Utilitarianism

[seer]

Interestingly, your "objective" moral theory certainly has not stopped any Christian who has ever committed a murder, of which there are plenty. So once again you criticize the atheist for doing what you can't even show to be true on your own view.

That is nonsense Thinker, I can personally show you dozens of persons who ended their self destructive, anti-social behavior because they came to believe in a loving and just Creator that they are accountable to. How many men changed their less than desirable behaviors because they came to believe that morality may be objective? I bet zero. Why should they - there would be no ultimate sanctions if they didn't.

You do realize that this claim is totally incoherent and false right? Having "inherent worth" means having intrinsic value. But intrinsic value cannot be dependent on god, because value that is dependent on someone/something else is extrinsic value, not intrinsic value.

It is both inherent and extrinsic, since by nature we are God's image bearers, and also valuable to God. If God died tomorrow we would still carry that divine spark and that moral image. In any case, apart from God we are ultimately as insignificant as a common housefly.

[The Thinker]

That is nonsense Thinker, I can personally show you dozens of persons who ended their self destructive, anti-social behavior because they came to believe in a loving and just Creator that they are accountable to. How many men changed their less than desirable behaviors because they came to believe that morality may be objective? I bet zero. Why should they - there would be no ultimate sanctions if they didn't.

That's totally anecdotal and would provide no evidence for the truth of your god, anymore than it would provide the truth of Mormonism or Islam because those religions too have made people end their self destructive, anti-social behavior.

So that's totally irrelevant and off point.

My point was that for every Christian who has committed a crime, Christianity didn't stop them. And I can point to you someone who's life was improved by atheism:

It is both inherent and extrinsic, since by nature we are God's image bearers, and also valuable to God. If God died tomorrow we would still carry that divine spark and that moral image.

No it is extrinsic. Being valuable to god is extrinsic. You know basic logic right? And if we happened to evolve the same form or features as the "image of god" under naturalism by chance, we'd have the same exact value. Disagree? You show me how god existing makes any difference without ignorantly giving an example of extrinsic value, like you originally did.

In any case, apart from God we are ultimately as insignificant as a common housefly.

That's total nonsense and if true would be yet another example of extrinsic value once again! You sure are really bad at this logic thing aren't ya? Just admit it, the only argument you have is for extrinsic value, not intrinsic value.

[seer]

That's totally anecdotal and would provide no evidence for the truth of your god, anymore than it would provide the truth of Mormonism or Islam because those religions too have made people end their self destructive, anti-social behavior.

But that is the point, believing in God will have an effect that believing in objective morality just won't have. It may be anecdotal, but there are literally millions of these stories, and what you dig up one atheist?

No it is extrinsic. Being valuable to god is extrinsic. You know basic logic right? And if we happened to evolve the same form or features as the "image of god" under naturalism by chance, we'd have the same exact value. Disagree? You show me how god existing makes any difference without ignorantly giving an example of extrinsic value, like you originally did.

But we could not be what we are apart from God, I doubt that materialism could produce a soul in the likeness of God. And that likeness is inherent to the human person.

[The Thinker]

But that is the point, believing in God will have an effect that believing in objective morality just won't have. It may be anecdotal, but there are literally millions of these stories, and what you dig up one atheist?

But my point was that there are millions of theists who commit horrible crimes. Belief in god is certainly not stopping them.

But we could not be what we are apart from God, I doubt that materialism could produce a soul in the likeness of God. And that likeness is inherent to the human person.

What the heck does having a soul have anything to do with inherent worth? We can be what we are apart from god. There is no reason why we'd be any different if naturalistic evolution or theistic evolution occurred the same way.

[seer]

But my point was that there are millions of theists who commit horrible crimes. Belief in god is certainly not stopping them.

Yes, and there are millions more who refrain from crime because of faith. And my point is that belief in God does have real world consequences, where belief in objective morals does nothing...

What the heck does having a soul have anything to do with inherent worth? We can be what we are apart from god. There is no reason why we'd be any different if naturalistic evolution or theistic evolution occurred the same way.

What? The soul is the immortal thing, the rational, moral thing. That is the divine spark.

[The Thinker]

And my point is that belief in God does have real world consequences, where belief in objective morals does nothing...

That is a claim that requires evidence. Demonstrate that "belief in objective morals does nothing" is true.

What? The soul is the immortal thing, the rational, moral thing. That is the divine spark.

I see no evidence to believe that without a soul people cannot be rational or moral. Care to demonstrate that? I get that a soul would be immortal, but I don't see how that makes humans of anymore value.

[seer]

That is a claim that requires evidence. Demonstrate that "belief in objective morals does nothing" is true.

Well make a logical case then - why would anyone change their behavior if they came to believe that morals were objective? What is the incentive?

I see no evidence to believe that without a soul people cannot be rational or moral. Care to demonstrate that? I get that a soul would be immortal, but I don't see how that makes humans of anymore value.

That is not the point. I connect these things to the Imago Dei.

It is called the Substantive view:

In "Creation of Adam," Michelangelo provides a great example of the substantive view of the imago of God through the mirroring of the human and the divine. The substantive view locates the image of God within the psychological or spiritual makeup of the human being. This view holds that there are similarities between humanity and God, thus emphasizing characteristics that are of shared substance between both parties. Some proponents of the substantive view uphold that the rational soul mirrors the divine.According to this mirroring, humanity is shaped like the way in which a sculpture or painting is in the image of the artist doing the sculpting or painting.While the substantive view locates the image of God in a characteristic or capacity unique to humanity, such as reason or will, the image may also be found in humanity's capacity to have a relationship with the divine. Unlike the relational view, humanity's capacity to have a relationship with the divine still locates the image of God in a characteristic or capacity that is unique to humanity and not the relationship itself. What is important is that the substantive view sees the image of God as present in humanity whether or not an individual person acknowledges the reality of the image or not.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe that men can be rational or moral without a soul, it is the grounding, from my worldview, for inherent human worth.

[The Thinker]

Well make a logical case then - why would anyone change their behavior if they came to believe that morals were objective? What is the incentive?

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that no one has ever changed their behavior in response to learning about objective morality. You made a claim, now back it up. Or, admit you can't and that you merely think this is the case.

That is not the point. I connect these things to the Imago Dei.

It is called the Substantive view:



It has nothing to do with whether you believe that men can be rational or moral without a soul, it is the grounding, from my worldview, for inherent human worth.

Then it is something totally subjective and based on your opinion. Thanks for offering it.

[seer]

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that no one has ever changed their behavior in response to learning about objective morality. You made a claim, now back it up. Or, admit you can't and that you merely think this is the case.

No, I know plenty of people who have changed behavior because of faith in God, I know of no one who changed their behavior because they came to believe in objective morality. And I suspect that you don't either. Right?

Then it is something totally subjective and based on your opinion. Thanks for offering it.

Yes, like your subjective view of what constitutes basic beliefs... And you are welcome.

[The Thinker]

No, I know plenty of people who have changed behavior because of faith in God, I know of no one who changed their behavior because they came to believe in objective morality. And I suspect that you don't either. Right?

Your personal lack of knowledge is not evidence. If someone said they know of no person who's changed their beliefs "because of faith in God" would you accept that as legitimate? No.

As for someone who changed their behavior because they came to believe in objective morality, you do know someone. That person is me.

Yes, like your subjective view of what constitutes basic beliefs... And you are welcome.

I have reason, you don't.

[seer]

As for someone who changed their behavior because they came to believe in objective morality, you do know someone. That person is me.

There we go - now - why? Why did it cause you to change behavior?

[The Thinker]

There we go - now - why? Why did it cause you to change behavior?

Because I realized that morality is much more than me just deciding what I feel is right for me in any given situation.

[seer]

Because I realized that morality is much more than me just deciding what I feel is right for me in any given situation.

But you could believe that without believing in objective morality. Try again.

[The Thinker]

But you could believe that without believing in objective morality. Try again.

OK. Because I realized that morality is much more than me just deciding what I feel is right for me in any given situation, and it isn't necessarily what anyone else says either, but that it derives logically regardless of what we think.

[seer]

OK. Because I realized that morality is much more than me just deciding what I feel is right for me in any given situation, and it isn't necessarily what anyone else says either, but that it derives logically regardless of what we think.

Yet if you still decided to do what you felt right to you in any given situation what would follow?