Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Correct. You can say you believe it is objectively wrong to kill a baby. I can't.

I'm not sure what you think that gives you though.

A good example is the side of the road a car drives along.

Now I believe that is subjective. I don't believe there is an objective right or wrong side of the road to drive along. Because I'm human and think as a human I still say "Oh in France they drive on the 'wrong' side of the road". But I do not think rationally that it is actually objectively the wrong side of the road. It is wrong purely in the context of how we drive in Ireland.

Now imagine if someone did believe that it actually was, genuinely and objectively, the 'wrong' side of the road. First of all that wouldn't make that true. The existence of people who genuinely viewed it as the 'wrong' side of the road is not evidence that there is a wrong side or a right side of the road to drive on as far as the universe is concerned.

Second of all, what has it given them, other than a slightly inflated sense of ego to be able to proclaim that half the world's driving systems are "wrong". They can proclaim the French are wrong, but the French aren't going to care. Heck there may be some people in France who genuinely believe we drive on the objectively 'wrong' side of the road, and they will just think we are wrong.

You cannot demonstrate what is the objectively right or wrong side of the wrong, you can't even demonstrate that there is an objectively right or wrong side of the road.

All the same principles apply to morality.

Not really Zombrex, actually that's a really bad analogy, since driving on one side of the road or the other is not a moral choice at all. It's simply a bad and simplistic representation of any kind of moral discussion, and avoids why people actually discuss anything in the moral sense tbh.

Perhaps if you were a traffic warden it would mean a lot, but not really in the sense of morals.

Of course you can. But why do you need morality to be objective to do that?

I lay claim in this lifetime to evaluate my position, and be honest about it, not yellow or 'meh, morals are only constructs, it's your imagination, nobody is 'worth' anything really' - perhaps this is the philosophy ( because it is a philosophy that could only be born out of a particular world view ) that I think is unprogressive, both scientifically and as a person who can without a doubt say that killing children is 'wrong', not just merely wrong, but absolutely 'wrong'.

I believe there is a right and wrong choice in life, it's not relative - I see the same choices faced by all humans no matter where or when or what society - and the confusion - and the lens I choose to view it through makes more sense in a few words than many others have since.

If you see someone driving the wrong way down a motorway you will probably shout at them they are driving down the wrong way of a motorway. You wouldn't say "Well you know wrong way or right way that is all just subjective based on what matters to humans, it is not an objective fact of the universe that he is on the wrong side of the road so who am I to dictate to anyone that they are on the wrong side of the road"

You're right I wouldn't, I'd probably take the next exit if I had the kids in the car, but I wouldn't think it was 'moral' one way or the other. I'd think it was very silly to not follow the road signs.

I have never understood why you guys feel you can't simply have a moral opinion without having to some how feel that your opinion is supported by the objective standards of the universe. France doesn't go "Well guys who are we to say left or right side".

Well it not quite as simplistic as that considering that Christians have given their lives in order to try to point the way towards a good choice - In saying that, I don't blame you for not 'understanding' at times, because not all people are perfect, but just sometimes, I'm sure you've known it yourself you have met 'good', and wondered - the Christians gladness.

Which is a purely human construct. Appeal to a bear beating you to death, or a flood drowning you, that this isn't 'fair' is pointless since there is no notion of morality outside of humans and some other animals with higher brain functionality.

Would that be your subjective opinion in this discussion where we at least understand that we should be 'fair' in our discussion with eachother in order to establish the 'good'.

If the universe has an objective morality it certainly doesn't show it.

Well, I'm surprised that a person who thinks about science so strongly cannot see beauty, why argue at all if not for the sake of truth and ultimately the beauty? - and know how it stirs the heart of both the scientist that is Atheist and the one that is Religious - Meh...

Perhaps that's why Einstein even if he didn't have a 'personal' God, did understand beauty and how lucky we are to observe it -

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men."


This is the reason why he understood the very tight relationship one has with an Atheist, because they 'think' seriously - both the Atheist and Religious think more deeply, and argue more heatedly, but at least we think it's important to argue and not be docile, unchallenged, and quite frankly snobs - He understood how one compliments the other - or rather how Science and Faith compliment eachother as they have done for centuries, and still do. Even if you disagree, well the truth is that it's the truth...Onward we go!

F12

philologos wrote: »

This is an example of why I argue for objective morality. It's because we see commonalities in human ethical behaviour. Deep down ultimately we know what is right, and we know what is wrong, and we always have done. Your previous post mentions different moral systems. I'm not hugely convinced that there are major differences in how humans understand morality.

Yes, but to attain and objective position we have to operate on what is real and can be perceived at a level of a common denominator for any person who wishes to be considered reasoned. That varies.
For example, under the laws of some religious sects it is OK to cut off the hands of a thief, regarless of the reason someone stole something. Did he have to steal to eat because he had no other choice? Did he decide to just do it because he wanted to steal for the sake of it? Even if he didn't, how does it make sense to burden other people from his or her family, who had nothing to do with the will of the thief to steal, because they now have a relative that needs to be supported because of a disability for the rest of their life? Is that a moral system? Do they weight up the lesser of two evils? Does the cutting off of the hands make a positive difference to anyone? Did buring witches make any sense? Or British Christians killing German Christians in WWII? I would say no, so what caused them to ignore that fundamental precept that is supposed to be the very kernel of that supposedly espoused and concept of universal understanding of morality that was enshrined in their religion? Belief that they had the right to do it, that's what, as their beliefs overrode their reason, as it often does in all of us. When it goes out of balance, we all know what happens, suffering, waste of life and anything good, but we still insist that this is how things are done.
We can't genuinely blame any god or other unseen agency for what we do or fail to do, either individually or collectively, as it's all a choice, and there are good and bad choices, aren't there? That's the beginning of morality, the understanding that operating to reasoned principles brings positive benefit to all, but in a world where people want to be gods and rule others, then reason has no perceived benefit, until it is too late.
It's not as though we don't have plenty examples of this, so if we choose to ignore better, then we deserve no better. I would consider that that's a moral consequence of an immoral way of thinking. Would you not agree?


Justice, not subjection to unreasoned laws, is what morality is supposed to be about. Laws may and should be used as an assistance to attaining justice, but once you bring in what is speculated as to what a god/God or their representatives might think is right and fitting, objectivity quickly vanishes, as mere interpretation and opinion come in.

For example, to my sense of morality, it is not moral for me to abuse or strike someone, so therefore the corollary of that concept is that I should not expect or tolerate anyone striking or abusing me. In fact I have a clear and moral right to defend myself if I am attacked. Christian religion, based on the idea of a morality based on the will of God, says that I must invite the abuser to do such a thing a second time, thus encouraging wrongful action to be repeated. If this was an objective moral precept that could be understood by anyone, anywhere, then why do we need a police force, an army, defensive weapons?

I'm not convinced that Christians are guaranteed to act any better than non-Christians. What I am convinced of, is if there is an objective system of morality and the evidence seems to point to this - what is a reasonable explanation for this other than there being an ultimate law giver for this objective moral law that informs our consciences?

Yes, that system of morality and sense of balance, is called reasoned thinking, which evolved within the beast called man as he began to work out what was to both the benefit of himself and his fellow man. It is a faculty that has grown very slowly, and it is now a genetic capacity that varies from being to being. It may fail in many cases as it is not promoted over its opposite, unreason, like brutalising others and dominating them with unreasoned fears and implied loss of security.
How often do you hear reason and logic being preached? How often do you hear the explantion for the actual meaning of what such concepts mean in reality? Good reason and logical thought only operates if you use them, as it is a choice, is it a mode of thinking that is developed, and is taught by example. The opposites, bad and unreasoned example is also a taught thing, so why is there so much misery and evil in the world? Simply because many people practice and lead by that kind of example yet believe that they are actually doing what is right, but mainly 'right' as it suits them only. Wisdom is good, but it is only of use where it exists.

Oh, and before we get into slavery. You'd do well to realise that colonial slavery is an entirely different beast to what was legislated for in ancient Israel. See this thread I posted in 3 years ago.

Slavery is the ownership or control of another or others by way of subjection to the idea that they are inferior to the slavemaster. The slave, as a being in its own right, is not recognised as a sovereign mind and being, regardless of the time or place.
There are degrees of slavery, just like there are degrees of reason, logic, unreason and illogic. No one is perfectly reasonable all the time, and only a fool would think that they are. Once we accept that we have a responsibility for both ourselves and others, it is up to us to keep ourselves within a reasonable state of balance so that we can live in some form of peace and mutual security with our fellow beings. That takes conscious thought and the non-acceptance of the idea that laws are superior to justice, which is not so. Even if we only did this for purely selfish reasons, it would still make sense, as it would minimise the harm we do, and just maybe give justice space to grow.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Not really Zombrex, actually that's a really bad analogy, since driving on one side of the road or the other is not a moral choice at all.

That isn't releavant. The issue is not whether it is or isn't a moral choice, but whether the choices are subjective or objective, ie is there truly an objectively right or wrong answer.

Same principle applies here. Is there truly an objectively right or wrong side of the road to drive on.

lmaopml wrote: »

Perhaps if you were a traffic warden it would mean a lot, but not really in the sense of morals.

That is not the point of the analogy. Do you believe because everyone in the world refers to there being a "right" and a "wrong" side of the road to drive upon that because of this there actually is, in the sense of an objective property of the universe sort of way, a right and a wrong side of the road to drive upon?

lmaopml wrote: »

I lay claim in this lifetime to evaluate my position, and be honest about it, not yellow or 'meh, morals are only constructs, it's your imagination, nobody is 'worth' anything really'

What is it with you guys and this straw man. If morality is subjective then people are worth something to other humans (if of course the human values them, ie isn't a serial killer). The only thing that changes if morality is objective is that now people are worth something to the rocks, the sky, the sea etc etc, though the rest of nature has a very funny way of show it.

lmaopml wrote: »

I believe there is a right and wrong choice in life, it's not relative

Good for you, so do I. That is a different issue to whether morality is objective or not. You said it yourself, "you believe". Some else might not believe that. It is your belief vs their belief. Do you care that they don't believe it? I doubt it. Does it force you to abandon what you believe is right and wrong? No, why would it? Does it mean you must respect them as they are skinning a cat? No, why would it? Does it mean you cannot stop them from skinning a live cat? No, why would it?

lmaopml wrote: »

You're right I wouldn't, I'd probably take the next exit if I had the kids in the car, but I wouldn't think it was 'moral' one way or the other. I'd think it was very silly to not follow the road signs.

I'm not asking if you think it is moral, I'm asking if you think it is objective. Do you think they are literally driving on the universes notion of the wrong side of the road? Or is it "just" the wrong side to you and the rest of Irish society? In which case how do you justify telling them to stop if it is just your opinion as to what is the right or wrong side of the road to drive upon. That should be an easy question to answer, but when you do you should understand better why a subjective view of morality means very little difference in the real world from an objective view of morality.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well it not quite as simplistic as that considering that Christians have given their lives in order to try to point the way towards a good choice - In saying that, I don't blame you for not 'understanding' at times, because not all people are perfect, but just sometimes, I'm sure you've known it yourself you have met 'good', and wondered - the Christians gladness.

Ok, well see if you can justify telling people not to drive on the wrong side of the road with out being able to state that it is objectively the wrong side of the road.

Then explain why you can't do that with morals.

lmaopml wrote: »

Would that be your subjective opinion in this discussion where we at least understand that we should be 'fair' in our discussion with eachother in order to establish the 'good'.

We might understand that Imaopml but the rest of the universe doesn't seem to have any notion of such concepts. So how is our behavior evidence of a wider objective morality that is part of the fabric of the universe?

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, I'm surprised that a person who thinks about science so strongly cannot see beauty, why argue at all if not for the sake of truth and ultimately the beauty?

Because seeing beauty have nothing to do with whether objective morality exists

Can you point out a single non-human (or closely related) element in the universe, that we both agree exists, that acts morally. Can you show me a rock that acts morally, or perhaps a lake that acts morally. Or perhaps a star?

The reality is that morality doesn't exist anywhere except in the minds of humans and other advanced animals, yet people some how think this is evidence for the universe itself having an embedded sense of moral right and wrong, and objective standard that transcends human belief.

F12

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't releavant. The issue is not whether it is or isn't a moral choice, but whether the choices are subjective or objective, ie is there truly an objectively right or wrong answer.

Same principle applies here. Is there truly an objectively right or wrong side of the road to drive on.

Driving on the safest side of the road to avoid harm to oneself or others, knowing that in that country or people agree to drive on an agreed side, is good choice, for obvious reasons i.e. avoiding harm or possible death. If you existed on your own, then it simply wouldn't matter what side you drove on. If we all know that we are supposed to drive on our right in a particlar country, then we have a position of mutual understanding, so that we all don't expect to meet someone coming towards us head on.

Morality is an agreed or tacit expectation of custom or behaviour, and such things do vary, but there are fundamental realities that most people have in common that give benefit for having some primary understanding no matter where they live. The fact that we all need to eat means that we have to agree that someone grows the stuff so that we can eat it, and the grower expects to be fairly paid for it, so the morality within that contract or exchange is tacit, as one needs the other. The list is endless.

Mutual benefit promotes a sense of mutual trust or goodwill, which is beneficial for humans to live within, and even if it were only for selfish reasons, it minimises harm being done, which is at the core nature of humane thinking - the unwritten law of 'First, do no harm". Maybe I could be mistaken in thinking this, but is there anyone here who doesn't see this concept as a reasonable starting point, and one, though perhaps not taught always explicitly, makes a certain degree of sense?
People with the genetic propensity to think that way will automatically follow that basic trait, just like a dog doesn't need to have to be told how to sniff out a hidden bone. Those who don't, won't, as it's contrary to their nature, which is where psychopathy comes in, as their sense of how to behave is stacked only towards their singular existence, which is pointless, as they don't exist alone anyway. It a basic lack of capacity to face point blank reality.
Morals can only exist where two or more people agree to live by a common set of rules, as that then is their morality, their agreed mode of habitual interaction. The point of having morality is so that you have some fundamental expectation of how others will behave towards you, which is also implicitly or contractually understood to be reciprocated in kind.

tommy2bad

F12
Morals can only exist where two or more people agree to live by a common set of rules,

So morals are an artificial construct ?
Or an emergent developing construct ?
The thing is from where do the come in the first place, are morals like the laws of physic or more like the rules of a game ?
I favor the first but will admit most 'morality' seems like the rules of cricket.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

F12
Morals can only exist where two or more people agree to live by a common set of rules,

So morals are an artificial construct ?
Or an emergent developing construct ?
The thing is from where do the come in the first place, are morals like the laws of physic or more like the rules of a game ?
I favor the first but will admit most 'morality' seems like the rules of cricket.

Morals relate to survival in the context of evolution (which is not just your imediate survival) and successful social interactions between humans. It seem rather obvious that morality comes from human evolution.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Morals relate to survival in the context of evolution (which is not just your imediate survival) and successful social interactions between humans. It seem rather obvious that morality comes from human evolution.

Thats the thing though, put God into the picture and people start claiming that God made the rules and we have to follow them, just because, or because it's in the book or some such reason.
My problem with this is it both demeans the position and importance of being moral and the God.
But thats just me, I dont think religion is about being moral, being moral is just common decency.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't releavant. The issue is not whether it is or isn't a moral choice, but whether the choices are subjective or objective, ie is there truly an objectively right or wrong answer.

Same principle applies here. Is there truly an objectively right or wrong side of the road to drive on.



That is not the point of the analogy. Do you believe because everyone in the world refers to there being a "right" and a "wrong" side of the road to drive upon that because of this there actually is, in the sense of an objective property of the universe sort of way, a right and a wrong side of the road to drive upon?

I think your analogy is a bad one

If you were to go back to the analogy of whether or not it is the right or wrong thing to be cruel or kill children, then perhaps we could dodge the traffic on that highway analogy a little easier.

What is it with you guys and this straw man. If morality is subjective then people are worth something to other humans (if of course the human values them, ie isn't a serial killer). The only thing that changes if morality is objective is that now people are worth something to the rocks, the sky, the sea etc etc, though the rest of nature has a very funny way of show it.

Um, Zomberex where do rocks come into it? Who mentioned anything about rocks being moral? Certainly not me. There is such a thing as 'natural morality' however.

Good for you, so do I. That is a different issue to whether morality is objective or not. You said it yourself, "you believe". Some else might not believe that. It is your belief vs their belief.

I believe there is good evidence for objective morality. However, I do understand as an atheist you are entirely free to disagree with me - although for the life of me I don't know why, since I don't think it's the be all and end all 'proof' for God, (to me it's a pointer) but perhaps you do?

Do you care that they don't believe it? I doubt it. Does it force you to abandon what you believe is right and wrong? No, why would it? Does it mean you must respect them as they are skinning a cat? No, why would it? Does it mean you cannot stop them from skinning a live cat? No, why would it?

Sorry, I don't understand this bit. Do you mean, 'do I care whether some people don't believe in an 'objective right and wrong' and are reductionists? Well of course I do... to an extent - however, there are plenty of people who believe in God and have no idea what the term 'Objective' means, and plenty of Atheists who don't either - so I guess, as a Christian, I care more about 'people' and trying to live for the God I believe in so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' is real and quite in opposition to the reductionist philosophy.

I'm not asking if you think it is moral, I'm asking if you think it is objective. Do you think they are literally driving on the universes notion of the wrong side of the road? Or is it "just" the wrong side to you and the rest of Irish society? In which case how do you justify telling them to stop if it is just your opinion as to what is the right or wrong side of the road to drive upon. That should be an easy question to answer, but when you do you should understand better why a subjective view of morality means very little difference in the real world from an objective view of morality.

Ok, the traffic analogy again..lol....Well, I happen to think it does make a difference, to be a relativist but only when one makes a philosophy of life out of it in the evolutionary sense of the word. Most people don't go that far, but some do seem to think evolution is really important to their worldview. I believe that the 'Golden Rule' is pretty sound, but the motives for it I would interpret slightly differently - obviously, because this is the Christianity forum.

Ok, well see if you can justify telling people not to drive on the wrong side of the road with out being able to state that it is objectively the wrong side of the road.

Then explain why you can't do that with morals.

I would rather justify WWII against Nazism, but it seems you are intent on me playing with traffic instead.

We might understand that Imaopml but the rest of the universe doesn't seem to have any notion of such concepts. So how is our behavior evidence of a wider objective morality that is part of the fabric of the universe?

Who said anything about the Universe?

Because seeing beauty have nothing to do with whether objective morality exists

Can you point out a single non-human (or closely related) element in the universe, that we both agree exists, that acts morally.

Yes. Chimpanzees sometimes act in what one could call a base instinct for morality, group survival and social instincts that act in effect as a survival instinct. So it's kind of like a selfish morality if you will -

Can you show me a rock that acts morally, or perhaps a lake that acts morally. Or perhaps a star?

Again with rocks, lakes, stars and the universe? Are you continuing a conversation with another poster and getting mixed up?

The reality is that morality doesn't exist anywhere except in the minds of humans and other advanced animals, yet people some how think this is evidence for the universe itself having an embedded sense of moral right and wrong, and objective standard that transcends human belief.

Bingo (apart from the Universe bit, which I think you pulled out of your back pocket along with the traffic and stardust ) Yes, humans and animals can be said to act 'morally' - I would argue not in the same way - but considering humans evolved over billions of years along with the animals I think it's safe to say - So What?

Pwpane

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess, as a Christian, I care more about 'people' and trying to live for the God I believe in so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' is real...

I'm sorry if this is a little off topic, but the motivation of Christians in the carrying out of their morality has always been an irritant for me.

Feed the hungry, educate the poor etc but only because God tells you to, only for the greater glory of God, only because you are trying to carry out his wishes, so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' (not love) is real.

It's all fake 'love' and not true morality at all. The purpose of 'foreign missions', of religious schools etc is to increase the number of the faithful. Saving souls for God is more important than helping the real people. And don't give me that true love cares for the most important thing, the immortal soul. True love doesn't depend on being told to love.

Can you not love people just because they are people, and not because you've been told to?

Doc Farrell

Pwpane wrote: »

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess, as a Christian, I care more about 'people' and trying to live for the God I believe in so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' is real...

I'm sorry if this is a little off topic, but the motivation of Christians in the carrying out of their morality has always been an irritant for me.

Feed the hungry, educate the poor etc but only because God tells you to, only for the greater glory of God, only because you are trying to carry out his wishes, so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' (not love) is real.

It's all fake 'love' and not true morality at all. The purpose of 'foreign missions', of religious schools etc is to increase the number of the faithful. Saving souls for God is more important than helping the real people. And don't give me that true love cares for the most important thing, the immortal soul. True love doesn't depend on being told to love.

Can you not love people just because they are people, and not because you've been told to?

Do you find these people an irritant to your understanding of morality too?

http://homeless.ie/Capuchin_Day_Centre/Welcome.html

I genuinely hope some day you will read your post and wonder how you could have been so, well, let's say misinformed.

lmaopml

Pwpane wrote: »

I'm sorry if this is a little off topic, but the motivation of Christians in the carrying out of their morality has always been an irritant for me.

Nobody can 'carry out' morality, unless it's real - that's the point. I don't know, but perhaps you might understand why it irritates you. I can understand 'gushing' falseness is not attractive, also some guy or girl on the net you don't know - but that's not the same as those who you know love in real life. That's the point.

Feed the hungry, educate the poor etc but only because God tells you to, only for the greater glory of God, only because you are trying to carry out his wishes, so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' (not love) is real.

That's just an expression of how to walk in Christ, and very many walk the path, and I'm no expert - in fact it's a battle - if you haven't got love you've got nothing, nothing you do has any worth, because it's only 'self' love. Helping others not for ones own glory is pretty cool I think though - the anon giver etc.

It's all fake 'love' and not true morality at all. The purpose of 'foreign missions', of religious schools etc is to increase the number of the faithful. Saving souls for God is more important than helping the real people. And don't give me that true love cares for the most important thing, the immortal soul. True love doesn't depend on being told to love.

Yes, you are right it comes naturally, and more naturally when you know yourself more deeply first.

Can you not love people just because they are people, and not because you've been told to?

Yes we can. We do. I do. So do you. That's the point, you love because it's real and 'right' to do so, not because it's subjectively pleasing to you.

That's the whole arguement in a nutshell really.

Pwpane

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you find these people an irritant to your understanding of morality too?

http://homeless.ie/Capuchin_Day_Centre/Welcome.html

I genuinely hope some day you will read your post and wonder how you could have been so, well, let's say misinformed.

My understanding of morality is not what is irritated by the followers of righteousness but my basic humanity.

Of course there are those who do love people for the people's own sake. I know some of these people.

But the religious are told to do it to please God instead. And I know some of these people too.

There's a difference between feeding someone because they are hungry and feeding them because it improves your own spiritual worth.

There's a difference between setting up a school because it educates children and helps them out of poverty and setting up a school because it initiates an island of your religion in a foreign place or safeguards religious practices in your own place.

Ireland has seen much of both of these.

Pwpane

lmaopml wrote: »

Nobody can 'carry out' morality, unless it's real - that's the point.

Exactly.

Helping others not for ones own glory is pretty cool I think though - the anon giver etc.

I agree. But religions don't do that. They put saints' names on their charities, statues in their schools. As if they're trying to use their charities to advertise their religion.

That's the point, you love because it's real and 'right' to do so, not because it's subjectively pleasing to you.

A mother doesn't love her child because God told her to. And loving others is subjectively pleasing, in various ways, even when difficult.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I think your analogy is a bad one

If you were to go back to the analogy of whether or not it is the right or wrong thing to be cruel or kill children, then perhaps we could dodge the traffic on that highway analogy a little easier.

Again the analogy is not about morality, it is about objectivism.

Can you tell someone they are driving on the wrong side of the road without needing to believe that there is an objective right and wrong side of the road? Can you justify such a statement without appealing to this objective notion?

If so then what is the issue with subjective morality? It can be justified in the same way.

The point of the analogy is that this problem some of the Christians here have with subjective morality, that you cannot tell someone they are objectively wrong, just subjectively wrong, is just a red herring. It doesn't matter, we tell people they are subjectively wrong all the time and the world continues to spin.

lmaopml wrote: »

Um, Zomberex where do rocks come into it? Who mentioned anything about rocks being moral? Certainly not me. There is such a thing as 'natural morality' however.

One would think that natural morality applies to all things in nature, would one not? Such as oh I don't know, rocks. Odd that it only seems to manifest itself in humans.

lmaopml wrote: »

I believe there is good evidence for objective morality. However, I do understand as an atheist you are entirely free to disagree with me - although for the life of me I don't know why, since I don't think it's the be all and end all 'proof' for God, (to me it's a pointer) but perhaps you do?

I disagree simply because the evidence for objective morality so far presented has been nonsense. Though I appreciate you haven't presented your evidence. Maybe it is much better?

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand this bit. Do you mean, 'do I care whether some people don't believe in an 'objective right and wrong' and are reductionists? Well of course I do.. to an extent - however, there are plenty of people who believe in God and have no idea what the term 'Objective' means, and plenty of Atheists who don't either - so I guess, as a Christian, I care more about 'people' and trying to live for the God I believe in so they can see him reflected and understand that 'Love' is real and quite in opposition to the reductionist philosophy.

What I mean is does it force you to change your beliefs?

This relates to the Rev. King question I asked PDN. Do you think that if it some how was determined that actually civil rights for black people was actually not moral after all, that Rev. King was wrong in an objective sense, that he would care? Would you care?

For example, Christians say it is objectively immoral to have pre-marital sex. I don't care, even if that was true. I don't care in the same way that I wouldn't care if it was objectively wrong for black people to vote.

Ultimately the only beliefs that actually matter to us or our own. Sure we can be persuaded by the views of others, but if you genuinely think something is moral (black people voting) it wouldn't matter if it some how was not the objective right answer. You wouldn't care.

lmaopml wrote: »

I would rather justify WWII against Nazism, but it seems you are intent on me playing with traffic instead.

That is because it is common ground. You believe in objective morality, I don't. Neither of us though (I hope) believe in objective road sides.

Therefore by using the traffic analogy I hope to explore why certain assumptions are made about the necessity for objective morality, such as the assertion made earlier in the thread (by others) that if morality is not objective than means we can never justify a moral position since it is "just" our position and this doesn't mean anything.

lmaopml wrote: »

Who said anything about the Universe?

Anyone who has used the term "objective"

lmaopml wrote: »

Again with rocks, lakes, stars and the universe? Are you continuing a conversation with another poster and getting mixed up?

If there is an objective morality it is universal to everything, in the same way that Pi is or the speed of light. It is an objective property fo the universe. If "you should not burn a baby" is an objective moral notion it applies to everything, not just humans.

Otherwise it would be like saying A meter is 100 centimeters for humans, but not for rocks.

lmaopml wrote: »

Bingo (apart from the Universe bit, which I think you pulled out of your back pocket along with the traffic and stardust ) Yes, humans and animals can be said to act 'morally' - I would argue not in the same way - but considering humans evolved over billions of years along with the animals I think it's safe to say - So What?

So where is the evidence for objective morality?

lmaopml

Ok, it's really odd, but it seems like I should be defending Deepak Chopra, and the Universe, or some strange stereotype you prefer to argue Zomberex? Perhaps you could argue about what you believe about Christianity on the Spirituality forum better. No? It seems you've changed course and began to strawman.

You could explain how MLK was just being heroic and died because he was deluded and driven by a false morality and delusion against your naturalist philosophy that at the core doesn't believe in Love at all.

Quite simply. I was agnostic/atheist, but not particularly one interested in a political persuit to extinguish this silly belief in the supernatural santy clause to hell, I was more a *shrugs* kind of girl, not on a mission except to absorb life experience, travelling and learning.

- I am not anymore because I thought a little more, and decided to examine myself first, my motives for not liking Christ in particular too much, and then to persue, and using my faculties decided that 'Love' is not arbitrary - I've seen too many things, experienced Christ in others far too many times to deny that unselfish morality exists.

You don't. You don't believe that there is a non natural motive for anything really. I do.

So does anybody who says, 'that's not fair' on the meek in any society and does something about it in peace.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, it's really odd, but it seems like I should be defending Deepak Chopra, and the Universe, or some strange stereotype you prefer to argue Zomberex? Perhaps you could argue about what you believe about Christianity on the Spirituality forum better. No? It seems you've changed course and began to strawman.

Not at all. I think you simply don't appreciate what objective morality actually means. It means there are moral laws as part of reality in the same way that there are physical laws over things like gravity and time.

lmaopml wrote: »

You could explain how MLK was just being heroic and died because he was deluded and driven by a false morality and delusion against your naturalist philosophy that at the core doesn't believe in Love at all.

I think MLK died because he was shot Imaopml. As for believe in love I certainly do believe in love. I just appreciate what it actually is, a human emotion. I don't subscribe unnecessary notions that it exists outside of human as some sort of natural force.

lmaopml wrote: »

Quite simply. I was agnostic/atheist, but not particularly one interested in a political persuit to extinguish this silly belief in the supernatural santy clause to hell, I was more a *shrugs* kind of girl, not on a mission except to absorb life experience, travelling and learning.

- I am not anymore because I thought a little more, and decided to examine myself first, my motives for not liking Christ in particular too much, and then to persue, and using my faculties decided that 'Love' is not arbitrary - I've seen too many things, experienced Christ in others far too many times to deny that unselfish morality exists.

Why did you think when you viewed unselfish actions it is "experiencing Christ"? Is that just because that is what our Christian culture has drummed into you from an early age and you simply accepted it? If you lived in India you would probably be putting it down to some other deity.

Wouldn't you rather know what is actually going on? Why altruism exists in humans and other animals, how it manifests itself biologically, why it takes particular forms, why some things we are very willing to act unselfishly over (eg. helping a sick child) and others we aren't (helping a rich man get richer).

You know the actual reasons things happen, not just a catch all non-explanation of "God did he because he wants it to be that way"

It is up to you, but I certainly find the reality far more fascinating than any supernatural stories people made up thousands of years ago to explain this stuff.

Pwpane

lmaopml wrote: »

Quite simply. I was agnostic/atheist..... I am not anymore because I thought a little more, and decided to examine myself first, my motives for not liking Christ in particular too much, and then to persue, and using my faculties decided that 'Love' is not arbitrary - I've seen too many things, experienced Christ in others far too many times to deny that unselfish morality exists.

Why did you decide to examine yourself first, rather than the natural world? Yes, it was fruitful, you found out things about yourself. Probably that you were resisting an urge to idealism and a life lived for higher motives. But why did you assume that this wonderful quality of your own self meant that Christianity is right? You could have poured this energy into something real instead.

You don't. You don't believe that there is a non natural motive for anything really. I do.

So does anybody who says, 'that's not fair' on the meek in any society and does something about it in peace.

Nonsense. What an insult to those who unselfishly risk their lives to help others.

You seem to assume that people have no good in them of themselves. People are basically good - not bad as Christianity would have us believe. People are born with love in them, as part of their humanity, as part of themselves. Their motive for doing good comes from within themselves, not from outside.

Is it so difficult to believe that people have intrinsic goodness that you feel you must ascribe it to an outside source? Goodness meaning treating others well which is a must for any society to exist in the first place. What have people done to you that you need to think that?

PDN

Pwpane wrote: »

Nonsense. What an insult to those who unselfishly risk their lives to help others.

You seem to assume that people have no good in them of themselves. People are basically good - not bad as Christianity would have us believe.

If morality is subjective, then the above statement is meaningless. Being 'good' has no more meaning than being tall or being white, and being 'evil' has no more meaning than being red-haired.

I would have more respect for atheists if they were consistent - rather than trying to argue that morality is subjective, but then getting all hot and bothered over who sees who as good or bad.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

I would have more respect for atheists if they were consistent - rather than trying to argue that morality is subjective, but then getting all hot and bothered over who sees who as good or bad.

Lumping all Atheists together makes about as much sense as lumping all Christians together.

They can all have differing opinions y'know.

Pushtrak

Sonics2k wrote: »

Lumping all Atheists together makes about as much sense as lumping all Christians together.

They can all have differing opinions y'know.

The point he was going for was "god said it, so it is objective." By extension, not having a belief in god means you don't have an objective source for morality. Of course, appealing to the subjectivity of going with one religion over another, and each individual interpretation of what they take from the bible means the objective claim isn't all that credible to me.

Supposing there were a god as per the bible, and it was to make itself manifest and order any of the christians on this forum to kill me or any other non believer on account of heresy, that would be an objective good because god said it. In fact, people who believe they hear such a voice do act out in a way as if it were an objective good. Much to the detriment of the people on the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.

I maintain that if there were objective morality, we wouldn't be able to express it. And subjectivity is better because it allows for the discussion. If a act that was horrible was to be identified as "objectively good" it would serve as an attempt to close the conversation. If something is good, you can say so without appealing to "it is because it is." You can appeal to whether harm or a reduction of harm might be an outcome. I've never seen objective morals provide anything of substance.

Fanny Cradock

Sonics2k wrote: »

Lumping all Atheists together makes about as much sense as lumping all Christians together.

They can all have differing opinions y'know.

True.

So do you believe that there is an objective standard?

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Lumping all Atheists together makes about as much sense as lumping all Christians together.

They can all have differing opinions y'know.

That's fine - I'm all for listening to an atheist try to explain to me where they believe an objective morality comes from .............

Delirium

I've been trying to follow this thread, and I just wanted ask (a possibly) question, if I may.

when people are talking about objective morality, is it only something that applies to humans or to all life-forms?

ask I said, possibly a stupid question, but I'd rather not presume something and misunderstand the discussion.

Pushtrak

koth wrote: »

I've been trying to follow this thread, and I just wanted ask (a possibly) question, if I may.

when people are talking about objective morality, is it only something that applies to humans or to all life-forms?

ask I said, possibly a stupid question, but I'd rather not presume something and misunderstand the discussion.

Objective morality is pretty much a religious idea. Sure, you have Sam Harris and others try to make a case for objective morality, but really it is largely a religious idea to try to avoid us judging the deity of holy texts by human standards.

So, it seems to me that objective applies to humans. An interesting point I'd wonder is hypothetically if there were an intelligent life form somewhere else in the universe, would it apply to them? I guess it must. Objective means true in all times and in all places.

Which is precisely what makes objective morality uncomfortable, and hard to defend. A discussion on morality is always going to be better. If something is bad, a strong case can be made against it independent of "It's objective." Like take slavery. We don't like slavery, and we don't need to be told it is objectively bad. Heck, even if given the impression it is objectively good, we know better.

Leviticus 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Virgil°

PDN wrote: »

Being 'good' has no more meaning than being tall or being white, and being 'evil' has no more meaning than being red-haired.

Careful now, colours are objective properties consistent throughout the entire universe. Objectively measurable on the light spectrum by wavelength. Are objective properties meaningless now too?

I don't understand why you and other Christians are so eager to point out that subjective values are meaningless.
They have meaning to us, humans and higher primates! If you don't think they have any meaning then try Zombrex's analogy out. Drive down the wrong side of the road, see how that goes. Its not objectively the wrong side of the road after all.

PDN

Pushtrak wrote: »

Objective morality is pretty much a religious idea. Sure, you have Sam Harris and others try to make a case for objective morality, but really it is largely a religious idea to try to avoid us judging the deity of holy texts by human standards.

So, it seems to me that objective applies to humans. An interesting point I'd wonder is hypothetically if there were an intelligent life form somewhere else in the universe, would it apply to them? I guess it must. Objective means true in all times and in all places.

Which is precisely what makes objective morality uncomfortable, and hard to defend. A discussion on morality is always going to be better. If something is bad, a strong case can be made against it independent of "It's objective." Like take slavery. We don't like slavery, and we don't need to be told it is objectively bad. Heck, even if given the impression it is objectively good, we know better.

So 'we know' slavery is bad - but bad is a totally subjective concept? You still seem to blithely ignore the inherent contradiction in your position.

Virgil wrote:

Careful now, colours are objective properties consistent throughout the entire universe. Objectively measurable on the light spectrum by wavelength. Are objective properties meaningless now too?

They are meaningless in terms of any discussion of morality. Unless, of course, you want to discuss whether green is a more wicked colour than blue?

And that is where most of those who take a subjective view of morality fall back into using objective language.

They have meaning to us, humans and higher primates! If you don't think they have any meaning then try Zombrex's analogy out. Drive down the wrong side of the road, see how that goes. Its not objectively the wrong side of the road after all.

The only meaning there is one derived by majority decision and the power to enforce it (back to Nietzsche again). It's convenient (and causes less hassle with those who hold power) to drive on the left in a country where everyone else does the same. If Hitler had won WWII then it would be convenient for all of us to hate Jews and to support the Final Solution. To stand up and declare, "Murdering Jews is wrong", and to be executed for taking such a stand would be no different from someone who insists on driving on the right when everyone drives on the left - at least for someone who honestly believes that morality is truly subjective.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

The only meaning there is one derived by majority decision and the power to enforce it (back to Nietzsche again). It's convenient (and causes less hassle with those who hold power) to drive on the left in a country where everyone else does the same. If Hitler had won WWII then it would be convenient for all of us to hate Jews and to support the Final Solution. To stand up and declare, "Murdering Jews is wrong", and to be executed for taking such a stand would be no different from someone who insists on driving on the right when everyone drives on the left - at least for someone who honestly believes that morality is truly subjective.

Well this bit in bold is pretty much the way things work.
Your missing the point about subjective morality, it's subject.
If it's wrong for humans to kill humans objectively, then it is wrong even if their were no humans ever.
If its wrong subjectively then it only applies to humans, no humans, no such rule. This dosnt mean that humans decide whats right and wrong and then enforce it. It means because were human it's wrong to kill humans. We dont charge goats or lions with murder.
The notion that morality is imposed on humans is wrong, it comes from humans, from being human. Not objectively imposed but not subjectively invented either.

Pushtrak

PDN wrote: »

So 'we know' slavery is bad - but bad is a totally subjective concept? You still seem to blithely ignore the inherent contradiction in your position.

From my subjective frame, it certainly is bad. As for the usage of "we" it is justified in that I have never come across anyone who'd say "You know what, we need more slavery" or mount any assertions of a similar mentality. In short, slavery has gone out of style. Out of favour. Is disreputable.

If you were to be 100% certain your god wished you to kill a non believer, would this be objectively good? Philologos has said in a previous discussion that something is objectively good because it came from god, not that it was objectively good and god said it. That then, is the message is not better than the messenger. So, whatever the message were it would be immediately objectively good. This being the case, you have to reconcile the slavery as endorsed in the bible, and optionally my hypothetical of killing a non believer in terms of morality.

Fanny Cradock earlier asked Sonics2k if he holds to an objective morality. I've already pointed out that I wouldn't try to pretend that I hold to such a thing if it were to exist. I do think, according to my own subjective view that a good measure is whether it causes harm/suffering. And this is better than saying something is good by virtue of it being in the bible. I'm eager to hear why "because it is in the bible" is a better position in terms of forming a moral basis though.

Edit::
Objective morality?

Psalm 137:9

New International Version (NIV)

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Virgil°

PDN wrote: »

They are meaningless in terms of any discussion of morality. Unless, of course, you want to discuss whether green is a more wicked colour than blue?

Hold on a second, back up. Correct me if I'm wrong but you and a few other Christians on here are trying to argue that there is an objective morality and that subjective morality is ultimately meaningless. You then went on to list two colours(objective) as meaningless. So are objective morals meaningful by the virtue of being objective? Then why aren't colours meaningful?

It's convenient (and causes less hassle with those who hold power) to drive on the left in a country where everyone else does the same. If Hitler had won WWII then it would be convenient for all of us to hate Jews and to support the Final Solution. To stand up and declare, "Murdering Jews is wrong", and to be executed for taking such a stand would be no different from someone who insists on driving on the right when everyone drives on the left - at least for someone who honestly believes that morality is truly subjective.

One is a system which promotes death by default to individuals simply because of who they are(through no real choice of their own). The other is a system to keep people safe and anyone who stands up and declares that they will not drive on the left puts others in danger too. If we're talking in terms of their value or worth then I would say the former holds little regard for the good of the species(which is where I believe morality evolves from). You can't equate the two.
I don't know why you think they aren't different. It's glaringly obvious how they are. The difference is I don't believe they have to be dictated as a universal constant(objective) to have any value.

PDN

Pushtrak wrote: »

From my subjective frame, it certainly is bad.

But only bad because it suits you, not because it is actually wrong.

Edit::
Objective morality?

Your attempts to evade my point might be more effective if they were less transparent. As it is they reinforce my suspicion that you know fine well that you are on a sticky wicket.