Challenge to Atheists on Morality

[quatona]

And I did prove that God exists, you dodged it and didn't address it:



Try again quatona.

Well, that´s an entirely different topic, though. But if you want to discuss that which you perceive as a convincing proof of God´s existence, we can do that, of course.
So, before we stop the presses and notify the Nobel Price Jury that after milleniums of unsuccessful attempts to prove God´s existence a poster on CF finally has managed to do it en passant, single handedly and in one short paragraph at that, and we can all go home now, we would have to take a closer look at your "proof".
Maybe I find the time and patience to do that eventually, but for the time being it just needs to be noted that in regards to your argument your "proof" is entirely circular:
You "prove" the existence of Objective Morals based on the premise that a God exists, and you "prove" the existence of a God based on the premise that Objective Morals exist.

(On another note, you would also have to proof that this God is the God of your particular belief, and that "Objective Morality" is hence the particular set of morals you adhere to. So lots of work to do for the claimer of God´s existence, of the existence of "Objective Morality", and even more for the claimer of a particular God concept and the claimer of a particular set of "Objective Morality". What a challenge!)

In the meantime I acknowledge demonstrable reality - i.e. that different moral views exist, and that we have to deal with this problem. I also acknowledge the reality that no amount of Objective Morals (which, according to you, exist) has helped solving or doing away with these disagreements. You (in trying to convince people of abstaining from atrocities by reference to your alleged "Objective Morals") haven´t been one shred more successful than I have been with nothing to my disposal than my subjective opinion and rational arguments. In fact, in my experience there are more successful strategies in convincing people to abstain from violence than references to an "Objective Morality" they don´t believe in. Not to mention moral objectivists who disagree with you what Objective Morality says (traditionally, Holy Wars have been the result of this situation).

 

[JGG]

How do you know they were Christians?

Because they Claimed to be Christians?

if that's your argument, then you should spare the embarrassment as claiming to be a Christian would in no way prove someone is one.



How do you know that they did? And please don't say "because they claimed/said so", even if they did have beliefs on what Objective Moral values were, taht has no effect on Objective Moral Values.

No more than how a person believing the earth is objective flat, doesn't change that the Earth is Objectively Not Flat.



That "church"/basically a group of people claiming to be Christians without absolutely no proof doesn't have anything to do with the Bible/1st Century.

Also justify them Biblically? How so?

Did YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)



No proof that they were Christians, and before you say it, No claiming to be a Christian does not



Homosexuality isn't a sin - savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2014/01/homosexuality-is-not-sin-irrefutable.html

Even if it was, they would only be condemned to stoning in Israel before Jesus Christ at the Temple, not anywhere else and not after Jesus Christ, especially in Uganda.



1 Corinthians 7:21 advised otherwise, again Claiming to be a Christian doesn't make someone a Christian, I can easily claim to be a white male, despite not being one.



Again Catholicism claiming to be Christian, especially when they have Secular Teachings and commit Secular Crimes(Molesting Children) do not prove they are Christians.

To the contrary Catholicism is refuted by Christianity:
Colossians 2:20-23 - "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."(This passage proves that flesh doesn't mean literal flesh, but is a term, flesh means Harm. we should not indulge in harming other people)



No they do not, they don't teach the same Objective Moral Values as I do from the Bible.

Firstly to answer everything up to here...Whether or not they are Christians to your standard is irrelevant. Afterall, you also claim to be Christian, and we have no means of knowing that's true other than to take your word for it. They get their "objective morals" from the same source as you get you "objective morals", and still are getting different standards. How does that happen if your objective values come from the same source? Are you right? Are they? Maybe someone else? Maybe nobody? That feels awfully subjective.

Also Objectives cannot have disagreements, if there's disagreements that would be Subjective.

Yes, I know. That's my point. Are your morals objective because they can be derived through objective means, or are they objective because they are defined that way?

Your argument was a failure and only exposes why your Atheism in untenable, you have one of the Biggest Blind Faiths I've ever seen, You actually believed these people are Christians because they Claimed to be, you'd get suckered in the real world for being such a gullible atheist..

As you can see, you missed my point entirely. Whether I believe you, or they, are True Christians is irrelevant. Only that you, and they, claim to get your objective morals from the same source, and clearly have different morals...which as you yourself stated, makes them subjective.

How do you feel about answering that question on the Israelites and the Canaanites? Also, why is hatred wrong?

BTW: You may wish to avoid claiming that Catholics aren't part of Christianity. They tend to frown on that 'round here. In fact, it's kinda against the rules. You could find yourself banned right quick. Just a handy pro-tip!

 

[quatona]

So according to Your Worldview, rape isn't Objectively Wrong?

1. According to my meta-ethical views I don´t know that there exists such a thing as "Objective Values". This term is wordsalad, in my meta-ethical view.
2. My worldview leads me to approve and disapprove of certain actions. I have reasons for these approvals and disapprovals. The result are my ethical views.
3. Since, in the terminology you are using "Objective Morals" and "God given morals" are synonyms, it is obvious that my non-theistic metaphysical view does not include "Objective morals" in the way you conceptualize and define them. (Alas, there are different concepts and definitions of "Objective Morality" out there - such that aren´t linked to a God. I find them unconvincing, too, although for different reasons.)

If you are really interested in the responses and want to discuss them, I would kindly ask you not to lump meta-ethics, ethics, metaphysics and worldviews together.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?

Is hating sin or evil objectively wrong?



Anyway, as others have noted, many (but not all) atheists do not believe there are any moral facts. Nothing is objectively right or wrong.

To be objective, something has to be independent of people's minds. Morality, like aesthetics, is just not an objective kind of thing. If you play Beethoven's 9th or gangsta rap to a mountain, it just doesn't care. Music or art have to be experienced by a someone in order for judgments about beautiful or ugly to be made.

If someone is raped in the shadow of a mountain, the mountain doesn't care. Morality doesn't matter to the universe. Morality matters to people. People make judgments about right and wrong.

This doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. Far from it. Morality means a great deal precisely because it matters to us, to subjects that experience these feelings and make these judgments. But as a consequence, this means that morality is subjective, not objective.

 

[quatona]

I still have problems accepting the proposed definition ancd ontology of "objective" and "fact".
Typically, objective facts do not depend on the question whether a God exists or not, and other such metaphysical riddles.
Gravity wouldn´t cease to be a fact, without a God. Analogously, if Moral Values were objective facts they wouldn´t cease to be facts, in the absence of a God.

 

[Ana the Ist]

1, "eradicate other people. kill them(repeating yourself)"

Evil/Harmful people would taken out painlessly(Sodom and Gomorrah), hence why YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) never tortured them, but instead for example Stoning where it would be painless as it renders you unconscious, or fire and brimstone where fire would destroy nerves rendering the evil/harmful person without any pain.

Only for them to be Resurrected later, 1 Thessalonians 4.

2, Enslave? Nope, Indentured Servitude.

3, Burn their cities, see Sodom and Gomorrah, painless and cities were burned to remove images of false gods, who Unbelievers/Pagans were sacrificing their children to.

Jeremiah 7:30-34 - "“For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the Lord. They have set their detestable things in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere. And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away. And I will silence in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, for the land shall become a waste."

4,"take their daughters for themselves"

Are you implying that this is rape? If so then you're biasedly or ignorantly assuming, as there's no mention of force, the word/term to take(marry) doesn't mean rape, simply means be with proven by Leviticus 18:18 where it says "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."

Even same word for take used(3947):

Leviticus 18:18 Lexicon: 'You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.

Deuteronomy 21:11 Lexicon: and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,

laqach - Strong's Hebrew: 3947. ????? (laqach) -- to take

Nice try though.




No, Murder is killing Innocent. whereas for example stoning would be a painless(Stoning renders you Unconscious, such as surgery) method to get rid of anyone who harmed others, not towards innocent.

Whereas your worldview has it that Hitler would be right for Murdering Jews, just because he subjectively views it as right.

Wintery Knight is right - "I think it’s particularly important not to let atheists utter a word of moral judgment on any topic, since they cannot ground an objective standard that allows them to make statements of morality. Further, I think that they should have every immorality ever committed presented to them, and then they should be told “your worldview does not allow you to condemn this as wrong”. They can’t praise anything as right, either. This is not to say that we should go all presuppositional on them, but if the opportunity arises to point out how they are borrowing from theism in order to attack it, we should do that in addition to presenting good scientific and historical evidence."




Simple, Matthew 7:12 - "In everything, therefore, Treat people the same way you would want them to treat you, for this Is the Law and the Prophets" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" - Leviticus 19:18.



Moral derives for His nature, He is The Creator of All reality, everything known as a fact is from Him, Morals would therefore be no different than the objective existence of the earth.



That is not proof, People disagreeing does not change an Objective Fact nor does it prove anything Subjective.

People disagree on the shape of the earth, does that mean the earth is Subjective?

No. The Earth is Objectively Spherical. Differing views do not change an Objective. people do not have to agree or believe in the Objective for it to be true.



You're assuming Morality is Subjective and is determined by agreement, That is circular, "Morality is subjective because Morality is subjective", "Morality is based on views because people have views on Morals"



That was either very hard for you and you're lying or that was easy for you due to ignorant and lack of thinking before writing, you used Views of Morality as Proof that Morality is Subjective, that would be like me using views on the Earth to prove that the Shape of the Earth is Subjective.

That is absurd and you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever for Morality being Subjective. By very definition of Objective, Not Based on Views, Opinion or Agreement, but a Fact. So no amount of Views, Opinions or Agreements will prove Morality is subjective.

Well, thanks for at least giving me an entertaining answer...you said this was the entire list of objective morals....

"Simple, Matthew 7:12 - "In everything, therefore, Treat people the same way you would want them to treat you, for this Is the Law and the Prophets" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" - Leviticus 19:18."

For starters, it doesn't work in reality. If someone were attacking me, I shouldn't defend myself because I wouldn't want to get hurt? If someone is trying to kill my wife, I shouldn't shoot them because I don't want to be shot? Secondly, you should read the entire passage over...because it's describing subjectivity lol. "Treat people the same way you would want them to treat you"....it's talking about personal desires, personal wants...not objective truths. If someone desperately wants to be raped...they should go out and rape others? Does that make rape morally good? I promise you, such people exist...and your list of objective morals has failed in every way conceivable.

Your analogy about the shape of the earth is almost as bad as your "list" of objective morals. We can examine the shape of the earth to determine what is true about it. We cannot examine a moral judgement in the same way (or really any way). I can use evidence to show you the shape of the earth....what evidence can you show me to prove that murder is always wrong?

Morality is subjective... but it isn't determined by agreement. It's determined by the person passing the moral judgement.

What do you think subjective morality means? All it means is that each person decides for themselves what is morally right and wrong....I've explained to you that is in fact what people do. Would you like me to create that thread so you can see it in action? Or, you could just think back in your life to a moment when you and someone else disagreed on what the right thing to do was....it's not that difficult.

Lol do you even realize you gave me an explanation of objective morality and said I can't use it to prove subjective morality? Did you read that before you submitted it? All I have to do to prove morality is subjective is show that people decide right and wrong for themselves.... which I've done. You're welcome.

 

[Tzaousios]

By very definition of Objective, Not Based on Views, Opinion or Agreement, but a Fact. So no amount of Views, Opinions or Agreements will prove Morality is subjective.

Employing numerous euphemisms when one is asked to define words is a rhetorical strategy. It does not establish "objectivity" or "fact," either.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I still have problems accepting the proposed definition ancd ontology of "objective" and "fact".
Typically, objective facts do not depend on the question whether a God exists or not, and other such metaphysical riddles.
Gravity wouldn´t cease to be a fact, without a God. Analogously, if Moral Values were objective facts they wouldn´t cease to be facts, in the absence of a God.

Indeed. There is a begging-the-question problem in these discussions.

Questioner: Does gravity need a god to exist? (Ignoring thorny questions like "what is exist".)
Theist: Of course; that's why we have it. (Because god(s) exists.)
Non-theist: Of course not since we have it (without gods existing.)

One cannot discuss god's necessity for morality without establishing either that a god exists or agreeing to a definition of a possibly hypothetical god.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?

What makes Helping others Objectively Right?

What makes Love Objectively Right?

What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?

5 simple questions.

I guess you would need to show and support, that true "objectivity" can be applied to any of these things.

Good luck with that.

 

[Chany]

I still have problems accepting the proposed definition ancd ontology of "objective" and "fact".
Typically, objective facts do not depend on the question whether a God exists or not, and other such metaphysical riddles.
Gravity wouldn´t cease to be a fact, without a God. Analogously, if Moral Values were objective facts they wouldn´t cease to be facts, in the absence of a God.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on a topic similiar to this. An atheist can believe anything he or she wants, so long as they do not believe in a god claim. That means an atheist can believe in anything, from neo-Platonic forms to reincarnation, as long as they do not believe in a deity. The question of the existence of a god is not related to the question of the existence of pretty much anything else.

 

[keith99]

Does anyone else here find it disturbing that someone claiming to be Christian is worshiping at the altar of the word objective?

Being objective does not make something good, nor does a judgment being subjective make it bad.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?

What makes Helping others Objectively Right?

What makes Love Objectively Right?

What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?

5 simple questions.

Your questions conflate moral standards with moral values.

In my view, for every moral consideration, there exists an objectively quantifiable outcome which results in the least amount of harm. Whether that outcome is actually desirable is necessarily a matter of subjectivity.

My standard (harm vs. health) is objective. Values are subjective by their very nature.

To the point though, you are in no position to stand in judgment over anyone else's moral philosophy. Like all supernaturalist philosophies, you've predicated yours on a nebulous non-concept that cannot be positively identified, verified or even coherently defined - in your case an amorphous, magical desert god named 'Yahweh', whom you assert has set forth certain moral decrees.

Even granting the existence of this phantom deity and his decrees, you have no reliable means of gleaning what those decrees are, how to discern which of them are true 'revelations' or merely imagination or deception, or indeed any reason why they should be adopted in the first place.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that the only unforgivable 'sin' in your philosophy is disbelief, so it's not as if you can provide a catalyst for good behavior anyway. The torturing, murdering, necrophilic pederast has a deathbed conversion and goes on to heaven, while the atheist philanthropist goes to hell.

Your moral philosophy is an utter wreck. It is both ontologically and epistemologically vacuous, and the doctrine of vicarious redemption destroys the very concept of justice.

Keep it. I like mine just fine.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on a topic similiar to this. An atheist can believe anything he or she wants, so long as they do not believe in a god claim. That means an atheist can believe in anything, from neo-Platonic forms to reincarnation, as long as they do not believe in a deity. The question of the existence of a god is not related to the question of the existence of pretty much anything else.

Finally, I am tired of having to bring this up all the time. Maybe this will save some time

 

[pgp_protector]

1) What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?
a) So Punishing someone is wrong now ? (or does Punishing not harm a person ? )

2) What makes Helping others Objectively Right?
a) Helping some cheat is right now?

3) What makes Love Objectively Right?
a) So I can love my neighbors wife? I didn't think that was allowed.

4) What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?
a) So God was Objectively wrong ? Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

 

[FreedByte]

How did it appear to be different?

You were saying that a universally innate morality wasn't objective, when it is by the most common definitions of objective

Being Innate would also show that the Morality isn't from us, but was caused by an external source.

No, innate means it is internal.

Nice Try, No one is arguing that Belief that God exists makes someone Moral,

Well you're arguing that we need a deity to establish objective morality, when in reality there are many gods of many different religions that teach different morality. So to say that the Christian deity establishes objective morality is dependent on one's opinion that the Christian deity is the true god. And since this is based on opinion (belief), it is subjective.

many people who claim to be atheists actually believe God exists

I haven't encountered these people you speak of but I imagine there are some. And if that is the case then they're not atheists.

yet they reject Him and are immoral.

How is this relevant? and by what standard are they immoral?

The argument is not about belief, but that YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) has to Exist for Objective Moral Values to exist.

It's absolutely about belief because your premise depends on faith in the Christian god. Why shouldn't the Baha'i god have to exist for objective morality to exist? or the Sikh god? the Hindu gods? the Muslim god? the indigenous great spirit?

Self Contradicting, Outside of Individual Feelings and Opinions means that it's Not based on what's Universally Agreed/Agreements made by Individuals.

universal truth is objective by definition. if you're going to reject the definition of objective then we don't have any grounds on which to continue this discussion.

Exactly, Objective Universally Innate Social Morality requires YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) to exist, otherwise Morality would be Subjective.

No, humans have innate (internal) morals as I have explained many times. Plus you have not established that the Christian god is the true god so your proposition is itself subjective.

We agree that they are Innate, meaning not caused by use but by an external source,

No, innate means exactly the opposite. Innate means that it is internal and not caused by external factors. It's the same concept as nature vs nurture.

YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) is therefore the cause of Objective Innate Universal Social Morality.

Again, you haven't shown the Christian god to be the true god, so until you do so this statement is subjective and could be expressed towards any one of the millions of gods (yes, millions) that humans have believed in over the millenia.

 

[Golden Yak]

If an objective morality has to be created by a god, how is it not subjective? The god can make it whatever it wants - it is ultimately subjective to that god's personal opinion. Morality can't be objective unless it exists independent of anyone's opinion and everyone is subject to it, even gods.

 

[FreedByte]

If an objective morality has to be created by a god, how is it not subjective? The god can make it whatever it wants - it is ultimately subjective to that god's personal opinion. Morality can't be objective unless it exists independent of anyone's opinion and everyone is subject to it, even gods.

To me this seems to be shakier argumentation than asserting that morality established by belief in a deity is subjective because it is rooted in the opinion that a deity is the true god. This is because it could be argued that a deity that created the universe and dictates the objective laws of physics could just as easily dictate objective moral laws and enforce them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To me this seems to be shakier argumentation than asserting that morality established by belief in a deity is subjective because it is rooted in the opinion that a deity is the true god. This is because it could be argued that a deity that created the universe and dictates the objective laws of physics could just as easily dictate objective moral laws and enforce them.

Except unlike physics, morality has no physical manifestation. It is purely concept, and even in the bible god will change its mind on the morality of certain decisions.

 

[FreedByte]

Except unlike physics, morality has no physical manifestation.

True but I don't see how that's relevant

It is purely concept, and even in the bible god will change its mind on the morality of certain decisions.

You're assuming that the god of the bible is the "true god". I'm saying that hypothetically there could be a morally consistent deity who created the universe and could establish and enforce an objective source of morality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True but I don't see how that's relevant



You're assuming that the god of the bible is the "true god". I'm saying that hypothetically there could be a morally consistent deity who created the universe and could establish and enforce an objective source of morality.

It wouldn't matter even if such a being existed; clearly nothing is enforcing any sort of morality on the universe.