Moral Argument Syllogism

[anonymous person]

I don't think you can...

Your inability in this thread speaks volumes.

Ok. That's why I need the super hero atheists to come and save the day with their superhero powers of knowledge and weapons of science.

 

[quatona]

Ask the men in the other thread who kept talking about babies drowning and unborn babies dying and six year old girls drowning. They are atheists talking about these things. Maybe you will listen to them since you are also an atheist. Don't ask me. Ask them.

Hmm. Since it´s a pretty universal agreement (minus some religious crackpots who advocate it just because otherwise their theology would implode) that drowning kids adn comitting genocide in general is abhorrent, I don´t seem to be in need of an "objective" reason.

You just go ahead and drown a kid "because God commanded me to" and see where it gets you.

 

[anonymous person]

Well until then let's pretend that you created a thread based upon a premise ...

Do you believe in objective morals?

Mark does. Ask him why.

 

[anonymous person]

Hmm. Since it´s a pretty universal agreement (minus some religious crackpots who advocate it just because otherwise their theology would implode) that drowning kids adn comitting genocide in general is abhorrent, I don´t seem to be in need of an "objective" reason.

You just go ahead and drown a kid "because God commanded me to" and see where it gets you.

Your opinion counts for nothing here. Nor do you think drowning babies is objectively wrong, so we will wait for the other atheists to arrive that actually have a position to defend.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Mark does. Ask him why.

I already know Mark's beliefs on morality....and quatona's.

Im asking you.

 

[quatona]

So you don't think your atheist cohorts can answer your questions?

Cohorts?
There are one or two atheist moral objectivists on this forum. They never could answer the question to my satisfaction.

 

[anonymous person]

I already know Mark's beliefs on morality....and quatona's.

Im asking you.

Then what does Mark say are his grounds for maintaining that something like the drowning of a child is objectively wrong?

 

[quatona]

Your opinion counts for nothing here.

Of course it does. It counts just as much as anybody else´s.

Nor do you think drowning babies is objectively wrong, so we will wait for the other atheists to arrive that actually have a position to defend.

Who were those other atheists who claimed it was objectively wrong?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then what does Mark say are his grounds for maintaining that something like the drowning of a child is objectively wrong?

Ask Mark...

You're the one who needs atheists to explain morality to you.

Great thread btw.

 

[anonymous person]

I will give your comrades time to wake up. I will return and expect to see everyone that was over in my other thread in here telling me why what God did was objectively wrong.

If they can't then they will need to tell me why their opinion should be my moral standard.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will give your comrades time to wake up. I will return and expect to see everyone that was over in my other thread in here telling me why what God did was objectively wrong.

If they can't then they will need to tell me why their opinion should be my moral standard.

You apparently don't have a moral standard...

That seems like a good reason to adopt someone else's.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your opinion counts for nothing here. Nor do you think drowning babies is objectively wrong, so we will wait for the other atheists to arrive that actually have a position to defend.

How about you return to that thread and address all the questions you have ignored or evaded before you go about ignoring and evading questions here.

 

[quatona]

I will give your comrades time to wake up.

Comrades?
In the meantime you may want to present your theory that genocide is morally justifiable to your fellow Christians and other theists.

I will return and expect to see everyone that was over in my other thread in here telling me why what God did was objectively wrong.

Who were those who said it was objectively wrong?

If they can't then they will need to tell me why their opinion should be my moral standard.

There is no way to convince sociopaths (or persons who take a sociopath´s position playing devil´s advocate).

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Please follow me to my new thread where I'll ask atheists to ask questions of other atheists."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then what does Mark say are his grounds for maintaining that something like the drowning of a child is objectively wrong?

What are your grounds for saying so? You have none, yet you want to pretend that you're standing on the moral high ground here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What are your grounds for saying so? You have none, yet you want to pretend that you're standing on the moral high ground here.

This entire thread is a straw man...

He posted a position he cannot defend, so instead he's pretending it's a position we hold and asking us to defend/attack it amongst ourselves.

I'll be unwatching this.

 

[David Colin Gould]

I do not believe in objective morality (or that there exist such things as moral agents, but hey ...) When people claim that drowing babies is morally right, given that I tend not to like the notion of drowning babies I would like them to demonstrate under what system of morality drowning babies is morally right. This does not seem to happen, except with the, 'Whatever God does/says/thinks is moral.' And that is not objective morality, so it I am unclear of the point of the thread.

If you are saying, 'Atheists without an objective basis for morality aren't allowed to be unhappy at the notion of babies being drowned,' then I don't think that you understand much about morality in general or the claims of Christianity. Christians claim that God is good. Those who believe in the flood are then forced to twist in knots to try to find a way of reconciling these two claims, because they do not want to make the claim that drowning babies is good. Atheists tend not to make the claim that drowning babies is good, so we do not end up in that difficult situation.

My advice? Make the claim that drowning babies is good, and just stick with the, 'Because God ordered it.' Your theology ends up kind of stuck, but at least you do not have to twist and turn like a twisty turny thing.

 

[KCfromNC]

The second premise of a particular formulation of the moral argument for the existence of God reads,

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

In this thread we will give those indignant and concerned men who object to God sending a flood, a chance to explain what grounds they have for maintaining that it is objectively wrong to cause babies to die by being overtaken by a flood.

Why do you think that people having an opinion about a certain scenario makes that opinion objective truth? I'd be curious to see the logic that leads from "some people believe an action is X" to "that belief makes the thing objectively X".

 

[pshun2404]

What are objective Moral Values? Hmmm! Well in all my studies over 4 decades (even when still a staunch agnostic) I realized first that all civilizations always display a concern for how people are to be treated and what constitutes just dealings with others (some in the cultural construct of their area and their inheritance) and some merely as a response to experience). But one thing I found is true is that there is an innate sense in humans that some things are just wrong!!!!

We all sense this from the time we are young even without parental influence....if something we own is taken from us against our will we do not like this...if someone is taken from us against our will we experience loss and the falling of our countenance...if and whenever someone hurts us or someone we love we are angry with them....even in the most remote tribal peoples who know not our God who never heard of a "Bible" or the "10 Commandments" if you go in and murder the someone justice/retribution is demanded...just try and steal something, or rape the chiefs wife...

Some things categorized as "Right and Wrong" are hard wired into our make up...

Now nature's "survival of the fittest" demonstrates as principle on the beast level that which ever individual can exercise the most power over others members gets to be Alpha until one day another comes along and knocks them down replacing them and now getting to perpetuate their genes...

So in effect who ever is the most powerful and can beat up every one else if necessary IS the one called "the fittest"

this is why Darwin's closest followers (even his wife and one of his sons) concluded "Might makes Right" in a survival of the fittest world....we even have seen this "king of the Hill" mentality in many human civilizations over time....there is a higher order in mankind that can take over and be passed on....all dictatorial conditions (whether by atheists like Hitler, Stalin or Mao, or religionists like the Middle Ages Romans church, Calvin and his puritans, or today ISIS) arise from this beastly principle we should all seek to minimize...one dog wants to be top dog...and the problem is there are many who want to be top dog...even when a husband tries to lord it over a wife or a wife a husband...we have dispute, argument, division, fighting, and war

So there we have two sides on one coin....an innate morality that nature cannot account for and the natural process which is all about self assertion at the expense of others...

There is a moral compass in humans that lower forms of nature cannot explain or give us insight to...

Just my 2 kopecs

 

[bhsmte]

Ask them. I'm not an atheist. They are. You may be more inclined to listen to them for they are smarter and more bright than I am. I am just an ignorant man.

Ask the smart people. Ask your fellow atheists.

This is your thread, if you can't answer clarifying questions, just have it closed, because it is a waste of everyone's time.