Morality

[SPF]

I have yet to see an atheist put forth a positive argument as to how objective morals and values can exist when there is no higher authority than man. It simply is not possible. If man is the measure of all things, then morality is necessarily subjective. Even if we look to culture for morality, it is subjective based upon the culture, and then even within a specific culture, they can change.

Essentially, if there is no standard for morality that exists outside of man, then one man cannot objectively tell another man that action X is immoral.

But again, this should be tantamount to a Captain Obvious statement, which atheists should at first glance shrug and say "duh" to.

 

[Soyeong]

I don't have to prove it

You'll have to provide one reason why any Natural or spiritual man would do it and call it good and moral

If it is a truth about reality that it is immoral to take a particular action, then it is immoral regardless of whether everyone or no one agrees what it is immoral, so the popular opinion of Natural or spiritual men has no bearing on whether or not that particular action is immoral and can not be used as grounds to establish that something is moral or immoral. You have claimed that it is immoral to desert a child, so the burden is on you to establish your claim.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Simply false.

Simply definitional.

To prove me wrong

I consult a basic dictionary of philosophy. Moving on.

all you have to do is pick anything you like and prove it is immoral beyond personal opinion. Within an atheistic framework, you can not. Therefore, morality being arbitrary IS a necessary conclusion of atheism.

Cute.

The ten pound malignant tumor of a hidden premise hanging off the face of your argument here is, of course, the naked assertion that Christianity not only has a coherent moral philosophy, but the only coherent moral philosophy, and is capable of answering the accusations you are leveling at others.

Understand, please - I do not grant you that premise. You don't get to just assert it, a propos of nothing whatsoever, and expect me to play along.

Your assertion that there are no necessary conclusions from atheism is a naked assertion which we can dismiss out of hand.

Any time you want to substantiate that in any meaningful fashion, I'll be ready.

If you can’t follow the discussion, don’t participate.

I've dealt with this necrotic corpse of a non-argument numerous times. I can follow just fine, thanks. You are the one lacking in clarification.

Answer what problem?

The problem of personal opinion in moral considerations.

Even if Yahweh exists and has expressed certain moral opinions, that does not magically make them 'objective'.

So, even granting you both Yahweh's existence and a reliable means by which to glean what his moral opinions are, you are no closer to fixing the problem you're attempting to level at others.

If you’re an atheist, then YOU are purporting that morality is not arbitrary without a god.

You are still confused.

A god could exist, or not exist, and it would make not the slightest difference to my moral philosophy.

You, on the other hand, seem to be incapable of even conceiving of morality in lieu of a god.

There for it is you, not me, to whom the existence of a god is imperative.

Kindly stop confusing yourself with other people.

And learn how to use the quote function. It's not that hard.

 

[Soyeong]

The why is because we are a social species. We evolved to operate this way. We cooperate. That's what morality is. That's what being a social species is. To violate this is to break the social contract.

The fact that people do break that contract is indicative of evolution, too. Every generation is different from the previous. Sometimes that is reflecting in the genes that control for social cooperation.

If a person can't cooperate or fake cooperation, they end up killed, imprisoned, or banished.

There is a significant difference between descriptive statements about what is and prescriptive statements about what ought to be. So pointing out that we exist in a society where we cooperate establishes what is, but does not establish what ought to be, and morality is in regard to what ought to be.

 

[miknik5]

If it is a truth about reality that it is immoral to take a particular action, then it is immoral regardless of whether everyone or no one agrees what it is immoral, so the popular opinion of Natural or spiritual men has no bearing on whether or not that particular action is immoral and can not be used as grounds to establish that something is moral or immoral. You have claimed that it is immoral to desert a child, so the burden is on you to establish your claim.

Yes thats what I gathered from the last poster that he was hoping to prove

I simply stated that in either case Natural(atheist his choice of words) spiritual (Christian his choice of words) this action can be NOTHING BUT evil wrong immoral terrible before the eyes of men who do not know GOD and before the eyes of men who do

 

[miknik5]

The burden is not on me

I know and can make a right judgement about what is right and what is wrong

And I don't need any man offering me any advice on some other possible action I should take other than NEVER deserting a child

 

[miknik5]

If one wants to desert a child and call it a moral decision

Than their conscience is seared that they could even walk away with no affect to their heart or mind

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There is a significant difference between descriptive statements about what is and prescriptive statements about what ought to be. So pointing out that we exist in a society where we cooperate establishes what is, but does not establish what ought to be, and morality is in regard to what ought to be.

Which gods do nothing whatsoever to illuminate. Hence why they are utterly irrelevant to my moral philosophy.

 

[Soyeong]

Yes thats what I gathered from the last poster that he was hoping to prove

I simply stated that in either case Natural(atheist his choice of words) spiritual (Christian his choice of words) this action can be NOTHING BUT evil wrong immoral terrible before the eyes of men who do not know GOD and before the eyes of men who do

A number of atheists consistently deny the existence of morality and of good and evil, so they would not agree that deserting a child is immoral or evil. While it is true that many atheists would agree that it is evil and wrong to desert a child, they are not able to consistently establish that belief purely on the basis of atheism.

 

[miknik5]

Which gods do nothing whatsoever to illuminate. Hence why they are utterly irrelevant to my moral philosophy.

Because not all, as we have just seen, can make a right judgement and bring forth what is good and right in all situations and circumstances before all men

That's why we have laws and rules and codes of conduct

And

That's why the law will not pass until all has been accomplished

Because Not all men make right judgements

 

[miknik5]

You use yourself as the measuring stick

"What is right in your own eyes"?

Even when it is clearly wrong

 

[miknik5]

A number of atheists consistently deny the existence of morality and of good and evil, so they would not agree that deserting a child is immoral or evil. While it is true that many atheists would agree that it is evil and wrong to desert a child, they are not able to consistently establish that belief purely on the basis of atheism.

then it's already manifest that they are godless by suggesting that deserting a child is anything but wrong

 

[Soyeong]

Which gods do nothing whatsoever to illuminate. Hence why they are utterly irrelevant to my moral philosophy.

Even if it were true that neither theists nor atheists can establish what ought to be, then you should nevertheless deny the existence of morality. However, within theism, we are able to appeal to a purpose and a standard of behavior established by God's nature that we ought to live according to regardless of human opinion, which is otherwise known as morality.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Even if it were true that neither theists nor atheists can establish what ought to be, then you should nevertheless deny the existence of morality. However, within theism, we are able to appeal to a purpose and a standard of behavior established by God's nature that we ought to live according to regardless of human opinion

Even granting the existence of Yahweh, you have no means of reliably gleaning what that standard is.

And even if you could, it still would not magically be 'objective' merely by virtue of having been derived from a deity.

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of determining that this Yahweh character necessarily has the wellbeing of humanity in his best interest in the first place.

which is otherwise known as morality.

You are welcome to it. I cannot possibly derive any meaning from what theistic apologists call 'morality'. It looks like an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous mess to me.

 

[Soyeong]

Even granting the existence of Yahweh, you have no means of reliably gleaning what that standard is.

And even if you could, it still would not magically be 'objective' merely by virtue of having been derived from a deity.

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of determining that this Yahweh character necessarily has the wellbeing of humanity in his best interest in the first place.

Within Christianity, we consider the Bible to established as reliable source of what God's righteousness. Morality is concerning the way that we ought to behave regardless of human opinion, so it is inherently objective. God has said that His commands are for His people's own good, so obedience to His commands is a reasonable matter of trusting Him or having faith in Him.

You are welcome to it. I cannot possibly derive any meaning from what theistic apologists call 'morality'. It looks like an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous mess to me.

Morality is an inherently theistic concept, so you are free to have your opinion of it being an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous mess, but you should nevertheless consistently deny its existence.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Within Christianity, we consider the Bible to established as reliable source of what God's righteousness.

Good for you.

Now you can do the important part - actually providing a reliable means of gleaning information from and about this 'God'.

Morality is an inherently theistic concept so you are free to have your opinion of it being an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous mess, but you should nevertheless consistently deny its existence.

Your moral philosophy is a vacuous and incoherent mess. Not the concept of morality itself. Nowhere did I say that.

You guys are really struggling with this basic point of confusion today.

You are the one who believes 'morality is an inherently theistic concept', not me. Therefor, it is you, not me, who is bereft of a moral philosophy in lieu of the existence of any 'gods'.

 

[Soyeong]

Good for you.

Now you can do the important part - actually providing a reliable means of gleaning information from and about this 'God'.

You can read the Bible online here:

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - English Standard Version

Your moral philosophy is a vacuous and incoherent mess. Not the concept of morality itself. Nowhere did I say that.

You guys are really struggling with this basic point of confusion today.

You are the one who believes 'morality is an inherently theistic concept', not me. Therefor, it is you, not me, who is bereft of a moral philosophy in lieu of the existence of any 'gods'.

The concept of morality itself is inherently theists because it appeals to a standard that exists outside of human opinion that non-theists do not believe exists, which leaves moral philosophy bereft of the existence of God as being a vacuous and incoherent mess.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You can read the Bible online here

I know. That does nothing whatsoever to improve your situation.

The concept of morality itself is inherently theists because it appeals to a standard that exists outside of human opinion that non-theists do not believe exists,

A standard which you have no access to, even granting its existence.

which leaves moral philosophy bereft of the existence of God as being a vacuous and incoherent mess.

Again, you are thoroughly confused.

My moral philosophy does not change in the slightest, regardless of whether or not Yahweh exists. Your moral philosophy is a vacuous and incoherent mess without him.

Actually, it's a vacuous and incoherent mess even with him, given your complete lack of epistemology.

 

[miknik5]

Even granting the existence of Yahweh, you have no means of reliably gleaning what that standard is.

And even if you could, it still would not magically be 'objective' merely by virtue of having been derived from a deity.

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of determining that this Yahweh character necessarily has the wellbeing of humanity in his best interest in the first place.



You are welcome to it. I cannot possibly derive any meaning from what theistic apologists call 'morality'. It looks like an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous mess to me.

"this Yahweh character" has the wellbeing of humanity in his best interest.

And

Always has

 

[miknik5]

I know. That does nothing whatsoever to improve your situation.



A standard which you have no access to, even granting its existence.



Again, you are thoroughly confused.

My moral philosophy does not change in the slightest, regardless of whether or not Yahweh exists. Your moral philosophy is a vacuous and incoherent mess without him.

Actually, it's a vacuous and incoherent mess even with him, given your complete lack of epistemology.

Our moral philosophy actually was heightened because of HIM