Challenge to Atheists on Morality

[FreedByte]

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

punishment / reward in the afterlife isn't a viable hypothetical enforcement?

 

[PsychoSarah]

punishment / reward in the afterlife isn't a viable hypothetical enforcement?

Does it appear to be preventing people from committing atrocities?

 

[Golden Yak]

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.

I still think any morality coming from a mind will necessarily be that mind's opinion. You could argue that a creator gets to dictate his opinion as 'the right way to to things' I suppose, in the same way that someone who invents a game dictates the rules to playing it properly.

But unless the creator is just throwing out arbitrary pronouncements as morality (in which case, Objective Morality isn't especially impressive), his mind must be following some kind of logic - things that are going to be objectively factual regardless of his opinion on them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I tend to agree with Golden Yak on his point, especially since I made a similar point earlier myself lol. Assuming for a moment that there is a god and he does create a set of moral laws to follow... what makes them "good"? Unless your argument is that "might makes right", I don't see why the ability to create moral laws equates to the ability to make "good" moral laws. Ultimately, it would just be a god subjectively creating a set of moral laws....there's no reason (that I'm aware of) to believe that god's sense of morality is somehow inherently "good".

 

[Euler]

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.

Boom!

Very well put

 

[FreedByte]

Does it appear to be preventing people from committing atrocities?

How is that relevant?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Morality is the way that things ought to be.

Not the way that anybody thinks/feels/believes things ought to be. The way that things ought to be, period.

I do not see how the way that things ought to be is in any way subjective.

I do not see how it is objective either. I do not see how anybody can demonstrate or prove that anything categorically ought to be.

It appears that the only ought that can coherently be accepted and applied is a hypothetical one such as, "If we do not want people to suffer then we ought to...". That is not subjective--it does not depend on the person thinking/saying it. Meanwhile, what reduces or minimizes people's suffering can be objectively measured. But the other element--"if we do not want people to suffer"--cannot be objectively accepted or rejected.

 

[Euler]

Morality is the way that things ought to be.

Not the way that anybody thinks/feels/believes things ought to be. The way that things ought to be, period.

I do not see how the way that things ought to be is in any way subjective.

I do not see how it is objective either. I do not see how anybody can demonstrate or prove that anything categorically ought to be.

It appears that the only ought that can coherently be accepted and applied is a hypothetical one such as, "If we do not want people to suffer then we ought to...". That is not subjective--it does not depend on the person thinking/saying it. Meanwhile, what reduces or minimizes people's suffering can be objectively measured. But the other element--"if we do not want people to suffer"--cannot be objectively accepted or rejected.

Because "ought" changes meaning, over time and over location and over circumstance. It is a subjective determination.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's your worldview, not an answer.

The answer is contained within my worldview. If you can't accept that, I don't know what you are looking for and can't answer your question. I'll try one more time.

Human well-being is a natural phenomenon that sets the objective standard by which to judge values.

That's my reply, take it or leave it.

Yes you do

No, I don't, Mister Mindreader.

You are woefully under-informed about my philosophical stance, and your aggressive posture isn't encouraging me to want to take the time to explain it further. Flies, honey, vinegar.

I never told you what hoops to jump through

Yes, you did with your insistence that I answer all five of your questions. Those are the hoops I was referring to.

Your atheism worldview is simply untenable

You don't even know what it is!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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.

Looking through this thread, this is one of the best responses I've come across.

There really is no point in me addressing the OP because if in almost 100 replies, no one has given him a satisfactory answer, that means there probably isn't one that will satisfy.

 

[Freodin]

I noticed something very interesting. Something very revealing, you might say, about the way this kind of "moral objectivists" think.

We subjectivists are always ready to say that in our worldview, there is no objective "right" or "wrong".
And in any thread of this kind, sooner or later, we are confronted with "so Hitler was right in your worldview".

Never ever have I seen the objection "so Hitler was wrong in your worldview"... which would be equally valid.

I really wonder why this is.

(No, I don't really wonder why. I know rather well why. But if the "moral objectivists" who say this stuff realised the reason, they would perhaps understand what we are saying.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

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?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

5 simple questions.

5 simple answers.

 

[bhsmte]

I noticed something very interesting. Something very revealing, you might say, about the way this kind of "moral objectivists" think.

We subjectivists are always ready to say that in our worldview, there is no objective "right" or "wrong".
And in any thread of this kind, sooner or later, we are confronted with "so Hitler was right in your worldview".

Never ever have I seen the objection "so Hitler was wrong in your worldview"... which would be equally valid.

I really wonder why this is.

(No, I don't really wonder why. I know rather well why. But if the "moral objectivists" who say this stuff realised the reason, they would perhaps understand what we are saying.)

Your responses on this are loaded with logic and i agree with you.

For some believers, what this really comes down to is this; if morality does not come from their God, it devalues their faith belief and provides great motivation to need to convince themselves they have better morals, because they are believers and their God determines this.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Proof that it's based on Human Judgement rather than instilled?

I'm not going to blindly accept your claim that Humans make what's Right and Wrong.

Are you going to claim instead that God makes what's right or wrong?

How about you give an example on one such ruling, and we'll discuss where and how He breaks it (or commands others to break it in His name)

 

[JGG]

Your responses on this are loaded with logic and i agree with you.

For some believers, what this really comes down to is this; if morality does not come from their God, it devalues their faith belief and provides great motivation to need to convince themselves they have better morals, because they are believers and their God determines this.

Believers are good. Non-believers (especially atheists) are bad. If I can prove you're bad, I'm even better. That's the ultimate point of these threads. That's ultimately the point of theism. I'm good because I'm better than you. If I blow out your candle, mine glows brighter.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

"Unlike the kinds of arguments which establish scientific knowledge, moral arguments are not progressive and accumulative, nor are they ever conclusive. Moral argument and social critique constitute a running battle with ruling power, and even though they may be dealing with eternal truths, they will never find a form in which these can be asserted once and for all; the best they can hope for is to find ever new ways of re-formulating and re-stating their insights such that brakes are applied to the ever-expanding ambitions of power..." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

 

[keith99]

I noticed something very interesting. Something very revealing, you might say, about the way this kind of "moral objectivists" think.

We subjectivists are always ready to say that in our worldview, there is no objective "right" or "wrong".
And in any thread of this kind, sooner or later, we are confronted with "so Hitler was right in your worldview".

Never ever have I seen the objection "so Hitler was wrong in your worldview"... which would be equally valid.

I really wonder why this is.

(No, I don't really wonder why. I know rather well why. But if the "moral objectivists" who say this stuff realised the reason, they would perhaps understand what we are saying.)

This moral subjectivist happens to think that suicide bombing can be right in some circumstances.

Can you guess which target I have in mind?

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

The answer is nothing. The consequences of our actions are objective, however the values we place on them, and therefore moral values are subjective.

The ironic thing that most Christians miss is that if morality is actually dictated by a God, then it is still subjectively based. It is merely God's subjective values instead of ours.

 

[Euler]

The answer is nothing. The consequences of our actions are objective, however the values we place on them, and therefore moral values are subjective.

The ironic thing that most Christians miss is that if morality is actually dictated by a God, then it is still subjectively based. It is merely God's subjective values instead of ours.

Yep. I think Euthyphro's got your back.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's wearisome hearing this canard constantly bandied about by apologists. A cursory inspection of their claims shows that their criticisms of secular morality are just as applicable to their own religiously based moral systems, perhaps even more so. Rather than asking us how we are able to distinguish right from wrong perhaps they should be asking each other, given that there is little agreement among theists on what God considers 'good.'