Morality

[miknik5]

My current stance on this debate, is that it's neither been proven nor disproven that morality and God are directly related. Of course, if you have enough faith, you probably will believe that they are or that it has been proven.

what do you stand on sir?

 

[-V-]

Simply definitional.

You are confusing the definition of atheism with the necessary conclusions of atheism. Not the same thing.

I consult a basic dictionary of philosophy. Moving on.

Reference needed.

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.

Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that Christianity is the only coherent moral philosophy. My only claim is that atheism can only make one objective moral claim - there is no real morality. Any other claims (i.e., "x is an immoral act", "y is a moral act") within an atheist framework can be nothing but unprovable subjective opinions.

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.

And yet we have to just accept your assertions? Ok. I do not grant you any premise you've asserted, so now we can safely dismiss everything you've said. Thanks.

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

That I haven't been meaningful is just another of your assertions that you haven't substantiated. We must dismiss that one, too.

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.

Another unsubstantiated assertion. Dismissed.

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'.

Yes, in a Christian framework, it does. Once again, this is about internal consistency. God being the absolute objective moral standard is a given in a Christian framework.

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

Unprovable assertion. Dismissed.

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

Straw man fallacy. I've never claimed that you can't HAVE morals without God. Can you have morals without God? Of course. The issue, however, is NOT about having morals, it is about JUSTIFYING morals beyond personal opinions, something that is impossible within an atheist framework.

 

[Left]

what do you stand on sir?

I don't know what that question means, but when I made this thread, I was being a bit Agnostic. Now that I have found the truth again (something you will probably deny, but that is against the rules here and an ad hominem), I have the options of being neutral on the matter, or believe that God and morality are directly related.

Because I'm not subscribing to either side on the issue of morality now... that makes me a spectator.

 

[miknik5]

I don't know what that question means, but when I made this thread, I was being a bit Agnostic. Now that I have found the truth again (something you will probably deny, but that is against the rules here and an ad hominem), I have the options of being neutral on the matter, or believe that God and morality are directly related.

Because I'm not subscribing to either side on the issue of morality now... that makes me a spectator.

Then don't speak like a divided house

 

[-V-]

Why is it good? Because, as a human, I can empathise with the plight of that other person. Moreover, I can see the benefits, to me, in encouraging such caring behaviour. After all, I too will be old and in need one day. What's good for the group can be good for the individual as well...

Which, as I just said, is nothing more than your personal, unprovable opinions. Nothing you said refutes that.

Prove you wrong? Easy.
Rape is immoral. It is immoral because human beings are able to empathise with the person being raped. It's painful, it's scary and most of us would hate for it to happen to us. Moreover, we are able to appreciate the level of societal instability and violence that such behaviour would cause if it were to be acceptable. So it becomes one of the things that we determine as "wrong".
No arbitrariness nor any deity involved.

"Able to empathize" - which means it's immoral simply because you FEEL that it is immoral. What you "feel" is not an objective standard. There are people who have no such empathy with rape - they rape and feel just fine about it. For them, by your standard, rape is completely moral.

Societal instability? You are asserting that societal stability is an objective standard while not substantiating WHY it is an objective standard. Why should we just assume that societal instability is immoral? What if I feel that chaos is completely moral? Why am I wrong, other than because you feel that way?

So, yes, you still are relying on arbitrariness.

 

[-V-]

If that's all it takes anyone can define anything as good and it becomes so by the very same internally consistent logic you're using here. That doesn't really seem like much of a basis for morality here in the real world but if it is what you're looking for you've answered your own question.

And yet you still don't provide anything within an atheist framework that allows for any moral standard except one - there are no true moral standards. So, if you are admitting that atheists who insist such standards exist are self-contradictions, then you agree with me. That's my whole point. Thanks.

 

[-V-]

My current stance on this debate, is that it's neither been proven nor disproven that morality and God are directly related. Of course, if you have enough faith, you probably will believe that they are or that it has been proven.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Read a Bible. Does it mention God? Yes. Does it mention God having particular moral standards? Yes.

Then there is no possible way to deny that God and morality are directly related.

Your statement is like claiming it's unproven whether or not Nazis and World War II are directly related.

 

[Left]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Read a Bible. Does it mention God? Yes. Does it mention God having particular moral standards? Yes.

Then there is no possible way to deny that God and morality are directly related.

Your statement is like claiming it's unproven whether or not Nazis and World War II are directly related.

It's not so cut and dried: Morality and religion - Wikipedia

 

[-V-]

It's not so cut and dry

In regards to your specific statement, yes it is cut and dry.

The specifics as to HOW they relate and the validity of claims about how they are related may not be provable, but the idea that there is NO relation at all is clearly false - as a person's religious views directly influences their moral views.

 

[Left]

In regards to your specific statement, yes it is cut and dry.

The specifics as to HOW they relate and the validity of claims about how they are related may not be provable, but the idea that there is NO relation at all is clearly false - as a person's religious views directly influences their moral views.

I never said religion and morality had absolutely nothing in common. I said I didn't have suffienct proof morality and God were directly related.

 

[miknik5]

Bitter for sweet?
Evil for good?
Darkness for light?

That isn't an error in GOD

It's an error in man attributing ro GOD the works of "another father"


GOD is the FATHER of LIGHT

Make a right judgement
And if you can't, don't blame GOD

Blame yourself

 

[-V-]

I never said religion and morality had absolutely nothing in common. I said I didn't have suffienct proof morality and God were directly related.

Does an atheist believe it's immoral to not believe in God? No.

Does a Christian believe it's immoral to not believe in God? Yes.

The ONLY way to explain that difference in morality is the difference in religion. Therefore, religion and morality are directly related.

 

[miknik5]

Does an atheist believe it's immoral to not believe in God? No.

Does a Christian believe it's immoral to not believe in God? Yes.

The ONLY way to explain that difference in morality is the difference in religion. Therefore, religion and morality are directly related.

Religion still does not define THE TRUTH of GOD

Religion can be wrong
The TRUTH of GOD against all men's thoughts and notions can't and won't be wrong

Regardless if a man accepts or rejects THE TRUTH

 

[miknik5]

I don't know how to take you,
@-V-

 

[KCfromNC]

And yet you still don't provide anything within an atheist framework that allows for any moral standard except one - there are no true moral standards.

That's not true. I pointed out a different one in the post you're quoting which is just as logically valid as the one you claimed believers used. In fact, it was the same one you said believers used : simply define something to be good and therefore it is.

 

[-V-]

Religion still does not define THE TRUTH of GOD
Religion can be wrong
The TRUTH of GOD against all men's thoughts and notions can't and won't be wrong
Regardless if a man accepts or rejects THE TRUTH

I don't dispute any of that. Again, it seems you really are not following this discussion and do not understand what I'm arguing.

Let me say it once again - I have only ONE point in this thread - within an atheist framework, the only position on morals that is consistent is that there is no true morality. Within an atheist framework, no action can be proven to be more or less moral than any other action. Within an atheist framework, all moral positions are subjective, arbitrary, unprovable personal opinions.

 

[-V-]

(disregard)

 

[-V-]

That's not true. I pointed out a different one in the post you're quoting which is just as logically valid as the one you claimed believers used. In fact, it was the same one you said believers used : simply define something to be good and therefore it is.

Um, no. In the post I'm quoting, I don't see what standard you pointed out. You need to be more specific.

 

[Khalliqa]

Let me say it once again - I have only ONE point in this thread - within an atheist framework, the only position on morals that is consistent is that there is no true morality..

Yes and No. Morality is an inherently subjective and personal term to begin with. There is no true morality in any framework until and unless a group agrees (passively or actively) upon a set of guidelines regarding it. The belief system is not relevant. The agreement and it's security in society is relevant.

Those guidelines are the ethical framework and are not belief or dogma dependent they are consensus dependent.

Within an atheist framework, no action can be proven to be more or less moral than any other action. Within an atheist framework, all moral positions are subjective, arbitrary, unprovable personal opinions.

Yes, it can. Please see above.
We do it all the time in court. The court is not founded on religious edict even as it may borrow from some religious principles and reason and the current values of the society weight justice and fairness within the legal system. It does not address morality but it weighs it indirectly through legal means.

 

[-V-]

Yes and No. Morality is an inherently subjective and personal term to begin with. There is no true morality in any framework

Then you agree with my assessment of atheism. Nothing else is needed.

Those guidelines are the ethical framework and are not belief or dogma dependent they are consensus dependent.

But since most people are theist, which includes the belief that rejecting God is immoral, then the consensus is that atheism is itself immoral. Yet atheists deny that. Why does the moral consensus not apply now?

We do it all the time in court. The court is not founded on religious edict even as it may borrow from some religious principles and reason and the current values of the society weight justice and fairness within the legal system. It does not address morality but it weighs it indirectly through legal means.

Legality can NOT be the standard of morality. The Nazis made laws to legalize what they did. Can we then consider the Nazis to be moral?