Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Secular Morality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Easy. Here's a definition of "moral objectivism":

    Nothing in there about God existing, nor anything entailing God's existence. So it's compatible with atheism.

    *cue your usual excuses*
    No, tells why moral objectivism is true. That is what I have been asking, and asking, and you have been deceptively avoiding. You claim that there is something more than moral relativism or moral subjectivism - then demonstrate it.
    That's not what you asked. Please read more closely:
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism, and you've never shown otherwise. You've never shown that God's non-existence would entail moral relativism or moral subjectivism
    Ok, please demonstrate this.
    Seriously, do you think people are too blind or stupid to see that you underlines this?:
    "atheism is compatible with moral objectivism"

    So instead of doing your usual nonsense tactic of moving the goalposts (along with your other usual excuses), you could have the decency to own up to the fact that I supported that claim. Try some honesty.
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      As expected, you didn't honestly address what was written. Feel free to try again:

      You are deceptive Jichard, instead of answering my questions you keep turning the argument. You have not once answered two basic question that I have been asking right along, FROM THE BEGINNING. How does one come to know these moral facts, or even if they do exist how are we obligated to keep them. Instead of dealing with these directly you just ask more questions - that speaks volumes about the weakness of your position.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        That's not what you asked. Please read more closely:
        Seriously, do you think people are too blind or stupid to see that you underlines this?:
        "atheism is compatible with moral objectivism"

        So instead of doing your usual nonsense tactic of moving the goalposts (along with your other usual excuses), you could have the decency to own up to the fact that I supported that claim. Try some honesty.
        Yes I underlined that - but the whole statement was in view. Is it a fact Jichard that I have asked you numerous times to demonstrate that moral realism is true? And isn't it a fact that you keep avoiding the question.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          You are deceptive Jichard, instead of answering my questions you keep turning the argument. You have not once answered two basic question that I have been asking right along, FROM THE BEGINNING. How does one come to know these moral facts, or even if they do exist how are we obligated to keep them. Instead of dealing with these directly you just ask more questions - that speaks volumes about the weakness of your position.
          As expected, you didn't honestly address what was written. Feel free to try again:

          Dilemma is:



          seer says in response:

          "That is just silly, since God is the source of said reasons, you may agree with the reasons, but He the originator and the Creator of the universe where these reasons make sense."


          Rebuttal:
          "Which does nothing to address the dilemma. There's no third horn, seer. And you're making the same mistake I already addressed on another thread: you confusedly think that just because X causes Y, that means statements about Y actually refer to X. So you confusedly think that statements about the reasons (statements true in virtue of the reasons), must refer to the God just because God made those reasons. This is ridiculous, as I explained, but which you didn't bother addressing:

          "I'm willing to grant that, in principle, a deity could cause a state of affairs, such that objective scientific laws were true. But that's not the same as objective scientific laws being true in virtue of God, and so it doesn't undermine the OP's. An example might illustrate the point.

          Suppose a bat strikes a ball, causing the ball to move at speed of 50mph. So the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" is true. But even though the bat caused the ball's movement, and thus helped cause the state of affairs that makes that statement true, the statement is not true in virtue of of the bat. Instead, it's true in virtue of the ball and the ball's properties; in particular: the ball's motion. To see this, note that the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" could be true even if the ball never existed (for example: if the ball's motion was caused by hand, as opposed to a bat). To put it another way: the ball's properties, not the bat, are what make the statement true and thus serve as the truth-makers for the statement. The state refers to (or is about) the ball and its properties, not the bat.

          Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs. And to see that, note that the laws would still be true if God never existed, as long as the natural state of affairs were so (unless one is some sort of Berkeleyan idealist, who thinks that natural world is just an aspect of God's mind). The laws refer to (or are about) the natural state of affairs and its properties, not God. The natural world serves as the truth-maker, not God."


          seer, why do you repeat the same mistakes over and over and... without bothering to address when people point out those mistakes? Is that an honest thing to do?


          So please try to honestly address the dilemma this time.
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Yes I underlined that - but the whole statement was in view. Is it a fact Jichard that I have asked you numerous times to demonstrate that moral realism is true? And isn't it a fact that you keep avoiding the question.
            Asked for:
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism, and you've never shown otherwise. You've never shown that God's non-existence would entail moral relativism or moral subjectivism
            Ok, please demonstrate this.
            Done:
            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            Easy. Here's a definition of "moral objectivism":

            Nothing in there about God existing, nor anything entailing God's existence. So it's compatible with atheism.

            *cue your usual excuses*
            Please have the honesty to admit this. I don't like dishonest folks.
            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

            Comment


            • No, God's reasons comport to His immutable moral character. So they can not be arbitrary.

              Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs.
              Do they have existence apart from God? Do they originate in the mind of God? Do they presently exist by the power of God? It is God that makes them true, because it is God that created them and sustains them. There is no bat or ball to strike apart from God, and there is no movement presently without God's active power. So nothing, zero, happens independently from God. In other words - there is no natural state of affairs.
              Last edited by seer; 07-19-2015, 07:12 AM.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                What do you mean objective according to reason - whose reason? And why does that make them objective?
                What I mean is that there are correct conclusions about the nature of the world and its moral basis which are based on correct reasoning, and that there are false conclusions based on faulty reasoning, and that the correct conclusions are the objective truths. Notice that there is nothing in that process that requires the world to have been created. Reasoning is based upon what the world is, it has nothing to do with how it came to be.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  What I mean is that there are correct conclusions about the nature of the world and its moral basis which are based on correct reasoning, and that there are false conclusions based on faulty reasoning, and that the correct conclusions are the objective truths. Notice that there is nothing in that process that requires the world to have been created. Reasoning is based upon what the world is, it has nothing to do with how it came to be.
                  And this coming from a man who thinks it is perfectly OK to kill unborn babies in the womb and harvest their body parts. Where is your objective moral truth now? And again, who is to judge whose reasoning is false? Why was the moral reasoning of a Stalin or Mao faulty considering their goals? And like I said, even if such objective moral truths exist what good are they? Do you think the rapist will refrain from raping because of objective moral truths? What power or authority do these truths have?
                  Last edited by seer; 07-19-2015, 10:32 AM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And this coming from a man who thinks it is perfectly OK to kill unborn babies in the womb and harvest their body parts.
                    This is a specific moral question upon which there is no scientific consensus, and so any ones conclusion as to its moral nature remains subjective opinion. What reason tells us is that the fetus is human in nature, not that it is a human being. The egg you ate for breakfast was not a chicken. That being the case, the only opinion that should matter is the opinion of the pregnant woman. My personal opinion is that a human fetus is not a human being any more than an egg is a chicken, and that is basically the subjective opinion of the Supreme Court which is why the the law leaves that decision to be decided by the pregnant woman and their doctor, not the subjective opinion of the law.

                    Where is your objective moral truth now?
                    If I knew all the answers seer, I'd be omniscient. Our opinions are subjective, if a fetus is a human being, then my subjective opinion to the contrary would be wrong.

                    And again, who is to judge whose reasoning is false? Why was the moral reasoning of a Stalin or Mao faulty considering their goals? And like I said, even if such objective moral truths exist what good are they? Do you think the rapist will refrain from raping because of objective moral truths? What power or authority do these truths have?
                    Its up to all of us collectively seer. If you notice Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot etc. etc. are all generally seen as immoral characters by the world wide community.
                    Last edited by JimL; 07-19-2015, 11:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      This is a specific moral question upon which there is no scientific consensus, and so any ones conclusion as to its moral nature remains subjective opinion. What reason tells us is that the fetus is human in nature, not that it is a human being. The egg you ate for breakfast was not a chicken. That being the case, the only opinion that should matter is the opinion of the pregnant woman. My personal opinion is that a human fetus is not a human being any more than an egg is a chicken, and that is basically the subjective opinion of the Supreme Court which is why the the law leaves that decision to be decided by the pregnant woman and their doctor, not the subjective opinion of the law.
                      So moral questions are decided by science? I thought there was this objective moral standard out there - but now you are speaking of your opinion.


                      If I knew all the answers seer, I'd be omniscient. Our opinions are subjective, if a fetus is a human being, then my subjective opinion to the contrary would be wrong.
                      Weren't you arguing for an objective moral standard?

                      Its up to all of us collectively seer. If you notice Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot etc. etc. are all generally seen as immoral characters by the world wide community.
                      Sure that is our opinion, but why was their reasoning faulty considering their goals. You brought up this faulty reasoning thing.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        What reason tells us is that the fetus is human in nature, not that it is a human being. The egg you ate for breakfast was not a chicken.


                        Is it actually possible to be this dumb? Please don't tell me you're seriously comparing a live and developing fetus with an unfertilized chicken egg?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So moral questions are decided by science? I thought there was this objective moral standard out there - but now you are speaking of your opinion.
                          In science reason denotes the use of the mind to come to objective truths that cannot be derived by reason alone. We can reasonably conclude that murder is immoral, but we can't by reason alone determine whether a fetus is a human being.



                          Weren't you arguing for an objective moral standard?
                          Yes, what about it? That doesn't mean that we are omniscient about objective moral truths.


                          Sure that is our opinion, but why was their reasoning faulty considering their goals. You brought up this faulty reasoning thing.
                          Who says their goals or actions were based on moral reasoning?

                          What you are doing is sidetracking the main point that people have been trying to explain to you. Whether or not God exists, whether or not the universe was created, the laws pertaining to the universe are inherent within the universe itself. It needn't have been created in order for them to exist, or to be understood. The difference between physical law and moral law is that physical law defines the way in which the physical universe functions, moral law defines what is good and what is bad in the interests of both the individul and the collective life within the universe, neither of which is immediately apparent.
                          Last edited by JimL; 07-19-2015, 03:27 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            In science reason denotes the use of the mind to come to objective truths that cannot be derived by reason alone. We can reasonably conclude that murder is immoral, but we can't by reason alone determine whether a fetus is a human being.

                            Yes, what about it? That doesn't mean that we are omniscient about objective moral truths.
                            If you are not omniscient about objective moral truths then how do you know that the wrongness of murder is one of those objective truths?


                            Who says their goals or actions were based on moral reasoning?
                            Of course they had reasons for doing what they did. Personal power and control. So to that end their reasoning was not faulty.

                            What you are doing is sidetracking the point that people have been trying to explain to you. Whether or not God exists, whether or not the universe was created, the laws pertaining to the universe are inherent in the universe itself. It needn't have been created in order for them to exist, or to be understood.
                            Show me how moral laws are inherent in the universe.
                            Last edited by seer; 07-19-2015, 03:04 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              In science reason denotes the use of the mind to come to objective truths that cannot be derived by reason alone.
                              That makes no sense to me. But perhaps you are thinking of at least two kinds of reason?


                              We can reasonably conclude that murder is immoral
                              Can you give us an argument for the conclusion that murder is immoral?


                              but we can't by reason alone determine whether a fetus is a human being.
                              One reason why there is disagreement on whether a fetus is a human being, is that it's a matter of definition, especially the specific definition of "human being."
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                No, God's reasons comport to His immutable moral character. So they can not be arbitrary.
                                You didn't address the dilemma. Here it is again:

                                So you have two options: either tell me the good reasons God has for God's commands, and thereby tacitly admit that God's commands are not the grounds for moral obligations. Or admit that God has no good reasons for his commands, in which case they are arbitrary, by definition.

                                And your appeal to God's character simply screws your position over further. To see why, go ahead and tell me what aspect of God's character you're referring to. If you mean God's character traits (ex: being fair, merciful, just, etc.), then you just screwed your position over, since God's existence is not required for those character traits to exist. After all, humans can have them. So God's existence would not be needed for the grounds of moral obligation to exist. As noted by the Christian philosopher Wes Morriston:

                                Morriston, Wes. "God and the Ontological Foundation of Morality." Religious Studies 48 (2012): 15-34. page 19:
                                "Why are love and justice and generosity and kindness and faithfulness good? What is there in the depths of reality to make them good? My own preferred answer is: Nothing further. If you like, you may say that they are the ultimate standard of goodness. What makes them the standard? Nothing further. Possessing these characteristics just is good-making. Full stop. Is there some problem with this? Some reason to press on, looking for a ‘deeper’ answer that only theism can provide?

                                It’s not obvious that there is. No matter what story you tell about the ontological ground of moral value, you must at some point come to your own full stop. If you say that love is necessarily good because God necessarily exists and loves and because God’s moral nature is the ultimate standard of goodness, then we can ask what makes God’s moral nature the ultimate standard. It would be unwise to respond, ‘because it includes love and justice and the rest’, since that would confine us to a small and entirely unenlightening circle of ‘explanations’. At some point, you are simply going to have to bite the bullet and say, ‘That’s just how it is’.

                                So which is the correct stopping point? The non-theological one, according to which goodness supervenes directly on love and justice and the rest, rendering the detour through theology entirely unnecessary, has at least the virtue of simplicity (29-30)."


                                So really, seer, your theologically-motivated evasions are just messing up your position even further.

                                Do they have existence apart from God?
                                Yes. If you think otherwise, then you have the heretical belief that the universe is apart of God or that God is identical to the universe. I explained this to you before:

                                "You're confusing varieties of necessity here. God's existence is not logically/conceptually necessary for the universe to exist, nor is God's existence metaphysically necessary for the universe to exist.

                                It's not conceptually necessary, because the concepts of "universe" and "God" are distinct, such that "the universe exists" does not entail "God exists". This contrast with cases of conceptual entailment, such as "X is bachelor" entailing "X is unmarried". And it's not metaphysically necessary, since God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things, as opposed to one being apart of the other. To say otherwise is to adopt something like Berkeleyan idealism (where the universe is an aspect of God's mind), pantheism (where God is identical to the universe), etc. Presumably, you don't adopt such positions.

                                I just discussed logical/conceptual necessity above, yet you seem to be operating from some causal notion of necessity. That causal notion of necessity is irrelevant to my point; instead, metaphysical necessity suffices for my point. To see why, note that if God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things (that is: God's existence is not metaphysically necessary for the universe's existence), then a statement can refer to the universe and the universe's properties/processes/etc., without referring to God or God's properties. So the universe would serve as the truth-maker for the statement, without any recourse to God serving as the truth-maker.

                                Your reference to causation was irrelevant, since just because C causes E, that does not mean that statements are E are true in virtue (that is: "refer to") of C. That's what the bat/ball example was meant to illustrate to you: even if the bat causes the ball's motion, statements about the ball are true in virtue of the ball, not the bat, and the bat's existence is not required for statements about the ball to be true. Similarly, even if God causes the universe's existence, statements about the universe are true in virtue of the universe, not God, and the God's existence is not required for statements about the universe to be true."

                                Do they originate in the mind of God? Do they presently exist by the power of God? It is God that makes them true, because it is God that created them and sustains them. There is no bat or ball to strike apart from God, and there is no movement presently without God's active power. So nothing, zero, happens independently from God.
                                Same mistakes that were already addressed. The statements are not true in virtue of God, since the statements do not refer to God, nor God's attributes. And unless you have the heretical belief that God is a bat or God is ball (or that bats and balls are apart of God), then statements about bats and balls are not true in virtue of God; they are true in virtue of natural objects called "bats" and "balls". Duh. I've explained this to you before:

                                You're making the same mistake I already addressed on another thread: you confusedly think that just because X causes Y, that means statements about Y actually refer to X. So you confusedly think that statements about the reasons (statements true in virtue of the reasons), must refer to the God just because God made those reasons. This is ridiculous, as I explained, but which you didn't bother addressing:

                                "I'm willing to grant that, in principle, a deity could cause a state of affairs, such that objective scientific laws were true. But that's not the same as objective scientific laws being true in virtue of God, and so it doesn't undermine the OP's. An example might illustrate the point.

                                Suppose a bat strikes a ball, causing the ball to move at speed of 50mph. So the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" is true. But even though the bat caused the ball's movement, and thus helped cause the state of affairs that makes that statement true, the statement is not true in virtue of of the bat. Instead, it's true in virtue of the ball and the ball's properties; in particular: the ball's motion. To see this, note that the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" could be true even if the ball never existed (for example: if the ball's motion was caused by hand, as opposed to a bat). To put it another way: the ball's properties, not the bat, are what make the statement true and thus serve as the truth-makers for the statement. The state refers to (or is about) the ball and its properties, not the bat.

                                Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs. And to see that, note that the laws would still be true if God never existed, as long as the natural state of affairs were so (unless one is some sort of Berkeleyan idealist, who thinks that natural world is just an aspect of God's mind). The laws refer to (or are about) the natural state of affairs and its properties, not God. The natural world serves as the truth-maker, not God."

                                In other words - there is no natural state of affairs.
                                Your absurd line of reasoning just led you to deny that the natural world exists. Enjoy your heresy.
                                Last edited by Jichard; 07-19-2015, 06:00 PM.
                                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X