist?
What's your standard of good and bad?
What would you consider valid evidence? Maybe I do have some. Why can't I believe in immaterial things? You do so I can too.
Maybe you do have a better reason, I can't rule out that possibility. So where do morals come from?
Are you appealing to something absolute like a universal law?
You claim to be using logic in your statement. How do you justify you use and belief in logic? Where does logic come from?
If morals are not absolute chaos ensues.
Here is why morals must be absolute to be "worthwhile": (fictional story coming) i'm poor. so i steal my dad's gun. then i walk down the street at 2am and find your parents house. i break in through a window and start rummaging around for valuables. Your parents wake up and come downstairs to stop me. They pick up a phone to call the police. I don't want to get caught so i shoot them both.
Now because morals aren't absolute, you can't tell me what i did was wrong and you have no reason to feel anger at me. I was just doing what i felt was necessary to get myself some money.
Do you now see why morals must be absolute or else they are worthless?
Also, and this was probably stated before in the thread, by saying morals aren't absolute you are making an absolute claim.
Since we all know at least a rough outline of a moral code (that's why you and i both agree that killing and raping is wrong), there must be a moral code, it must be absolute, and there must be a Moral Code Giver.
Now answer my question please.
If morals are not absolute chaos ensues. I have been typing this the last 20 posts and you don't seem to understand.
Here is why morals must be absolute to be "worthwhile": (fictional story coming) i'm poor. so i steal my dad's gun. then i walk down the street at 2am and find your parents house. i break in through a window and start rummaging around for valuables. Your parents wake up and come downstairs to stop me. They pick up a phone to call the police. I don't want to get caught so i shoot them both.
Now because morals aren't absolute, you can't tell me what i did was wrong and you have no reason to feel anger at me. I was just doing what i felt was necessary to get myself some money.
Do you now see why morals must be absolute or else they are worthless?
Also, and this was probably stated before in the thread, by saying morals aren't absolute you are making an absolute claim. Morals by the laws of logic and "circular reasoning" must either be absolute or non-existant. Those are the ONLY two options. Since we all know at least a rough outline of a moral code (that's why you and i both agree that killing and raping is wrong), there must be a moral code, it must be absolute, and there must be a Moral Code Giver.
This is an interesting debate. I wish I could put more time into making more lucid posts but I have finals this week and ... bleh...
You are entirely missing the point here. You have no way of knowing if god is truly “good” or not when the only one making the claim is god himself. I argue that the existence of so many “bad” things in the world show (well, God doesn’t exist, but again, assuming he does) that if such a god existed, he is not good, or only partially good.
Why do you assume He does?
Then we have a problem. Because by the standards of Islamic extremist, flying planes into the World Trade Center is good. According to past world leaders, and even some current ones in Africa, genocide is good. So in your model, they cannot be wrong. In your model, Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln along with a host of others would also be considered highly immoral since they went counter to their society and culture. And what exactly makes up a "culture" or "society"? I have decided to define a new culture called "Jimmie" and all humanity will be considered members. Now I declare that it is immoral to go against my culture. How can you say I'm wrong? Who are you going to appeal to? Your culture? At first we weren't a part of the same culture becuase I joined a new one and now your a member of my culture because I defined it so.It's subjective, but actions that are considered moral or amoral by my society and culture.
But I'm willing to change my mind in a second if you can prove Bible God exists.
And I said supernatural. Not immaterial.
I already said, morals come from your own intelligence, reasoning, and feeling of empathy.
It's not absolute. But it's often the case.
All of these things come from my own super powerful brain matter. Duh
You still haven't shown how or why these things need to come from an external source.
More importantly, prove that your external source, God, exists!
What question?
Wow, you are just sidestepping my points completely. Let's see if you can address my question. If not, there is no point left discussing with you.
Please tell me on what grounds you can tell me that "kicking a puppy" or raping or murdering a person is wrong? I want to know how YOU can tell ME it's wrong since you previously stated that there are no moral absolutes.
That's the qustion you seem to have conveniently forgot. thanks.
There again, you affirm God doesn't exist. How do you know? And you still seem to appeal to a standard of good and bad. What's your standard for good and bad?
you didn't answer. See what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you just assume that he doesn't exist, I can just as easily assume that he does and we've gotten nowhere.
Because by the standards of Islamic extremist, flying planes into the World Trade Center is good.
According to past world leaders, and even some current ones in Africa, genocide is good.
And what exactly makes up a "culture" or "society"?
I have decided to define a new culture called "Jimmie" and all humanity will be considered members.
What if I violate societies morals, can they torture me mercilessly if the want as long as it's acceptable for the society? Can they execute my family for not paying taxes? Who is "culture" accountable to? Itself? Isn't that the circular reasoning you were complaining about? Becuase if you are going to say culture creates it's own morals and then appeals to itself for the accountability of those morals, then you reason in a circle and according to your own model, you should throw this method of morality out the window.
Like I asked before and you skipped over, what kind of proof do you need? What do you consider valid evidence?
Well, do they come from society or the individual? It doesn't matter anyway, societal ethics degrade to complete relativism anyway.
To show how absurd this is I will parrot what I said earlier. I'm creating a new moral system called "Jimmie" and it is immoral for you to go against it. You cannot possibly tell me no, because you are then immoral. See, who are you to push your moral subjectivism on me?
And if you create your own morals, then who are you accountable to for what you "ought" to do in a moral sense? Are you accountable to yourself?
Then it's arbitrary and doesn't apply. Why even bring it up.
Settle down! I already answered your question, a long time ago! Check post #297.
ok i see. Then what about some tribes in africa or the amazon where Murdering is 100% acceptable in their society and culture? Then would you accept it?
My point is that if your morals are based on society, you HAVE no concrete morals.
Is that a correct summation of your morals: it is based on whatever society or culture you live in?
Why do you enforce "mens rea" or on what grounds do you? If someone has the intent to harm and causes harm against you, how can you, as an atheist that says there are no moral absolutes, call it wrong?
Do you understand? Your claims are a blatant contradiction. Either there ARE moral absolutes or you have no basis on calling anything wrong.
Homework for everyone: Read up on sociobiological psychology.
Over Christmas? You are the worst teacher ever.
Btw what do think of an expectionally simple theory of everything?
I've got the PDF but haven't managed to get into it yet. I've heard Lee Smolin said it's "interesting" (he says that about just about everything that crosses his desk though, methinks). I've seen some strong criticism for it, but I've also seen some support from big names so I'm going to remain open to it for now. Not like I'm a physics major though so I'm going to have to wait to see how the whole thing plays out from my armchair.
My little brother is 20 years old he has been a believer in Christ his whole life until this year when he hit some rocky times in his life. For a little while he said he was protestant...he now claims to be agnostic. What is the difference between agnostic and athiest? Why are young adults so quick to claim they don't believe when times get tough?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?