I recently saw the debate between Inspiring Phylosophy and Cosmic Skeptic : www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ulnmb-4v2M
Cosmic Skeptic is still young but seems to have talent. He will probably become a skilled adversary of superstition.
I don't really adhere to any moral phylosophies (except perhaps utilitarianism) because I haven't investigated any of them enough, because all of them seem to miss the point. In this post is my view of morality from 6 years ago, which is still reasonably accurate : 'The subjectivity of objective morality' : www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333/
Presupposionalists have a habit of asking annoying questions, like : “How can you know anything ?”
Atheists have difficulty answering such questions because :
Moral argumentalists have a habit of asking annoying questions, like : “If the Nazis came to power and decided that gassing Jews for fun is good, would it then be good ?”
Atheists have difficulty answering such questions because they don't understand the question.
Language is conventional. In order to be answered, it needs to be interpreted. Presumably, that one ought to be interpreted according to the conventions of the English language. However, that convention is not always clear. Many words are poorly understood by those sending or receiving them, like time, life, to exist and god. One of these problem words is good. Depending on how one would define good, the answer to the question would be different.
If good means whatever is in agreement with Nazi moral standard, then the answer would be yes.
If good means whatever is in accordance with God's nature, then one can wonder how the Nazis could decide something like that, but the answer would still be yes.
About whether there exist moral facts or objective moral claims, depending on how one defines these terms and 'to exist', there are or there aren't. Either way, as far as the evidence is concerned, God has nothing to do with them.
Another thing Christians have an issue with is that standards can change. Once people claimed slaverly is good and now it is bad. They can't both be right, so who is right ?
Pluto was a planet, but in 2006 the International Astronomical Union decided that Pluto was no longer a planet, but a dwarf planet in stead. Why ? Astronomers disliked Pluto being a planet. Before that date most astronomers, when asked, said Pluto is a planet. Were they wrong then ? The astronmers then and now contradict each other and they can't both be right.
That is the sort of silly contradiction Christians see in morality and they invent God to solve it. They just declare God right and everyone who disagrees with him wrong. However, that does not solve the problem. Only everyone agreeing would solve the problem.
The moral argument is a nirvana fallacy combined with a God-of-the-gaps argument : people don't understand morality, dislike that someone doing evil is not 'really' wrong and like believing in God. Inventing God allows hitting three birds with one stone.
Cosmic Skeptic is still young but seems to have talent. He will probably become a skilled adversary of superstition.
I don't really adhere to any moral phylosophies (except perhaps utilitarianism) because I haven't investigated any of them enough, because all of them seem to miss the point. In this post is my view of morality from 6 years ago, which is still reasonably accurate : 'The subjectivity of objective morality' : www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333/
Presupposionalists have a habit of asking annoying questions, like : “How can you know anything ?”
Atheists have difficulty answering such questions because :
- They don't understand the question.
- They lack the expertise to answer the question.
- Providing a complete answer would be a lot of work, while atheists are lazy.
Moral argumentalists have a habit of asking annoying questions, like : “If the Nazis came to power and decided that gassing Jews for fun is good, would it then be good ?”
Atheists have difficulty answering such questions because they don't understand the question.
Language is conventional. In order to be answered, it needs to be interpreted. Presumably, that one ought to be interpreted according to the conventions of the English language. However, that convention is not always clear. Many words are poorly understood by those sending or receiving them, like time, life, to exist and god. One of these problem words is good. Depending on how one would define good, the answer to the question would be different.
If good means whatever is in agreement with Nazi moral standard, then the answer would be yes.
If good means whatever is in accordance with God's nature, then one can wonder how the Nazis could decide something like that, but the answer would still be yes.
About whether there exist moral facts or objective moral claims, depending on how one defines these terms and 'to exist', there are or there aren't. Either way, as far as the evidence is concerned, God has nothing to do with them.
Another thing Christians have an issue with is that standards can change. Once people claimed slaverly is good and now it is bad. They can't both be right, so who is right ?
Pluto was a planet, but in 2006 the International Astronomical Union decided that Pluto was no longer a planet, but a dwarf planet in stead. Why ? Astronomers disliked Pluto being a planet. Before that date most astronomers, when asked, said Pluto is a planet. Were they wrong then ? The astronmers then and now contradict each other and they can't both be right.
That is the sort of silly contradiction Christians see in morality and they invent God to solve it. They just declare God right and everyone who disagrees with him wrong. However, that does not solve the problem. Only everyone agreeing would solve the problem.
The moral argument is a nirvana fallacy combined with a God-of-the-gaps argument : people don't understand morality, dislike that someone doing evil is not 'really' wrong and like believing in God. Inventing God allows hitting three birds with one stone.
