Morality

[-V-]

That's not arbitrary: the morals I have are empirically, rather than theologically based.

In post 218 you admitted morality is arbitrary. Now you're claiming it isn't.

Once again, the atheist position relies on inconsistency.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In post 218 you admitted morality is arbitrary. Now you're claiming it isn't.

Once again, the atheist position relies on inconsistency.

There is no "atheist position" on morality. And I doubt your ridiculously obvious tactic of intentionally antagonizing atheists in this thread is working like you've hoped.

 

[-V-]

There is no "atheist position" on morality. And I doubt your ridiculously obvious tactic of intentionally antagonizing atheists in this thread is working like you've hoped.

There are positions consistent with atheism and positions inconsistent with atheism. The ones you guys are attempting to defend have all been inconsistent. Pointing out the flaws in atheists' arguments is not "antagonizing". It's not my fault you guys can't put together a consistent, coherent argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There are positions consistent with atheism and positions inconsistent with atheism.

Equating what you just said with the phrase "atheist position" is torturing the English language in an attempt to prove a point. What has the English language done to you that you'd hurt it so?

The ones you guys are attempting to defend have all been inconsistent.

Us guys most likely don't have single position on morality. My position on morality is internally consistent.

Pointing out the flaws in atheists' arguments is not "antagonizing". It's not my fault you guys can't put together a consistent, coherent argument.

Lol. Thanks for proving my point...

 

[Larniavc]

In post 218 you admitted morality is arbitrary. Now you're claiming it isn't.

Once again, the atheist position relies on inconsistency.

You are correct. I've repositioned my stance.

As a result of our discussion I no longer believe my morals to be arbitrary.

On reflection I conclude they are empirical in nature.

Thank you for helping me in that reformulation. It's been interesting and informative talking this through with you.

All thes best.

 

[Allandavid]

Ontology:
1: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being; Ontology deals with abstract entities.
2: a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence

source: merriam-webster . com

Well, since the definition of ontology seems to include the kind of beliefs we’re talking about, I don’t see what your objection is.


Straw man fallacy.

I’m not telling anyone what they think. I’m telling them whether or not what they think is consistent with their theological stance. Quite a difference.


Nonsense. The statements you make have no substantiation. You're not doing anything but claiming I don't understand. Therefore, your logic justifies the exact same statements being used against you. If that is "childish", then I suggest you stop using childish arguments.


I have read it, and you are the one who is misreading.


So, they are subjective and arbitrary.


From an atheistic viewpoint, NONE of it is objective. That most humans avoid pain does not make it objective. If most humans liked chocolate over vanilla, that does not make chocolate objectively better than vanilla. It remains a subjective opinion no matter how many people agree.


Another subjective opinion. Thanks for sharing.


You can try and split hairs anyway you like. It won't change the fact that atheists believe there is no god. If they then want to make moral claims, the only way for them to be consistent is to begin with the premise that there is no god. And the only moral position that is consistent with no gods existing is that morality is subjective and arbitrary, nothing more than personal opinions.


Sure, cuz you say so.


In the context of this discussion, that is splitting hairs and makes no meaningful difference whatsoever.


Then you’re not following the discussion. I DID identify one back in post 187.

The rest of your post is just more of the same unsubstantiated nonsensical thinly-veiled insults. If you have nothing else, I’m done responding to you.


Once again, no, you can’t simply “define something”. That thing you define has to be consistent with atheism. And you have yet to define such a thing.

Your arrogant assertions about atheism aside, the simple fact is that there is a significant difference between "I do not believe in gods" and "gods do not exist". Atheists do not believe in the existence of gods, simply because no evidence exists to support that contention. If such evidence were produced, atheists would become theists. It is not possible, therefore to make the statement that they do not exist.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your arrogant assertions about atheism aside, the simple fact is that there is a significant difference between "I do not believe in gods" and "gods do not exist". Atheists do not believe in the existence of gods, simply because no evidence exists to support that contention. If such evidence were produced, atheists would become theists. It is not possible, therefore to make the statement that they do not exist.

It is possible, however, to know that some god concepts do not exist.

For example, you might claim 'everyone knows my god exists', like certain brands of presuppositional apologists do, as per Romans 1. But since I am aware of at least one person who does not know it - namely, me - I am 100% certain your god does not exist, because you've predicated his nature on a condition that I have direct access to.

That's kind of a side note, but I do think the distinction is important.

 

[Allandavid]

It is possible, however, to know that some god concepts do not exist.

For example, you might claim 'everyone knows my god exists', like certain brands of presuppositional apologists do, as per Romans 1. But since I am aware of at least one person who does not know it - namely, me - I am 100% certain your god does not exist, because you've predicated his nature on a condition that I have direct access to.

That's kind of a side note, but I do think the distinction is important.

Point taken. I think your nuance may be lost on our friend, however...

 

[quatona]

It's a given. You do know how givens work in premises, don't you?

You mean you have defined the word "God" that way and are playing circular semantics?

The difference with the nature claim is that atheism does not include "nature is an objective moral source" as a given.

Correct. There´s a huge gap between "it´s not a given in atheism" and "it´s inconsistent with atheism". I was under the impression that you asserted the latter. Will you substantiate that position eventually?

You guys keep insisting that atheism is "nothing more" than disbelief in gods.

Correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Holding further positions isn´t excluded when you are an atheist. (Just like a theist can hold views that aren´t a given in theism). Claiming otherwise is absurd.
Your idea that something is not consistent with atheism just because it isn´t a given in atheism is logically flawed. If you have some other argument why atheism and "moral naturalism" are inconsistent, you are invited to bring it to the table.

Brush up your logic skills and read a bit about meta moral schools of thought.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're claiming nature being an objective source is consistent with atheism. You're the one who needs to demonstrate such.

You've answered your own question :

It's a given. You do know how givens work in premises, don't you?

Now with that out of the way, you claimed "Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.". If you can't show a reason for anyone to agree with you I'm inclined to ignore it as a baseless assertion.

Of course there are "differences". But the existence of difference doesn't make it any less arbitrary.


... arbitrary actions


... arbitrary laws


The APPLICATION may not be arbitrary, but since their actions and the laws are arbitrary, they are still being locked up arbitrarily.

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

I don't think you're using this word correctly. There's a justice system, after all.

Reference needed.

"The difference, however, is that I believe there is an objective reason for them to be locked up."

Highlight mine.

 

[miknik5]

I guess, in the end, men can try to make the case for themselves that they were blind?

 

[Earatha]

If you actually want a case for how atheists form objective morality I could make that. I don't buy into objective morality anymore, but I could try.

If you want how I as an atheist define morality I can do that too.

Atheist morality isn't necessarily inconsistent, no more than theistic morality is. Partially this is because there is no single theistic morality or atheistic morality.