Debunking the Moral Argument - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 5)

[Uber Genius]

I will now continue my "Tricks," series that has exposed serious fallacious rhetorical tricks played by both Atheists and Theists alike.

Here we see an attempt to undermine the moral argument for the existence of God.

Its publisher AntiCitizenX challenges the viewers to:

"Prove the objectivity of just one moral value or duty."

Watch the video and see if you can spot the absurd trick. A class in philosophy might be required in order to catch the trick, but I will let the gentle readers engage the material and comment.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If it is anything like their political arguments, it goes like this; "the moral argument is a lie, built on lies, lies, and more lies" honestly we do not like it, never did, it's pathetic and worthless, therefore it is false". Nope no bias there, just the facts.

 

[HitchSlap]

Great topic uber!

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[Uber Genius]

If one looks specifically at the "Don't use intuition," rant then you will get the clue to the Anti(Intelligent)CitizenX's incoherence.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Except where laws and consequences are concerned, the atheist privately would look at morals as conveniences and preferences through the machine like coldness and insensitivity of nature itself. Promiscuity? Not a problem, look at nature, other animals do not ask permissions or commit to marriage. Which is also why I see the whole concept of "love" as a problem for atheists. What is it really in a naturalists point of view? Little more than commitments of lust.

 

[Uber Genius]

Except where laws and consequences are concerned, the atheist privately would look at morals as conveniences and preferences through the machine like coldness and insensitivity of nature itself. Promiscuity? Not a problem, look at nature, other animals do not ask permissions or commit to marriage. Which is also why I see the whole concept of "love" as a problem for atheists. What is it really in a naturalists point of view? Little more than commitments of lust.

In this particular video the author suggests we "prove" moral intuitions that a objective good exists without the use of intuition.

This is like saying prove the pythagorean theorem without using math or natural language.

Can you think of things our genius videographer believes in that require intuition but are not provable?

How about the existence of an external world, other minds (people), or the reality of the past? All of which are not provable since Descartes but that we take for granted based on our senses and our intuition!

So our video author has to believe in tens of thousands of things he engages everyday as real and then picks our intuition that moral truths are objective (don't rely on human subjects opinions) to say "I want to change the rules on what we can call knowledge."

In the absence of defeaters our senses have a properly basic justification that the external world, other people, the past, and yoututbe, things like computers exist. And moral facts such as it is always wrong to torture babies for fun are objectively true.

Now I can do something to someone's brain either physically or psychologically to prevent them from perceiving these intuitions, just like I can poke someone's eyes out and they will no longer be able to perceive say the moon.

So how one claims knowledge is the trick, and raising the bar about objective moral values need to be proven differently than our other perceptions of the external world is just balony known as special pleading.

 

[HitchSlap]

Except where laws and consequences are concerned, the atheist privately would look at morals as conveniences and preferences through the machine like coldness and insensitivity of nature itself. Promiscuity? Not a problem, look at nature, other animals do not ask permissions or commit to marriage. Which is also why I see the whole concept of "love" as a problem for atheists. What is it really in a naturalists point of view? Little more than commitments of lust.

http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvar...in-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-love

 

[Uber Genius]

AntiCitizenX is also wrong when he claims circularity.

The claim, "Objective morals and duties exist," is a theologically neutral claim held by theist and non-theists alike.

An angry and ignorant rant seems to be carrying the water for your video, rather than careful reasoning.

 

[gaara4158]

In this particular video the author suggests we "prove" moral intuitions that a objective good exists without the use of intuition.

This is like saying prove the pythagorean theorem without using math or natural language.

Can you think of things our genius videographer believes in that require intuition but are not provable?

How about the existence of an external world, other minds (people), or the reality of the past? All of which are not provable since Descartes but that we take for granted based on our senses and our intuition!

So our video author has to believe in tens of thousands of things he engages everyday as real and then picks our intuition that moral truths are objective (don't rely on human subjects opinions) to say "I want to change the rules on what we can call knowledge."

In the absence of defeaters our senses have a properly basic justification that the external world, other people, the past, and yoututbe, things like computers exist. And moral facts such as it is always wrong to torture babies for fun are objectively true.

Now I can do something to someone's brain either physically or psychologically to prevent them from perceiving these intuitions, just like I can poke someone's eyes out and they will no longer be able to perceive say the moon.

So how one claims knowledge is the trick, and raising the bar about objective moral values need to be proven differently than our other perceptions of the external world is just balony known as special pleading.

Not quite. AnticitizenX employs pragmatic empirical rationalism (aka science) as a method to make reasonable conclusions about reality, to include the existence of other people, the past, etc. It's a little more complicated than "intuition." It's not special pleading to refuse moral intuition the "objective" status of scientific facts. Quite the opposite, it is special pleading to grant moral intuitions an "objective truth" status when I assume you meet other intuitions, like "God doesn't exist" or "the moon is following me" with a higher degree of skepticism.

 

[gaara4158]

Except where laws and consequences are concerned, the atheist privately would look at morals as conveniences and preferences through the machine like coldness and insensitivity of nature itself. Promiscuity? Not a problem, look at nature, other animals do not ask permissions or commit to marriage. Which is also why I see the whole concept of "love" as a problem for atheists. What is it really in a naturalists point of view? Little more than commitments of lust.

Why do you saddle the atheist with a cold, machine like outlook on life? We value people and feelings too, even if we recognize that no grand all-mother of the universe does.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Why do you saddle the atheist with a cold, machine like outlook on life? We value people and feelings too, even if we recognize that no grand all-mother of the universe does.

Sugar coat it all you want, but you know (as one who does not believe in an afterlife) in the grand scheme of things none of it has a shred of meaning or purpose, only a temporary relative "to each their own", "do as you see fit" (and can get away with) kind of underlying "value". Peering through the lens of naturalistic evolution, (Other) animals have feelings too, but to what extent do they have meaning or purpose beyond temporary personal relative experiences, like; it's all good so long as this dog does not bite me, or get me into legal troubles so far as others are concerned, otherwise nature will be nature, live and let die. Feelings are just chemical reactions in the brain to external phenomena no? What makes one persons chemical reactions better or superior to another persons chemical reactions? What even makes them valuable beyond manipulating for all kinds of selfishness? Acts of self-less kindness are flat out contradictory to the whole "self-preservation" "survival of the fittest" "strong survive" mantras of naturalistic evolution. What the naturalist is left with is a; "suck it up", "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to all of life, feelings are chemical reactions in the brain, get over it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sugar coat it all you want, but you know (as one who does not believe in an afterlife) in the grand scheme of things none of it has a shred of meaning or purpose, only a temporary relative "to each their own", "do as you see fit" (and can get away with) kind of underlying "value". Peering through the lens of naturalistic evolution, (Other) animals have feelings too, but to what extent do they have meaning or purpose beyond temporary personal relative experiences, like; it's all good so long as this dog does not bite me, or get me into legal troubles so far as others are concerned, otherwise nature will be nature, live and let die. Feelings are just chemical reactions in the brain to external phenomena no? What makes one persons chemical reactions better or superior to another persons chemical reactions? What even makes them valuable beyond manipulating for all kinds of selfishness? Acts of self-less kindness are flat out contradictory to the whole "self-preservation" "survival of the fittest" "strong survive" mantras of naturalistic evolution. What the naturalist is left with is a; "suck it up", "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to all of life, feelings are chemical reactions in the brain, get over it.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[gaara4158]

Sugar coat it all you want, but you know (as one who does not believe in an afterlife) in the grand scheme of things none of it has a shred of meaning or purpose, only a temporary relative "to each their own", "do as you see fit" (and can get away with) kind of underlying "value". Peering through the lens of naturalistic evolution, (Other) animals have feelings too, but to what extent do they have meaning or purpose beyond temporary personal relative experiences, like; it's all good so long as this dog does not bite me, or get me into legal troubles so far as others are concerned, otherwise nature will be nature, live and let die. Feelings are just chemical reactions in the brain to external phenomena no? What makes one persons chemical reactions better or superior to another persons chemical reactions? What even makes them valuable beyond manipulating for all kinds of selfishness? Acts of self-less kindness are flat out contradictory to the whole "self-preservation" "survival of the fittest" "strong survive" mantras of naturalistic evolution. What the naturalist is left with is a; "suck it up", "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to all of life, feelings are chemical reactions in the brain, get over it.

The “grand scheme of things” is as irrelevant to me as I am to it. Meanwhile, I possess rationality, self-interest, and empathy, and these shape the way a fulfilling life would manifest for me and I act accordingly. It may be that a perfectly rational being would be consumed by existential despair in perpetuity. Good thing I’m not.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Now you're just being silly.

Definitely not Alfred E. Neuman silly.

 

[HitchSlap]

Definitely not Alfred E. Neuman silly.

Why, is he a creationist too?

 

[gaara4158]

Group support? One way to solidify one's opinion is to bury the head in the sand and seek the advice of those with whom one agrees. It is seriously difficult to consider another opinion when other opinions are muffled, shut out, trampled, and pushed out. And virtue? What is that to you? One man's virtue is another man's vice, without any objective basis. Why not just come clean with it? Oh that's right group support, but in your own words "There's only me.".

Again you saddle atheists with a solipsistic nihilism without justification. I find your inability to ground morality outside of the say-so of some divine being disturbing.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Again you saddle atheists with a solipsistic nihilism without justification. I find your inability to ground morality outside of the say-so of some divine being disturbing.

I find your inability to be morally consistent with a godless worldview to be logically incoherent, and existententially convenient. And who cares about all that logical consistency business!

The “grand scheme of things” is as irrelevant to me as I am to it. Meanwhile, I possess rationality, self-interest, and empathy, and these shape the way a fulfilling life would manifest for me and I act accordingly. It may be that a perfectly rational being would be consumed by existential despair in perpetuity. Good thing I’m not.