Morality

[KCfromNC]

You want to believe it exists, fine. But starting with the premise of atheism, morality is only subjective and arbitrary.

My "argument from consequence" sense is tingling.

 

[-V-]

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?

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.

Please explain how believing that there's an objective natural source of morality requires belief in a god.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

You'll need to show your work here.

 

[-V-]

Still doesn't explain the jump from beliefs to knowledge claims you made.

Of course it does. If ontology includes the beliefs, then there's no problem using them.

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

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course it does.

I don't believe you.

But your definition is not consistent with atheism.

I don't believe you.

 

[Larniavc]

So, you believe all prisons should be emptied immediately, right?

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

 

[-V-]

Please explain how believing that there's an objective natural source of morality requires belief in a god.

Please explain how the statement "nature is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within an atheist viewpoint.

You'll need to show your work here.

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".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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?

I don't believe morality is subjective or arbitrary. To the point though, even if I believed it was, and thought that was a problem, theistic morality does nothing whatsoever to fix it.

It doesn't fix moral arbitrariness.

It doesn't fix moral subjectivity.

It has no means of gleaning that a god would necessarily have humanity's best interest in mind in the first place, even granting his existence.

It has no means of gleaning what this god's purported moral decrees are, granting both his existence and that these decrees are somehow magically 'objective'.

It is an epistemological and ontological dead zone.

 

[-V-]

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

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please explain how the statement "nature is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within an atheist viewpoint.

How will that help you 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".

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

No, they've been locked up due to a very specific set of actions, and the laws governing those actions are not applied arbitrarily.

I do enjoy how you're justifying something being objective by saying you have a subjective opinion that it is, though.

 

[quatona]

Reference needed.

You can find it easily in this thread.

Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.

Just because you say so?

 

[quatona]

You want to believe it exists, fine. But starting with the premise of atheism, morality is only subjective and arbitrary.

So is morality starting with the premise of theism.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Not so.

I believe they should be locked up because we lock up such people for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

The justification is that they have broken the social contract and the law.

 

[quatona]

Please explain how the statement "nature is an objective source of morality" is anything but an unsubstantiated subjective opinion within an atheist viewpoint.

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.

 

[-V-]

How will that help you explain how believing that there's an objective natural source of morality requires belief in a god?

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

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.

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

No, they've been locked up due to a very specific set of actions

... arbitrary actions

and the laws governing

... arbitrary laws

those actions are not applied arbitrarily.

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

I do enjoy how you're justifying something being objective by saying you have a subjective opinion that it is, though

Reference needed.

 

[-V-]

Not so.

I believe they should be locked up because we lock up such people for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

And those reasons are arbitrary.

The justification is that they have broken the social contract and the law.

An arbitrary contract and arbitrary laws.

 

[-V-]

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.

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

The difference with the nature claim is that atheism does not include "nature is an objective moral source" as a given. You guys keep insisting that atheism is "nothing more" than disbelief in gods. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Larniavc]

And those reasons are arbitrary.


An arbitrary contract and arbitrary laws.

So what?

Prisoners are kept locked up. The reasons are not arbitrary because the act of locking up prisoners is contingent on the need to keep people safe, punish and rehabilitate.

Atheists do not act in a whim. My moral space has built up over time to be flexible and effective.

In my life my morals have served to keep me safe, sound and surrounded by like minded people.

The morals I have are based on my experience with the world that began in childhood and will continue to evolve until I die.

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