How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Soyeong]

What sort of argument is that? Morality is quite simply the concept of what we, individually and as a society, consider to be right and wrong. Religion will govern what a lot of people decide on that matter but to suggest that the concept itself and the decisions we make don't or can't exist outside of religion is the weirdest statement I've heard for quite some time.

But maybe you can find a definition that says that morality requires religion. But I won't be holding my breath because I know one doesn't exist.

The concept of something being immoral regardless of whether anyone agrees means that if something is immoral requires, then even if a person or all of a society thinks that it is moral, then they. are wrong, so neither an individual nor a society can be the source of morality. If two people disagreed about whether or not something is immoral, then there would be no way for them to resolve the issue without being able to appeal to a standard of morality that is above human opinion, which is incompatible with atheism. If those people are just speaking about actions that they prefer or don't prefer, then that is fine, but without appealing to a standard above human opinion, they would have no way to go from that to establishing that everyone has a moral obligation to act in accordance with their preferences, and you have not even attempted to demonstrate how a moral obligation can be established without appealing to theism. Incredulity is not a counter argument.

 

[Bradskii]

The concept of something being immoral regardless of whether anyone agrees means that if something is immoral requires, then even if a person or all of a society thinks that it is moral, then they. are wrong, so neither an individual nor a society can be the source of morality. If two people disagreed about whether or not something is immoral, then there would be no way for them to resolve the issue without being able to appeal to a standard of morality that is above human opinion, which is incompatible with atheism. If those people are just speaking about actions that they prefer or don't prefer, then that is fine, but without appealing to a standard above human opinion, they would have no way to go from that to establishing that everyone has a moral obligation to act in accordance with their preferences, and you have not even attempted to demonstrate how a moral obligation can be established without appealing to theism. Incredulity is not a counter argument.

I don't need to counter anything. You've not made any coherent argument. You appear to be confusing morality itself with the concept of either objective or absolute morality, whereas it can be subjective and/or relative and would therefore need no appeal to a higher authority.

I think you might need to investigate the matter further. Moral Objectivism vs. Subjectivism vs. Relativism | Overview, Differences & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com.

 

[Ken-1122]

The concept of something being immoral regardless of whether anyone agrees means that if something is immoral requires, then even if a person or all of a society thinks that it is moral, then they. are wrong, so neither an individual nor a society can be the source of morality. If two people disagreed about whether or not something is immoral, then there would be no way for them to resolve the issue without being able to appeal to a standard of morality that is above human opinion, which is incompatible with atheism. If those people are just speaking about actions that they prefer or don't prefer, then that is fine, but without appealing to a standard above human opinion, they would have no way to go from that to establishing that everyone has a moral obligation to act in accordance with their preferences, and you have not even attempted to demonstrate how a moral obligation can be established without appealing to theism. Incredulity is not a counter argument.

So according to you, people have to appeal to a standard of morality that is above human opinion? What happens when people who disagree with morality appeal to different standards that are above human opinion? What makes your standard better than the other guys?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why use God’s standard?

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. It's not just God's standard for morality, it's God's standard for everything. He is the basis on which we are able to reason authoritatively at all.

The very nature of a correct or right moral stance means that the moral is true regardless of personal experience or interpretation, so any kind of relative or subjective morality is off the table if you want to say why your 'personal preferences' are authoritative in any way which is why it's self refuting if you want to say that certain moral actions are correct/right under subjective morality. Inherent value to human life doesn't exist independent of a transcendent source. Ergo The Being who created us determines what is right for His creation.

 

[Ken-1122]

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. It's not just God's standard for morality, it's God's standard for everything. He is the basis on which we are able to reason authoritatively at all.

The very nature of a correct or right moral stance means that the moral is true regardless of personal experience or interpretation, so any kind of relative or subjective morality is off the table if you want to say why your 'personal preferences' are authoritative in any way which is why it's self refuting if you want to say that certain moral actions are correct/right under subjective morality. Inherent value to human life doesn't exist independent of a transcendent source. Ergo The Being who created us determines what is right for His creation.

I think everybody understands what Christians think of their God. But what happens when you happen upon someone who worships a different God, and makes the same claims of his God, that you make of yours concerning morality?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I think everybody understands what Christians think of their God. But what happens when you happen upon someone who worships a different God, and makes the same claims of his God, that you make of yours concerning morality?

As in makes the same moral claims but is a different God?

 

[Neutral Observer]

The very nature of a correct or right moral stance means that the moral is true regardless of personal experience or interpretation,

But it also means that its true regardless of what it says in some book. Which means that you should be able to establish that it's true without having to appeal to some so-called authority. 1+1=2 isn't true simply because it says so in a math book. In other words, something is immoral for a reason, and that reason isn't simply because God says so.

So what is the reason that something is immoral? And don't just say, "Because God says so".

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

But it also means that its true regardless of what it says in some book.

Obviously, which is why I didn't refer to just the Bible. Did you see me quote scripture anywhere?

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. It's not just God's standard for morality, it's God's standard for everything. He is the basis on which we are able to reason authoritatively at all.

But it also means that its true regardless of what it says in some book. Which means that you should be able to establish that it's true without having to appeal to some so-called authority. 1+1=2 isn't true simply because it says so in a math book.

The ironic thing is that within your paradigm you can't say why it's true as to why 1+1=2. Numbers in your worldview don't exist because they're immaterial, the laws of logic that allowed your response to not be a wet noodle don't exist either because they're immaterial. Nevertheless, can you please tell me why in your paradigm 1+1=2?

In other words, something is immoral for a reason, and that reason isn't simply because God says so.

So what is the reason that something is immoral? And don't just say, "Because God says so".

God created us to be a certain way and what is morally correct and incorrect (good & evil) is evaluated in regards to His attributes. And also is established as such because He determined it to be this way. The same way I can be certain that rocks will continue to exist regardless of if I believe in them or not. He made the universe according to the laws He established and He made it to function according to those laws. God is the reason you and I can reason inductively. Unless of course you have another reason why you can reason inductively?

Please answer these two questions for me:
How can you reason from that which you have experienced to that which you have not experienced?
Why is it Logic & Reason are true or authoritative in your worldview?

In other words, something is immoral for a reason, and that reason isn't simply because God says so.

So what is the reason that something is immoral? And don't just say, "Because God says so".

So what is the reason that something is immoral in your paradigm? And don't just say, "Because harm or pain is wrong".

 

[Ken-1122]

As in makes the same moral claims but is a different God?

Some moral claims are the same, but some are different. How do you settle the differences?

 

[Neutral Observer]

So what is the reason that something is immoral in your paradigm? And don't just say, "Because harm or pain is wrong".

You must have me confused with someone else.

What makes you think that I believe anything is immoral, beyond someone's personal opinion? If something causes you harm or pain... I DON'T CARE!!!!

But I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the question, what is the reason that something is immoral? And don't just say, "Because God says so".

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Some moral claims are the same, but some are different. How do you settle the differences?

My problem isn't with the different perspectives as to what morals are right and wrong, my problem is the claiming of moral right or wrongs under a self refuting subjective morality. It's an epistemological disagreement. Moral truths can't exist independent of a transcendental cause, after that's demonstrated then we can argue about what that transcendental cause is. So to answer your question I would investigate their claims to the truth of their Deity. I fail to see how anything outside of Creatio Ex Nihilo solves the problem of the infinite regression of causality and anything outside of Creatio Ex Nihilo means that the Deity is not all-powerful. So you're only left with the 3 Abrahamic faiths (and Mormonism) and all of those are testable historically and theologically.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

But I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the question, what is the reason that something is immoral? And don't just say, "Because God says so".

I didn't say "because God says so", I gave you philosophical argumentation that can be deduced from literally nature (though thankfully we have a historical record & The Bible which we can test the claims of so we're not left blind like our ancient ancestors were). The Greeks pontificated about the powers of their Deities, the afterlife and the nature of knowledge all from logical inference about nature. It's how you got your Aristotelian Naturalism & Materialism. You structured the question to rule out any Theistic argumentation.

Imagine if I said to a scientist "so what is the reason that x is y? And don't just say, "Because science says so"." He would laugh at me when I dismiss all of his reasoning in his hypothesis and then say "But I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the question, what is the reason that x is y? And don't just say, "Because Science says so". And rightfully so. Yet this is exactly how you're arguing.

You don't know what you're on about mate, you're clearly ignorant of things as basic as truth claims and the necessity for their justification yet you continue to argue without actually disputing the very points I'm making. You don't even know why things are true within naturalism/materialism, the very paradigm you're defaulted into once you reject the non-existence of the immaterial or The Creatio Ex Nihilo Deity.

Go do some further research on why your own beliefs are true and then come back. Literally just keep asking yourself the question "why is this true?" to any of your beliefs and then keep asking that question to the answers you get. Watch where it leads and then go investigate why you believe what you actually believe.

 

[Ken-1122]

My problem isn't with the different perspectives as to what morals are right and wrong, my problem is the claiming of moral right or wrongs under a self refuting subjective morality. It's an epistemological disagreement. Moral truths can't exist independent of a transcendental cause, after that's demonstrated then we can argue about what that transcendental cause is. So to answer your question I would investigate their claims to the truth of their Deity.

Let’s say (hypothetically) this person is of the Zoroastrianism faith, and believes Ahura Mazda is everything you believe Yahweh is? How would you investigate his moral claims that are in direct conflict with yours to see if Ahura Mazda is right and Yahweh is wrong?

 

[Neutral Observer]

I didn't say "because God says so", I gave you philosophical arguments that can be deduced from literally nature (God's attributes). The Greeks pontificated about the powers of their Deities, the afterlife and the nature of knowledge all from logical inference about nature. It's how you got your Aristotelian Naturalism & Materialism. You structured the question to rule out any Theistic argumentation.

Imagine if I said to a scientist "so what is the reason that x is y? And don't just say, "Because science says so"." He would laugh at me when I dismiss all of his reasoning in his hypothesis and then say "But I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the question, what is the reason that x is y? And don't just say, "Because Science says so". And rightfully so. Yet this is exactly how you're arguing.

You don't know what you're on about mate, you're clearly ignorant of things as basic as truth claims and the necessity for their justification yet you continue to argue without actually disputing the very points I'm making. You don't even know why things are true within naturalism/materialism, the very paradigm you're defaulted into once you reject the non-existence of the immaterial or a Creatio Ex Nihilo Deity.

Go do some further research on why your own beliefs are true and then come back. Literally just keep asking yourself the question "why is this true?" to any of your beliefs and then keep asking that question to the answers you get. Watch where it leads and then go investigate why you believe what you actually believe.

Well that's quite bloviated, but it didn't answer the question.

Would you like to try again?

There must be a logical reason why some things are immoral. What is it?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Let’s say (hypothetically) this person is of the Zoroastrianism faith, and believes Ahura Mazda is everything you believe Yahweh is? How would you investigate his moral claims that are in direct conflict with yours to see if Ahura Mazda is right and Yahweh is wrong?

I already answered the question, I would have to make a decision based upon the evidence as to which Deity exists. The one which does is the transcendent source for all morality. Which is one of reasons I'm extremely grateful for how much Yahweh absolutely destroys by an extreme margin the claims of any other Deity. Your problem is that you've got the cart before the horse in declaring moral truth as you're unable to do so if the genesis for morality is biology. And because you're pigeonholed into evolution, under an evolutionary framework you're unable to derive a should from an is. Which is why whenever you argue for moral truths, truths that exist regardless of belief, you're refuting any kind of relative morality. The whole thing is incoherent. The only consistent stance is to say that morality is truly arbitrary.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Well that's quite bloviated, but it didn't answer the question.

Would you like to try again?

There must be a logical reason why some things are immoral. What is it?

 

[Neutral Observer]

View attachment 327819

So in other words, you have absolutely no idea why some things are immoral and some things aren't.

And yet you want us to buy into this completely unjustifiable moral standard.

No thank you.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Literally just keep asking yourself the question "why is this true?" to any of your beliefs and then keep asking that question to the answers you get.

I'm an epistemological solipsist, so there's a good chance that I've been asking that question longer than you've been alive.

You've asserted that some things are immoral, I would like for you to do more than simply assert that they're immoral, I would like for you to give us a reason as to why they're immoral.

It seems that you're incapable of doing that. I'm not surprised.

 

[Bradskii]

My problem isn't with the different perspectives as to what morals are right and wrong, my problem is the claiming of moral right or wrongs under a self refuting subjective morality. It's an epistemological disagreement. Moral truths can't exist independent of a transcendental cause, after that's demonstrated then we can argue about what that transcendental cause is. So to answer your question I would investigate their claims to the truth of their Deity. I fail to see how anything outside of Creatio Ex Nihilo solves the problem of the infinite regression of causality and anything outside of Creatio Ex Nihilo means that the Deity is not all-powerful. So you're only left with the 3 Abrahamic faiths (and Mormonism) and all of those are testable historically and theologically.

That's not the worst argument I've heard for knowing what's right or wrong. But I can't actually remember a worse one...

 

[gaara4158]

Okay.

Then I hope you will drop this silly line of argumentation as though you have the only valid foundation for morality when the exact same argument can be made for a jar of mustard.