My "argument from consequence" sense is tingling.You want to believe it exists, fine. But starting with the premise of atheism, morality is only subjective and arbitrary.
Upvote
0
My "argument from consequence" sense is tingling.You want to believe it exists, fine. But starting with the premise of atheism, morality is only subjective and arbitrary.
So, you believe all prisons should be emptied immediately, right? If morality is completely arbitrary, then there's no reason to lock people up who haven't done anything wrong.So what?
I don't see how this is a problem. I and many like minded people can cope with that stance.
Where exactly, is the beef?
Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.
You'll need to show your work here.So, you believe all prisons should be emptied immediately, right? If morality is completely arbitrary, then there's no reason to lock people up who haven't done anything wrong.
Of course it does. If ontology includes the beliefs, then there's no problem using them.Still doesn't explain the jump from beliefs to knowledge claims you made.
But your definition is not consistent with atheism. And if it's not consistent with atheism, then you are NOT being consistent with the standards laid out. You can keep repeating yourself, but I won't. I can't help you with your apparent reading comprehension issues.Sure there is. I'm an atheist and I defined it that way, just like you as a theist defined your god as a source of morality. I don't think either is a reasonable approach but I'm just trying to be consistent with the standards laid out here in the thread
I don't believe you.Of course it does.
But your definition is not consistent with atheism.
No.So, you believe all prisons should be emptied immediately, right?
Please explain how the statement "nature is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within an atheist viewpoint.Please explain how believing that there's an objective natural source of morality requires belief in a god.
What don't you understand? They admitted morality is completely subjective and arbitrary. If someone prefers chocolate over vanilla, do we imprison them? Of course not. That preference is completely subjective and arbitrary. If morality is subjective and arbitrary, then insisting murder is wrong, for example, is also arbitrary. If it's arbitrary, then there's no justification for locking up murderers. The same applies to everything considered a "crime".You'll need to show your work here.
So what?
I don't see how this is a problem. I and many like minded people can cope with that stance.
Where exactly, is the beef?
The difference, however, is that I believe there is an objective reason for them to be locked up. You, however, believe they've been locked up arbitrarily. If they were locked up arbitrarily, then there's no real justification to keep them locked up.No.
As I said I have my own little moral code that exists in what I shall now call Moralspace.
Within my moralspace (and hopefully yours) is the concept of criminals being separated from the general poluation as part of a protection, punishment and rehabilitation scheme.
Do you have any more examples of where yours and my moralspace overlaps?
We may have more in common than we think
Please explain how the statement "nature is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within an atheist viewpoint.
Can you think of any differences between the acts of eating ice cream and killing people? If so, exploring those differences might help you understand why I don't find your line of thinking all that persuasive.What don't you understand? They admitted morality is completely subjective and arbitrary. If someone prefers chocolate over vanilla, do we imprison them? Of course not. That preference is completely subjective and arbitrary. If morality is subjective and arbitrary, then insisting murder is wrong, for example, is also arbitrary. If it's arbitrary, then there's no justification for locking up murderers. The same applies to everything considered a "crime".
The difference, however, is that I believe there is an objective reason for them to be locked up. You, however, believe they've been locked up arbitrarily.
Reference needed.
Just because you say so?Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.
So is morality starting with the premise of theism.You want to believe it exists, fine. But starting with the premise of atheism, morality is only subjective and arbitrary.
Not so.You, however, believe they've been locked up arbitrarily. If they were locked up arbitrarily, then there's no real justification to keep them locked up.
Sure - as soon as you will have explained how the statement "God is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within a theist viewpoint.Please explain how the statement "nature is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within an atheist viewpoint.
You're claiming nature being an objective source is consistent with atheism. You're the one who needs to demonstrate such.How will that help you explain how believing that there's an objective natural source of morality requires belief in a god?
Of course there are "differences". But the existence of difference doesn't make it any less arbitrary.Can you think of any differences between the acts of eating ice cream and killing people? If so, exploring those differences might help you understand why I don't find your line of thinking all that persuasive.
... arbitrary actionsNo, they've been locked up due to a very specific set of actions
... arbitrary lawsand the laws governing
The APPLICATION may not be arbitrary, but since their actions and the laws are arbitrary, they are still being locked up arbitrarily.those actions are not applied arbitrarily.
Reference needed.I do enjoy how you're justifying something being objective by saying you have a subjective opinion that it is, though
And those reasons are arbitrary.Not so.
I believe they should be locked up because we lock up such people for the reasons I gave in my previous post.
An arbitrary contract and arbitrary laws.The justification is that they have broken the social contract and the law.
It's a given. You do know how givens work in premises, don't you?Sure - as soon as you will have explained how the statement "God is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within a theist viewpoint.
So what?And those reasons are arbitrary.
An arbitrary contract and arbitrary laws.