The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

The quality of the video is a matter of opinion.

Why can't you answer the questions directly?

Time mainly. Or lack thereof.

Did you have a specific question yet to be addressed?

 

[bhsmte]

Time mainly. Or lack thereof.

Did you have a specific question yet to be addressed?

You have time to find a video to post, but not to answer direct questions?

Hilarious and quite revealing.

I can see it now; the prosecution tells the court, we are going to play a video to state our case and answer everyone's questions. Of course, good luck cross examining the video.

 

[anonymous person]

You have time to find a video to post, but not to answer direct questions?

Hilarious and quite revealing.

I can see it now; the prosecution tells the court, we are going to play a video to state our case and answer everyone's questions. Of course, good luck cross examining the video.

If you watch the video and have questions, and time permits, I would address them.

If not then don't expect me to entertain you with answering questions that have already been addressed.

 

[bhsmte]

If you watch the video and have questions, and time permits, I would address them.

If not then don't expect me to entertain you with answering questions that have already been addressed.

I don't make it a habit, of watching videos posted, when the person posting the video, has ignored direct questions on their own.

If you can't answer on your own, that is all I need to know.

 

[Davian]

A contemporary proponent of the Moral Argument is Dr. Craig.

He explains:

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz43NachoCS

Bu that's not objective, that is only consensus of opinion, and you don't even have that.

 

[Davian]

Concerning your previous post I was answering to, you said you "made no claim of Justice"

Indeed. As far as I can tell, the universe is oblivious to us.

but you do seem to infer that our theology is not "just".

Not in the common usage of the term, as you defined it in post #27.

Could you please remind me why you say it's morally bankrupt?

It allows for serial killers and the like to get a pass, while holding others responsible for things beyond their control (belief).

Now, if that is what you want to call "justice", you are welcome to it, but it does contradict your application of the moral argument.

BTW, sorry if you answered this already... I'm late in the reading process...

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure if I answered this post already. We are judged only for our sinsé. Agreed, it isn't our fault that we're sinners but we commit sins nonetheless and that's what we're being held accountable for.

Guilty of actions beyond our control. As bizarre as that sounds, I got that part.

Let's check your own moral compass: do you feel it to be moral to hold others for the actions of others, for for actions beyond their control? If you were in a court of law, would you object to being held accountable for things beyond your control?

 

[Davian]

Ok great.

If you still want to remain an atheist,

"Want" implies intent. Did you not concede that belief is not a conscious choice?

you will have to deny premise 1 which reads:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

I do not deny this premise, I do not see it as coherent. I have not seen these "objective moral values" that you speak of, or "gods". They might exist, but I have not seen evidence for such presented in a testable, falsifiable manner.

Now, you have affirmed that the systematic extermination of a particular ethnic group because they are of a particular ethnicity is objectively bad and wrong.

Is it? In your theology, is not genocide oaky as long as you believe that your god says so?

As an atheist, tell us what grounds these pronouncements. Notice you cannot appeal to human beings because you affirmed that they hold regardless of what human beings think.

In my opinion, genocide is wrong, based on a mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Time mainly. Or lack thereof.

Did you have a specific question yet to be addressed?

You are aware that this is a discussion forum, and not a reading or movie watching club? If you present a video, you should be willing to discuss its contents.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So how do you apply that to moral values, beyond consensus of opinion and religious dogma?

I apologize for the long delay. For some reason my tapatalk app is not working. Is anyone else having issues on tapatalk?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...

Suppose that you were among the Israelites when Yahweh commanded them to slaughter every man, woman, and child, as is recounted in the Bible. Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in, or would it be "morally commendable" as you have stated in the past?

Looking forward to your evasions, which we all know are coming...

Take a look at my post regarding the "painbot" analogy. The answer is "yes"...If God exists, God commanding the destruction of Israel's enemies is objectively good. If you don't agree, you are calling a can opener bad because it cannot drive nails.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Take a look at my post regarding the "painbot" analogy. The answer is "yes"...If God exists, God commanding the destruction of Israel's enemies is objectively good. If you don't agree, you are calling a can opener bad because it cannot drive nails.

Then we're done playing. You haven't got a system of morality at all, at least not one beyond "obey."

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ok great.

If you still want to remain an atheist, you will have to deny premise 1 which reads:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Now, you have affirmed that the systematic extermination of a particular ethnic group because they are of a particular ethnicity is objectively bad and wrong.

As an atheist, tell us what grounds these pronouncements. Notice you cannot appeal to human beings because you affirmed that they hold regardless of what human beings think.

For the third time, the standards are harm and wellbeing. These are objectively quantifiable criteria. They are demonstrable regardless of what anyone thinks. As to how you value those standards, that is necessarily subjective, and no amount of appeal to Yahweh or any other imaginary being will magically make it objective.

Value is subject to situational ethics, which atheists and believers both recognize, whether one of us admits it or not. That's precisely why someone like WLC has to throw his 'objective values' out the window when he's tasked with defending the genocide of the Canaanites, for example.

To the point, though - which you rather tactlessly ignored - even if Yahweh exists, and has made certain moral commands, you have no means of discerning what they are.

In a universe where Yahweh and his impossible to ascertain moral commands do exist, we are left to our own moral devices.

In a universe where Yahweh and his impossible to ascertain moral commands do not exist, we are left to our own moral devices.

With no epistemology to speak of, Yahweh is irrelevant in either case, and the moral argument is so much noise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For the third time, the standards are harm and wellbeing. These are objectively quantifiable criteria. They are demonstrable regardless of what anyone thinks. As to how you value those standards, that is necessarily subjective, and no amount of appeal to Yahweh or any other imaginary being will magically make it objective.

Value is subject to situational ethics, which atheists and believers both recognize, whether one of us admits it or not. That's precisely why someone like WLC has to throw his 'objective values' out the window when he's tasked with defending the genocide of the Canaanites, for example.

To the point, though - which you rather tactlessly ignored - even if Yahweh exists, and has made certain moral commands, you have no means of discerning what they are.

In a universe where Yahweh and his impossible to ascertain moral commands do exist, we are left to our own moral devices.

In a universe where Yahweh and his impossible to ascertain moral commands do not exist, we are left to our own moral devices.

With no epistemology to speak of, Yahweh is irrelevant in either case, and the moral argument is so much noise.

Matt Dillahunty raises similar points (15:34 and 26:54), previously discussed here.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Matt Dillahunty raises similar points (15:34 and 26:54), previously discussed here.

He says 'you can make objective assessments provided you agree on a foundation'. Different terminology, but yes, essentially the same point.

 

[anonymous person]

You have appealed to a consensus of what people think as grounds for moral values and duties.

You have appealed to what people consider to be harmful to our well being to be "bad" and what is conducive to our well being to be "good".

In all of this you are appealing to the opinions of human beings to show that moral values and duties are not based on the opinions of human beings.

Do you not see the problem with this?

 

[anonymous person]

He says 'you can make objective assessments provided you agree on a foundation'. Different terminology, but yes, essentially the same point.

And he makes a common error in thinking that we are saying atheists cannot come up with a consensus or a system of applied ethics.

They most certainly can.

But a majority view on an issue does not ground that view objectively.

The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. [That is to say, their foundation in reality.] If they are neither derived from God, nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral? - Paul Kurtz

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-1-podcast/transcript/s08-01#ixzz43e3Mi2L2

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have appealed to a consensus of what people think as grounds for moral values and duties.

You have appealed to what people consider to be harmful to our well being to be "bad" and what is conducive to our well being to be "good".

In all of this you are appealing to the opinions of human beings to show that moral values and duties are not based on the opinions of human beings.

Do you not see the problem with this?

No, you're not following. Could you please address what was actually said?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And he makes a common error in thinking that we are saying atheists cannot come up with a consensus or a system of applied ethics.

They most certainly can.

But a majority view on an issue does not ground that view objectively.

He didn't mention a consensus at all. This is a strawman.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. [That is to say, their foundation in reality.] If they are neither derived from God, nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral? - Paul Kurtz

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-1-podcast/transcript/s08-01#ixzz43e3Mi2L2

Yes, that is the question, which Matt addressed by saying that their foundation is wellbeing. So why are you talking about consensus as though he claimed that were the foundation?