Zone1 Morality is natural phenomenon.

[buttercup]

Right, and logic is universal. It can't just be what we want it to be.

Wait until they realize that logic itself has no valid, objective basis in their atheistic worldview....

Hoo boy, hahaha

That's another huge, but lesser known Achilles' heel of atheism.

 

[ding]

Haha, just read the threads. Any apologist parade will do.

I love your unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[ding]

Wait until they realize that logic itself has no valid, objective basis in their atheistic worldview....

Hoo boy, hahaha

That's another huge, but lesser known Achilles' heel of atheism.

I'm going to need to think on that one. That's the first time I have heard anyone claim that.

 

[dblack]

Did Weatherman say that, or is that just what you assumed he was saying?

He posts this kind of shit all the time. I'm not going to pretend the thread was anything else.

From what I read, his point was simply that atheism has no objective basis for morality, which is why most atheists believe morality is subjective.

If it has no basis for morality, then it predicts nothing about atheists' morality.

Just that if morality is subjective, then it can change to whatever people want it to be. And ultimately it's meaningless, nonexistent.



Your worldview is atheistic in nature. It's an aspect of your worldview.

Nope. It just means I don't believe in gods. The rest is your l imagination

And if you're agreeing that it has no objective basis for morality, then according to your own position, there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's ultimately anything man says it is.

It's that what passes for logic in your "worldview"? How do you jump from "doesn't believe in gods" to "there is no such thing as right and wrong"?

 

[ding]

Most evolved traits exist for logical reasons.

Does that apply to religion as well? Or belief in God? Because I have argued that the reason religion has existed in every civilization in overwhelming numbers is because religion provides a functional advantage to man and that is why it has endured in such overwhelming numbers across every major civilization.

 

[dblack]

Look, if you agree that morals are effectively standards and standards exist for logical reasons and logic is universal and independent to what man might want logic to say, then we are all good.

But when you say morals are human constructs, like you have been saying, then that is incongruent to what you just agreed with because human constructs can be anything man wants to construct them to be.

Heh... Well, I believe gods are human constructs, do that's likely where our argument resides.

 

[dblack]

Does that apply to religion as well? Or belief in God? Because I have argued that the reason religion has existed in every civilization in overwhelming numbers is because religion provides a functional advantage to man and that is why it has endured in such overwhelming numbers across every major civilization.

Agreed.

 

[ding]

Heh... Well, I believe gods are human constructs, do that's likely where our argument resides.

Ok, I understand your position. But my position is that morals are based upon logic and are universal and independent of what man wants them to be.

 

[buttercup]

How do you jump from "doesn't believe in gods" to "there is no such thing as right and wrong"?

My first reaction was to be annoyed by your response, because we've been over this tons of times on other threads. But maybe you haven't been on those threads. So I'll give you grace.

If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a true right or wrong.

If morality is subjective, then it's just a personal preference, like which flavor of ice cream is best. Which means there is no right answer.

If that's the case, then the morality of Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy is just as valid and good as the morality of someone who is kind, decent and respectful to others. Does that ring true to you at all?

Now don't get me wrong. I never claimed that all atheists believe morality is subjective. There ARE some who have thought this through and reject moral subjectivism. Sam Harris is one example.

However, even if some atheists agree that morality is objective, they still have no way to account for it. They have no valid, objective basis for it. Even the top, leading atheist thinkers have not come up with an argument for objective morality that is logical and convicing. Because they can't. In a godless universe of rocks and dirt, there is no higher power that is the source of these types of objective truths.

 

[dblack]

Ok, I understand your position. But my position is that morals are based upon logic and are universal and independent of what man wants them to be.

The way I see it, morals are a culture's "best guess" on which standards will best promote their success. If you want to say that there's one optimal set of rules, an ultimate all-purpose morality, that we're all aiming for, I guess that's a valid way to look at it.

But if you're going to argue that your god gave you a sneak peak at those rules, and I just have to believe you, hmmm.

 

[dblack]

My first reaction was to be annoyed by your response, because we've been over this tons of times on other threads. But maybe you haven't been on those threads. So I'll give you grace.

Gee. Thanks.

If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a true right or wrong.

Who said morality is subjective?

Now don't get me wrong. I never claimed that all atheists believe morality is subjective. There ARE some who have thought this through and reject moral subjectivism. Sam Harris is one example.

Yep.

However, even if some atheists agree that morality is objective, they still have no way to account for it.

Sure they do. As ding has been pointing out, morality is logical and objective.

Because they can't. In a godless universe of rocks and dirt, there is no higher power that is the source of these types of objective truths.

This notion that atheists' morals are subjective, and theists are objective, is pure nonsense. Especially if you say that it's "God", not religion, that informs your morals. Which god???

 

[ding]

The way I see it, morals are a culture's "best guess" on which standards will best promote their success. If you want to say that there's one optimal set of rules, an ultimate all-purpose morality, that we're all aiming for, I guess that's a valid way to look at it.

But if you're going to argue that your god gave you a sneak peak at those rules, and I just have to believe you, hmmm.

You're skipping steps. You are so concerned with how this relates to God that you are skipping over key points.

1. Man innately knows right from wrong.
2. There have always been opposing beliefs on what was moral.
3. What society said was moral can change.
4. Morals are effectively standards.
5. Standards exist for logical reasons.
6. Logic is independent of man.

So no matter how many times someone says well this culture believed this or that culture believed that, it doesn't mean anything because morals are based on logic and independent of what man choses to establish. So even when slavery was considered to be moral there were people who didn't believe it was. It isn't what society says is moral. It's what logic says is moral.

 

[sparky]

The real deciding factor is are morals and virtues absolute or are they relative. Atheists - at least most of them - will argue virtues and morals are relative. That they can be anything man wants them to be. Religious persons - at least most of them - will argue that virtues and morals are absolute.

Which way are you going to argue?

Because I have argued that the reason religion has existed in every civilization in overwhelming numbers is because religion provides a functional advantage to man and that is why it has endured in such overwhelming numbers across every major civilization.

The problem here is mans manipulation of Gods word Ding

~S~

 

[Blues Man]

Morality is either cultural or religious. Ancient people did absolutely ghastly and appalling things to their enemies and each other and no doubt considered themselves moral people by their standards. Slavery, torturing people even to death, having people killed for sport, etc. was often the norm. There was no shame to be had stealing from people who were not your own tribe/people. The people of the Bible were good with The Little Red Hen morality, i.e. let those who will not help/work not eat.

I believe The Holy Spirit teaches those who allow such teaching a better way to discern right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust.

Only because people have surrendered morality to religion and culture and have fallen for the lie that religion and cultural beliefs are unassailable,

It is entirely possible to construct a moral framework using science and rational thought alone.

 

[ding]

The problem here is mans manipulation of Gods word Ding

~S~

Sure that's ONE of the problems. But I think the bigger problem is man's subjectivity. Think about it... if everyone became accountable overnight and was honest about what they did, our problems would be solved overnight.

 

[buttercup]

Gee. Thanks.

Who said morality is subjective?

Yep.

Sure they do. As ding has been pointing out, morality is logical and objective.

You're all over the place on this thread. Didn't you say earlier that morality is a human construct? If it's a human construct, then it's not objective. As ding has already stated repeatedly, if it's a human construct, then ultimately it's anything we want it to be.

Even if your position is that morality "evolved" over time, there's still no objective basis for it. Why, because objective truths are not constantly changing.

Also because the nature of morality itself is that it's an "ought".... it's basically a law, something we're obliged to. Not a mindless law, but a law based on wisdom. What is the source for that law? Who decided it? Again, if it's man-made, then it's subjective and can be anything we want it to be. And I think we all know deep down that morality is not just whatever we want it to be.

This notion that atheists' morals are subjective, and theists are objective, is pure nonsense. Especially if you say that it's "God", not religion, that informs your morals. Which god???

Sigh. I just finished saying the exact opposite. What part of "I never claimed that all atheists believe morality is subjective" did you not understand?

Re-read the rest of what I said in my previous post, to understand the point.

 

[Blues Man]

You're all over the place on this thread. Didn't you say earlier that morality is a human construct? If it's a human construct, then it's not objective. As ding has already stated repeatedly, if it's a human construct, then ultimately it's anything we want it to be.

Even if your position is that morality "evolved" over time, there's still no objective basis for it. Why, because objective truths are not constantly changing.

Also because the nature of morality itself is that it's an "ought".... it's basically a law, something we're obliged to. Not a mindless law, but a law based on wisdom. What is the source for that law? Who decided it? Again, if it's man-made, then it's subjective and can be anything we want it to be. And I think we all know deep down that morality is not just whatever we want it to be.



Sigh. I just finished saying the exact opposite. What part of "I never claimed that all atheists believe morality is subjective" did you not understand?

Re-read the rest of what I said in my previous post, to understand the point.

Of course humans can be objective.

And humans can rationally choose a better morality that that of any of the Abrahamic religions. And on many issues they have.

 

[buttercup]

Of course humans can be objective.

And humans can rationally choose a better morality that that of any of the Abrahamic religions. And on many issues they have.

For the umpteempth time, religion and God are not the same thing. I feel like I have to say that to you at least 50 times a day, yet you still repeat the same misleading pablum.

Secondly, you're using the word "objective" in a different way... you're going by a different definition.

We have been talking about objective truths, in other words truths that are universally true, whether one believes them or not. Truths that are not a matter of opinion.

Mankind is not the source of objective truth.

 

[Blues Man]

Proof that humans can choose a better moral course than gods.

5Bondservants,a obey your earthly mastersb with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

Slaves follow the commands of your masters as they were given by Christ himself

How is it we mere mortals , we wicked sinners who are utterly incapable of rational moral thinking outlawed slavery in most of the world because it is the single most abhorrent crime against humanity when the very gods you worship couldn't?

 

[Blues Man]

For the umpteempth time, religion and God are not the same thing. I feel like I have to say that to you at least 50 times a day, yet you still repeat the same misleading pablum.

Secondly, you're using the word "objective" in a different way... you're going by a different definition.

We have been talking about objective truths, in other words truths that are universally true, whether one believes them or not. Truths that are not a matter of opinion.

Mankind is not the source of objective truth.

The bible is the word of your god your religious texts are of divine origin

5Bondservants,a obey your earthly mastersb with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

So now you change your tune.

First humans cannot be objective now they are not the source of objective truth.

The very god you worship was incapable of envisioning a world without slavery to the extent that it ordered slaves to follow their masetr commands as if they were commands from your god himself

That's your "source of objective truth "