Challenge to Atheists on Morality

[GrowingSmaller]

I think we are only morally significant because we have, and we are, conscious creatures. This makes morality "subjective" in that it is mind dependent. But that does not make it "arbitrary, whimsical" etc. Just as it is not arbitrary that it is more functinal to have ones eyes, arms and legs working. Similarly, or moral predicament (care for the value of being, and attempts at rational attraction to being) is a functional adaptation. In that sense it is objective, because our experience and its implications are as reasl a substrate of reality, of the universe, as anything else.

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.

"Wrong" and "right" are in this context to be regarded as markes of approval and disaproval. They are approving and disapproving of heuristics ("dont harm" etc is a useful rule of thumb). They are culturally significant means of securing individual and community welfare. Asking if they are objectively right or wrong is like asking if certain traffic rules are right or wrong - its an awkward predicament to put the moralist in. Its better to see their function, and the consequences of approving, upholding or violating them etc. Otherwise we are confusing the regulatory terms "right" and "wrong" with a different area of language, ie the language games of objectite truth applies to more straightforwards statements like "it is true that sunshine is warming". Thats not to say that its not an objective truth that avoiding harm ought to be regarded as right, though.

 

[quatona]

So according to your worldview Murdering innocent isn't wrong, as "morals doesnt exist"

Well, in your OP you asked specifically about "objective morality". "Objective" was your keyterm throughout.
Now, don´t you think that when paraphrasing the responses it is a tad disingenious to suddenly omit that keyterm?

My worldview disapproves of violence and atrocities (and to be entirely clear, my concept of violence is very broad - it includes not only physical but also emotional and verbal violence).

Your worldview is not only repulsive

No, it isn´t, and neither are you repulsed by it.
Our moral views on the killing of innocent appear to be by and large congruent. We both disapprove of it. So nothing there to be repused by. Rather, we should pause for a moment and make sure not to forget to celebrate and embrace our agreement in this very important issue, instead of faking mutual repulsion.
So our worldviews aren´t in conflict, neither are our morals.

Now let me be honest and tell you that I know what you are doing there. You are following a script (which obviously is taught in some "handbook for debating atheists", as part of the attempt to prove that a God exists). I know that because we see identical "challenges" (brought to us with almost identical tactics) here on a regular basis.
I know that you do not really want to discuss "objective" vs. "subjective" - you actually want to promote the existence of a God. I know that because the line between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism isn´t drawn between atheists and theists. And yet, you linked these two entirely independent issues already as a hidden premise in your OP.

That´s why you are unable to embrace our agreement in an important moral issue. At this point you aren´t concerned with morality (as your outrage and faked repulsion would us believe) - you are looking for a conflict, you want to find a means to emphasize antagonism.
That´s ok with me, but we should be clear where the actual antagonism can be found. It´s not a moral disagreement, but a disagreement in a highly abstract philosophical issue: Meta-morality.
Morality and meta-morality shouldn´t be confused, and they shouldn´t be discussed in the same breath.
So your question is: What makes a moral view objective, and my answer is: I have no idea. I just have my moral opinions, and as far as I can see you have yours.
It´s not like I wouldn´t love my opinions and valuations to be "objective"; in fact, it would come in very handy. Thus, I am asking you (my brother in mind in an important moral issue) to help me find a way get to this attractive position. What is it that renders our common moral stance objective? If it is important to you and me that violence is reduced and increasingly disapproved of, we better help each other out.
Where I come from we call objective that which can be demonstrated to be factual. E.g. I have my subjective opinion whether the post office is open or not, but not until I arrive there and see if it´s open, I know it objectively.
So you are highly welcome and invited to demonstrate that our common stance on killing innocents is congruent with objective facts.

but conflicts with reality,

Well, if my view regarding atrocities conflicts with reality, yours does as well (since we apparently are by and large in agreement here).

as Objective Moral Values exist

Well, I can´t seem to find a way to prove moral values being objective. Objective facts are demonstrable, and I for the life of me I don´t know how to get the subjectivity out of the concepts of "values" and "morality".
But since apparently you can (I am sure you aren´t simply assering such without being able to support it with demonstrable facts) I would so love to learn how you this is possible. After all, if I would be able to factually demonstrate that your and my view on atrocities is objectively, factually right, this might mean a huge advantage in convincing those who disagree with us.

 

[quatona]

People can have different views with the existence of Objective Innate Moral Values, so your argument fails.

No, you must have misunderstood what it is that I am arguing for. You are saying exactly what I am saying: The existence of different moral views is demonstrable and factual. If this were not so, morality wouldn´t even be an issue and we wouldn´t need to discuss it.
Now it would be up to the person who claims that "Objective Innate Moral Values" exist to start going about demonstrating their existence.
I am all ears.

 

[quatona]

Originally Posted by quatona

However, I don´t think that you use the term "objective" correctly. The opinion of a powerful being (no matter how incredibly powerful it may be) isn´t objective.
​

Hold the phone, right there you're making a Presupposition that All Christians have an Opinion that God exists rather than a Knowledge(Objective).

You'll need to prove that claim of yours.

No, I haven´t made any such claim. I said that the subjective opinion of an all-powerful entity is still a subjective opinion. I didn´t talk about Christians at all.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Well, in your OP you asked specifically about "objective morality". "Objective" was your keyterm throughout.
Now, don´t you think that when paraphrasing the responses it is a tad disingenious to suddenly omit that keyterm?

Nice try, that was towards VirOptimus , who claimed Morals "doesnt exist":

There is no objective morals. In fact, morals doesnt exist per se, its just in our minds.

You're grasping at straws quatona, Try Again, this time without being dishonest.

My worldview disapproves of violence and atrocities (and to be entirely clear, my concept of violence is very broad - it includes not only physical but also emotional and verbal violence).

Your worldview has Absolutely No Objective Morality to it, your Worldview of Atheism has Subjective Morality where violence and atrocities could be "good.

You pretend as if your worldview has Objective Moral Values and "disapproves" of violence & atrocities as a crutch for your atheistic beliefs. when asked you are incapable of defending.

No, it isn´t, and neither are you repulsed by it.

I am replused by your worldview of atheism where Morality would be Subjective and Murdering would be "right".

You do not speak for me, nor do you have knowledge to my mind/thoughts.

Our moral views on the killing of innocent appear to be by and large congruent. We both disapprove of it. So nothing there to be repused by. Rather, we should pause for a moment and make sure not to forget to celebrate and embrace our agreement in this very important issue, instead of faking mutual repulsion.
So our worldviews aren´t in conflict, neither are our morals.

Your worldview contains Subjective Morality, meaning it would be right, it does conflict with the fact that it's Objectively Wrong.

Now let me be honest and tell you that I know what you are doing there. You are following a script (which obviously is taught in some "handbook for debating atheists", as part of the attempt to prove that a God exists). I know that because we see identical "challenges" (brought to us with almost identical tactics) here on a regular basis.

Assumption, I never read a handbook to debate atheists, these are my own words. even if the arguments are similar it would be a mere coincidence and wouldn't prove them wrong.

I know that you do not really want to discuss "objective" vs. "subjective" - you actually want to promote the existence of a God. I know that because the line between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism isn´t drawn between atheists and theists. And yet, you linked these two entirely independent issues already as a hidden premise in your OP.

There are Atheists who pretend as if Atheism could have Objective Morals as a crutch for their atheism, that doesn't change the fact that Atheism is a worldview with Subjective Morality.

That´s why you are unable to embrace our agreement in an important moral issue. At this point you aren´t concerned with morality (as your outrage and faked repulsion would us believe) - you are looking for a conflict, you want to find a means to emphasize antagonism.

To the contrary, you seem to be doing this by making claims to knowledge about my Mind/Intents.

Well, if my view regarding atrocities conflicts with reality, yours does as well (since we apparently are by and large in agreement here).

Does not as your worldview has it to be Subjective, whereas my worldview has it Objective. Under your worldview Anything could be right/wrong. you may like/not like certain things, but that doesn't change the fact that your worldview of Atheism renders Morality Subjective.

No, I haven´t made any such claim. I said that the subjective opinion of an all-powerful entity is still a subjective opinion. I didn´t talk about Christians at all.

It would only be Subjective if not Factual, if God exists He's The Creator of Everything, He's the Reality, and Morality is based on His Nature. Morals is be a Fact by Him, just like Gravity and the Earth are.

No, you must have misunderstood what it is that I am arguing for. You are saying exactly what I am saying: The existence of different moral views is demonstrable and factual. If this were not so, morality wouldn´t even be an issue and we wouldn´t need to discuss it.
Now it would be up to the person who claims that "Objective Innate Moral Values" exist to start going about demonstrating their existence.
I am all ears.

Easy, if we prove God exists, then Morality is Objective:
Simple Logic and Scientific Princple of Cause and Effect.

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

In Layman's terms, you cannot give what you Do Not have.

Our cause therefore cannot be MindLESS, that is now proven impossible.

Atheism is false, our cause is a Mind.(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

 

[quatona]

What´s wrong with you, SBC?
You come here and claim that Morals are objective and factual. Now go ahead and demonstrate it, and your case is made. Until then, not so much.
Even if for a moment I accept your equation "decreed by God" and "objective" (which I don´t think is a good choice of words, but whatever), you can prove a God-decreed morality to exist by proving that your God exists. Until then, you haven´t demonstrated anything in support of your subjective view.

Nice try, that was towards VirOptimus , who claimed Morals "doesnt exist":



You're grasping at straws quatona, Try Again, this time without being dishonest.



Your worldview has Absolutely No Objective Morality to it, your Worldview of Atheism has Subjective Morality where violence and atrocities could be "good.

You pretend as if your worldview has Objective Moral Values and "disapproves" of violence & atrocities as a crutch for your atheistic beliefs. when asked you are incapable of defending.


I am replused by your worldview of atheism where Morality would be Subjective and Murdering would be "right".

You do not speak for me, nor do you have knowledge to my mind/thoughts.



Your worldview contains Subjective Morality, meaning it would be right, it does conflict with the fact that it's Objectively Wrong.



Assumption, I never read a handbook to debate atheists, these are my own words. even if the arguments are similar it would be a mere coincidence and wouldn't prove them wrong.



There are Atheists who pretend as if Atheism could have Objective Morals as a crutch for their atheism, that doesn't change the fact that Atheism is a worldview with Subjective Morality.



To the contrary, you seem to be doing this by making claims to knowledge about my Mind/Intents.



Does not as your worldview has it to be Subjective, whereas my worldview has it Objective. Under your worldview Anything could be right/wrong. you may like/not like certain things, but that doesn't change the fact that your worldview of Atheism renders Morality Subjective.



It would only be Subjective if not Factual, if God exists He's The Creator of Everything, He's the Reality, and Morality is based on His Nature. Morals is be a Fact by Him, just like Gravity and the Earth are.



Easy, if we prove God exists, then Morality is Objective:
Simple Logic and Scientific Princple of Cause and Effect.

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

In Layman's terms, you cannot give what you Do Not have.

Our cause therefore cannot be MindLESS, that is now proven impossible.

Atheism is false, our cause is a Mind.(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

The nature of human needs and well-being, which is something that has objective existence and is not merely a matter of opinion.

That is my view, and isn't necessarily shared by other atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

All morality is subjective. That's not an opinion, it's a readily observable fact.

We once used to consider it morally acceptable to keep slaves. We no longer do. Our moral code has changed in this regard. It has been SUBJECT to changing societal values.

We used to consider it morally acceptable to publicly torture and execute people for their religious beliefs. We no longer do so. Our morality has evolved. It is subjective in nature.

Sure, people used to think that slavery was okay. Why did they change their minds? Because they realized that slavery was wrong all along, even when and where it was believed to be morally acceptable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SavedByChrist94]

The nature of human needs and well-being, which is something that has objective existence and is not merely a matter of opinion.

Proof?

Also the nature of human needs and well being does not prove that it's Objectively Right or Wrong to care for those needs.

What makes it Objective Right or Wrong?

That's the question.

That is my view, and isn't necessarily shared by other atheists.

I didn't ask for your view, I asked What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

You pretend that your atheism worldview has Objective Morality, borrowing Christianity Objective Moral Values(Matthew 7:12), as a crutch for your atheistic worldview.

Sure, people used to think that slavery was okay. Why did they change their minds? Because they realized that slavery was wrong all along, even when and where it was believed to be morally acceptable.

Realized means Objective.

What makes something Objectively/Factually Right or Wrong?

What makes caring for other humans Objectively Right?

What makes Love Objectively Right?

What makes Harming Other People Objectively Wrong?

Simple questions.

What´s wrong with you, SBC?
You come here and claim that Morals are objective and factual. Now go ahead and demonstrate it, and your case is made. Until then, not so much.
Even if for a moment I accept your equation "decreed by God" and "objective" (which I don´t think is a good choice of words, but whatever), you can prove a God-decreed morality to exist by proving that your God exists. Until then, you haven´t demonstrated anything in support of your subjective view.

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

Easy, if we prove God exists, then Morality is Objective:
Simple Logic and Scientific Princple of Cause and Effect.

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

In Layman's terms, you cannot give what you Do Not have.

Our cause therefore cannot be MindLESS, that is now proven impossible.

Atheism is false, our cause is a Mind.(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

Try again quatona.

 

[quatona]

SBC, your point seems to be "Without there being a God, there can´t be a God-given morality". I agree with you on this almost tautological point.

 

[JGG]

the
Certainly, and before you attempt to preach your indoctrination by atheist websites with false claims against the Bible, lets refute that:

Slavery never endorsed, Old Testament has Indentured Servitude -> Slavery in the Bible: Does God Approve of It? Does the Bible allow for slavery? where YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) says in Leviticus 25 that they're treated as a hired man, "'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee."

In which the workers would want to live with their employee, as they got free food, free clothes, were treated like a family member, Exodus 21:5-7 - "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."

On rape:

Rape is condemned -> Deuteronomy 22:25-27 - "25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

As far as Deuteronomy 22:28-29 goes, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape and the word used is וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־(ve·he·che·zik-) which means forces(which is what rape is, Deuteronomy 22:25 Lexicon: "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.)

That word is completely missing from Deuteronomy 22:28-29, rape is therefore not condemned in Deuteornomy 22:28-29. also the words taphas and anah do not mean rape in this verse. The Old Testament and Rape : Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29

So not only is rape never condoned, it's condemned.

As far as Genocide, killed for Ethnic/Racial reasons?

No. Only those who harmed others(Such as Sodom, they were rapists) had their privileges to life taken away for hurting other people.

And in case you speak of the Samuels passage, that is a Interpolation, as it contradicts a majority of books, doesn't even make up one whole book and is in a less authenticated book

If that's Genocide then the Death Penalty would be Genocide for ending plenty of evil people.

Only under an Atheist worldview would you assume they die forever, which would be a Presupposition.

If you're going to talk about the Christian worldview, then you can't cherry pick, you must go with all doctrine from Authenticated passages(Not Interpolations), such the most important, The Resurrection(1 Thessalonian 4) where all are Resurrected for Judgement, so even then all the Harmful people simply went out of conscious temporary(Good to Eternal Life, Evil don't get Eternal Life, they get Eternal Punishment/Death).

Under your worldview of Atheist, rape wouldn't be objectively wrong.

That's not what I was going for - Although I profess, I'm disapointed you didn't excuse the Israelites systematically exterminating the Canaanites, even killing defenseless women and children, and taking the virgins as unwilling sexual slaves. I mean, that's genocide, slavery and rape, all commanded by God.

I'm more hung up on other stuff. For instance, as you've mentioned how awful Hitler was I thought I'd point out that Germany and the Nazi party were predominantly Christian, believed in objective morality, and still ended up with Auschwitz. Not only was the church complacent in these crimes, they were able to justify them biblically. It was only about 20 years ago that ethnic cleansing in Rwanda was encouraged by Christian leaders. Heck, in Uganda they still use the bible to justify the murder and execution of homosexuals.

In the southern U.S. white Christians, who believed in the objective morals you're telling us about, not only justified slavery, but fought a war for it.

Less than a generation ago the Catholic Church, yet another group that believes that objective morality comes from the bible, decided that raping altar boys was excusable if people don't know about it.

These people all preach about the same objective morals as you, and get them from the same source. How is it that objective morals disagree with themselves?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I didn't ask for your view, I asked What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

I gave you my answer in a nutshell.

You pretend that your atheism worldview has Objective Morality, borrowing Christianity Objective Moral Values(Matthew 7:12), as a crutch for your atheistic worldview.

Nope, I don't. I turn mainly to pagan philosophy, such as that of Aristotle.

Please don't tell me what I think. You don't know what I think.

Also, don't tell me what hoops to jump through. I'm not a trained poodle.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Euler]

That is an Opinion, as you provided Absolutely No Evidence, only a claim that it's "Subjective"

I provided the evidence in the very next sentence.

You're not very good at this are you?

Even if people considered it acceptable, that wouldn't change that it's wrong, Hence Objective Morality, not based on/Regardless of anyone views.

Whether "people considered it acceptable" is virtually the definition of morality. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of a behavior is what moral codes are all about and are determined by people's views.

No different than how even if certain people Consider the earth as flat it Does Not change that the Earth is Not Flat.

Huge difference I'm afraid. The rightness or wrongness of slavery is a VALUES judgement. The flatness or roundness of the earth is a FACTUAL judgement. Morals are based on VALUES, not FACTS.

Did I mention that you're not very good at this?

And while I'm at it, you are being very disingenuous when you confine your comments on biblical slavery to only the 'indentured servitude' practised by the Jews on OTHER JEWS. Please make comment about the slavery practised by the Jews on the "foreigners around you"?

And, why are you so in love with capital letters?

Oh, and you're not very good at this are you?

 

[Kunjax]

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.

Nothing makes anything objectively right or right. Seeing as there is no such thing as objective morals.

 

[Freodin]

Your worldview has Absolutely No Objective Morality to it, your Worldview of Atheism has Subjective Morality where violence and atrocities could be "good.

Your worldview supports violence and atrocities in the same way that ours does: you make a moral judgement on objective events.

"Violence" and "atrocities" are in fact very good examples for that. "Murder" and "killing" are other often used examples.

On the one hand, you have objective facts. "Killing" and "violence" are objective. When you make someone dead or exert physical force on someone, you "kill" or "act violently".

Yet there are occurances where we would say, this "killing" or "violence" is justified - morally good. (Most likely, we would say that for different occurances, but we can both find examples.)
It is only the events that we morally condemn that we call "murder" or "atrocities".

For example, in the OT the Israelites were supposedly commanded by God to go out and eradicate other people. Kill them, enslave them, burn their cities, take their daughers "for themselves".

If there was an objective moral that stated "killing is wrong", all these acts would be called "murder" and "atrocities".

Your morals are situational. Their rightness or wrongness is not objective, it depends on who did when what to whom. And only then do you make a moral judgement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Claim, not proof.



So under your worldview Love could be "horrible"



Subjectively, meaning in your worldview he would also be Subjective Right.

In Objective Morality worldview Hitler is Objectively wrong.



So if someone wants to murder someone, then the idea of "Subjective Morality" would be used to accomplish it according to you.

If it can be used to Accomplish anything, then the terms Right/Wrong, Are in fact Useless, under your worldview Morality would be a crutch, even you admit it when you said "depending on what you actually want to accomplish"

Your Atheist worldview is indeed untenable.



How did it appear to be different?



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

Now you're left with a MindLESS source or a Mind(God).



Nice Try, No one is arguing that Belief that God exists makes someone Moral, many people who claim to be atheists actually believe God exists, yet they reject Him and are 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.



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



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.

We agree that they are Innate, meaning not caused by use but by an external source, this source is either MindLESS or a Mind/God(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

It cannot be MindLESS, as a MindLESS entity(or nothing) Lacks the property of Personhood/Mind/Morality. A MindLESS entity(or nothing) would be Amoral.

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



*Interpret

Objective as in Fact, not based on Opinion, Agreement, etc.



Hold the phone, right there you're making a Presupposition that All Christians have an Opinion that God exists rather than a Knowledge(Objective).

You'll need to prove that claim of yours.



Harm(Depriving/Hurting/Discomfort) would be a Lack of Something(Giving Life/Loving/Comfort), Evil is not a Thing, it's a lack of. The Greatest Being/Cause of Everything could not possibly Lack anything so if God exists He could only be Loving and not approving of harm as Objective Morality.

Also God would instill Universal Moral, so even if you disagree with Him(as you do), so even if you disagree that Loving others is Right and you want to Harm others, you'd still know deep down that Loving others is the Objectively Right thing to do.

You ignored that God of the Bible would instill morals in us and that Evil is a lack of good, probably assuming I wouldn't notice, and that ultimately cost you your very own argument.



Using Objective terms again, saying it makes a dysfunctional society would merely be your opinion Under Your Worldview.

Under your worldview if Hitler thought Not Murdering made for a dysfunctional society then under Your Worldview he would be "right"

Your worldview is simply not found in reality.



I never said it's wrong because it's wrong, That's Your Atheist Worldview, you have absolutely no reason to help others, other than personal opinion. whereas my worldview it's Objective to love others, as YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) instills that ought, as His nature is Love.




People can have different views with the existence of Objective Innate Moral Values, so your argument fails.



Subjective Morality is not proven by Conflicting Views, that would be like saying the Earth being round isn't Objective because some view it as "flat".

Views don't change what is Objective, many people may think the earth is flat, that does not change that the Earth is Objectively Not Flat.

Morality would still be Objective even with conflicting Views/Beliefs.

Your argument is null, void and refuted.





The nail has not been hit on the head, #1, Why should it be my job? #2, Why shouldn't you prove Morality is Subjective?

But since you want me to prove it, I will, unlike you I do not evade, I will do so by proving YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) exists, If God/YHWH exists, Morality is Objective:

Simple Logic and Scientific Princple of Cause and Effect.

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

In Layman's terms, you cannot give what you Do Not have.

Our cause therefore cannot be MindLESS, that is now proven impossible.

Atheism is false, our cause is a Mind.(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)


Your turn, prove that Morality is Subjective, and No, Conflicting views doesn't make it Subjective, just like Conflicting views on the shape of the Earth doesn't change that it's Not Flat.



Certainly, and before you attempt to preach your indoctrination by atheist websites with false claims against the Bible, lets refute that:

Slavery never endorsed, Old Testament has Indentured Servitude -> Slavery in the Bible: Does God Approve of It? Does the Bible allow for slavery? where YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) says in Leviticus 25 that they're treated as a hired man, "'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee."

In which the workers would want to live with their employee, as they got free food, free clothes, were treated like a family member, Exodus 21:5-7 - "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."

On rape:

Rape is condemned -> Deuteronomy 22:25-27 - "25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

As far as Deuteronomy 22:28-29 goes, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape and the word used is וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־(ve·he·che·zik-) which means forces(which is what rape is, Deuteronomy 22:25 Lexicon: "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.)

That word is completely missing from Deuteronomy 22:28-29, rape is therefore not condemned in Deuteornomy 22:28-29. also the words taphas and anah do not mean rape in this verse. The Old Testament and Rape : Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29

So not only is rape never condoned, it's condemned.

As far as Genocide, killed for Ethnic/Racial reasons?

No. Only those who harmed others(Such as Sodom, they were rapists) had their privileges to life taken away for hurting other people.

And in case you speak of the Samuels passage, that is a Interpolation, as it contradicts a majority of books, doesn't even make up one whole book and is in a less authenticated book

If that's Genocide then the Death Penalty would be Genocide for ending plenty of evil people.

Only under an Atheist worldview would you assume they die forever, which would be a Presupposition.

If you're going to talk about the Christian worldview, then you can't cherry pick, you must go with all doctrine from Authenticated passages(Not Interpolations), such the most important, The Resurrection(1 Thessalonian 4) where all are Resurrected for Judgement, so even then all the Harmful people simply went out of conscious temporary(Good to Eternal Life, Evil don't get Eternal Life, they get Eternal Punishment/Death).

Under your worldview of Atheist, rape wouldn't be objectively wrong.




Fact, Unchanging. So for example Murder is Objectively wrong regardless of human opinion.



Long Reteric of Claims without proof, How is Morality not Objective? Can you prove they are Subjective?

Even if people had different views on Morality, wouldn't prove that it isn't Objective.



In what situations? rape/murder, etc would Not be good in some situations.




That is an Opinion, as you provided Absolutely No Evidence, only a claim that it's "Subjective"



Even if people considered it acceptable, that wouldn't change that it's wrong, Hence Objective Morality, not based on/Regardless of anyone views.

No different than how even if certain people Consider the earth as flat it Does Not change that the Earth is Not Flat.

Views don't change what's Objective, nor do Views make something Subjective.

I did provide evidence, but perhaps it was over your head. I'll try explaining in a different way....

If morality were objective, we would expect there to be some evidence of this. Remember your definition of "objective"? You said it was fact...unchanging. Well facts have evidence...something to indicate they are true....objective morality lacks this. Im sorry, but that's reality. If you think objective morality exists as facts...then answer this...

1. List all objective morals...good and bad. Go ahead, I'll wait. Since they don't change and they are useless if we don't know them...this should be simple for you.
2. Who or what created these objective morals? I have a feeling that you'll answer "god" so pay close attention to the next question...
3. What makes them "objective/factual"? If you said that god created them in response to question #2...then this is the part where you get to explain why God's opinion on what is right and wrong morally means that somehow (magic maybe?) his opinion becomes a fact.

You asked if I had proof that morals are subjective, the answer is yes....The proof is that everyone disagrees on what is morally good and morally bad. That is in essence what moral relativism is....it's observable in reality. If you like, I can start a thread asking people if they think particular moral actions are good or bad and you can see for yourself.

You also asked when "murder"would be morally acceptable. I think most people find it morally acceptable during war. Think of your Nazi Germany example...the USA sent men into Germany to shoot German people. Under German law, this surely qualifies as murder...and yet this moral behavior had overwhelming support during world war 2.

That wasn't so hard was it? Lol.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

For example, in the OT the Israelites were supposedly commanded by God to go out and eradicate other people. Kill them, enslave them, burn their cities, take their daughers "for themselves".

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.

If there was an objective moral that stated "killing is wrong", all these acts would be called "murder" and "atrocities".

Your morals are situational. Their rightness or wrongness is not objective, it depends on who did when what to whom. And only then do you make a moral judgement.

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."

I did provide evidence, but perhaps it was over your head. I'll try explaining in a different way....

If morality were objective, we would expect there to be some evidence of this. Remember your definition of "objective"? You said it was fact...unchanging. Well facts have evidence...something to indicate they are true....objective morality lacks this. Im sorry, but that's reality. If you think objective morality exists as facts...then answer this...

1. List all objective morals...good and bad. Go ahead, I'll wait. Since they don't change and they are useless if we don't know them...this should be simple for you.

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.

2. Who or what created these objective morals? I have a feeling that you'll answer "god" so pay close attention to the next question...
3. What makes them "objective/factual"? If you said that god created them in response to question #2...then this is the part where you get to explain why God's opinion on what is right and wrong morally means that somehow (magic maybe?) his opinion becomes a fact.

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.

You asked if I had proof that morals are subjective, the answer is yes....The proof is that everyone disagrees on what is morally good and morally bad. That is in essence what moral relativism is....it's observable in reality. If you like, I can start a thread asking people if they think particular moral actions are good or bad and you can see for yourself.

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 also asked when "murder"would be morally acceptable. I think most people find it morally acceptable during war. Think of your Nazi Germany example...the USA sent men into Germany to shoot German people. Under German law, this surely qualifies as murder...and yet this moral behavior had overwhelming support during world war 2.

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 wasn't so hard was it? Lol.

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.

 

[quatona]

No, without God there wouldn't be Objective Morality, that's the argument.

And since your initial question was: "What makes morality objective?" this - even though it is merely a semantics issue - this is debatable, in that it doesn´t use the standard definition of "objective".
Even if a God existed and there were God-given morals I wouldn´t agree with calling them "objective". I might agree to call them "authoritative", "important", "significant", "relevant" and possibly some others, but "objective"? No.
But, again, that´s a mere point of semantics which unfortunately you mingle with several epistemological and ontological questions.

Objective Moral Values cannot exist without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) existing, as Morals cannot derive from an Amoral cause, and being from Humans would render it Subjective.

That without a God objective moral values can´t exist is undisputed. What, however, is disputed: That they can exist (or even necessarily exist) with there being a God.

 

[Freodin]

You know, SavedByChrist94, it has some kind of surrealistic feel: to see someone defend stoning and burning and razing cities and "marrying of" little girls, because all that is justified, all that happened only to evil people and all that was painless and humane... and on the other hand be accused of "in your worldview, Hitler was right for murdering Jews".

It is obvious that you are unable to even try to consider others people's arguments.

If you think that this is doing anything to bring people closer to Christ: you are doing it wrong.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Kunjax]

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

That is correct. It is subjectively wrong. Because as a society we condemn rape. If society instead encouraged rape, then we wouldn't view it as a bad thing. We can see morals are subjective through the changes in societies view on what is moral or not throughout history. Just a few centuries ago, slavery was considered moral. Now, as a society we condemn slavery, making it immoral. Surely you can see that as our morals are constantly in flux, they cannot be objective.