"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Okay. And? The claim that there is no absolute knowledge is self-contradictory because it's an absolute statement.

The point was about fanaticism and unsubstantiated claims like "objective morality"

[Mountain Man]

The point was about fanaticism and unsubstantiated claims like "objective morality"

Unsubstantiated claims like "There is no absolute knowledge."

[Mountain Man]

No, the point is if you really believe that morality is subjective then you have no rational grounds to object to any behavior (even book burning). You like steak I like lobster - there are no morally right or wrong answers, just tastes. And humans intuitively believe in universal moral categories - whatever particulars fill those categories. Also keep in mind that the majority of atheistic philosophers hold to universal moral truths via moral realism theory. Just shows how deep this intuitive sense is.

As I pointed out earlier, atheists are forced by their worldview to claim that morality is subjective, yet they behave as if it is objective, and most don't even seem aware of this disconnect.

[tabibito]

Well, whoever might have said that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, it wasn't Bronowski:

"When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave."

[Gondwanaland]

As I pointed out earlier, atheists are forced by their worldview to claim that morality is subjective, yet they behave as if it is objective, and most don't even seem aware of this disconnect.

Our morality is no more or less subjective than your own.

[Mountain Man]

Our morality is no more or less subjective than your own.

If you really believe that then you have no grounds for moral objection, and yet as one of the more conservative posters on this forum who regularly condemns immoral behavior, your actions are not consistent with your stated beliefs.

[seer]

As I pointed out earlier, atheists are forced by their worldview to claim that morality is subjective, yet they behave as if it is objective, and most don't even seem aware of this disconnect.

It seems that moral relativism is an anathema even to a majority of atheistic philosophers. So lives the image of God in man...

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,^[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.^[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents^[5]found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).^[6]Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.^[7] Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink,^[8]John McDowell, Peter Railton,^[9]Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,^[10]Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,^[11]Russ Shafer-Landau,^[12]G. E. Moore,^[13]John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,^[14]Thomas Nagel and Derek Parfit. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.^[15] Moral realism has been studied in the various philosophical and practical applications.<sup>[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism</sup>

[seer]

Our morality is no more or less subjective than your own.

Not really, if the law of God exists it would be universal and binding on all men. And not dependent on our subjective whims...

[Gondwanaland]

If you really believe that then you have no grounds for moral objection, and yet as one of the more conservative posters on this forum who regularly condemns immoral behavior, your actions are not consistent with your stated beliefs.

Er, yes I do. Just as you have ground to pick and choose from your Bible like you do.

My actions are exactly consistent with my beliefs. That you cannot concieve a moral structure outside of what your deity tells you, is your fault, not my own.

[Gondwanaland]

Not really, if the law of God exists it would be universal and binding on all men. And not dependent on our subjective whims...

You just disproved God, Congrats.

[seer]

You just disproved God, Congrats.

How?

[seer]

My actions are exactly consistent with my beliefs.

As were the Stalinist's, and...

[Gondwanaland]

How?

Fair enough, rather you disproved the existence of such a "law of god".

[Gondwanaland]

As were the Stalinist's, and...

And Christians, and....

[Mountain Man]

Er, yes I do. Just as you have ground to pick and choose from your Bible like you do.

My actions are exactly consistent with my beliefs. That you cannot concieve a moral structure putside of what your deity tells you, is your fault, bot my own.

You don't have a moral foundation, all you have is a preference. Other people have a different preference. That's the end of it. There's nowhere else for this debate to go for the atheist.

Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...od-without-god