(December 15, 2015 at 1:49 pm)athrock Wrote:

---

(December 14, 2015 at 4:30 am)Vincent Wrote: 1. All moral values are subjective. 

So, it's racial discrimination is okay under some circumstances, places and times? It's not always wrong to treat people differently because of the color of their skin?

I've already responded to and defeated this argument several times in the last post I made that you failed to reply to. You have a flawed understanding of subjective morality. 

Subjective is not what we perceive to be moral always and everywhere. Subjective is what is decided through feelings and opinions. And everything that man has ever declared immoral has been decided by his own perception of what is right and wrong. Thus, everything moral is subjective. 

I ask you again, what makes murder wrong?

Quote:Euthyphro's Dilemma again. Answered previously. In brief, theists argue that God does not "decide" what is good; God IS good, and all things are measured against that absolute standard.

Alright. How? You're walking around the dilemma not by approaching it directly, but by changing your word choice.

How do you decide what is good? You cannot communicate with god directly. 
And furthermore, how do you know that God is good?
And furthermore, explain to me the science behind something being factually good?
Good is subjective. Something can be perceived to be good or bad, depending on the individual, but it cannot exist as being good as fact.

(December 15, 2015 at 1:49 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 3:33 am)Heat Wrote: Yes, let's just assume everyone magically agree's there is no other factors to consider. Clearly if morality exists god must exist.

And you're here telling me the logic of that argument is solid?

No. Because that is not the argument.

If OBJECTIVE moral values exist, then there must be an independent standard from which these values are derived or against which they are evaluated.

Otherwise, our moral values are merely the result of personal preferences or social conventions.

This breaks down with the simple argument of 'why?'

(December 15, 2015 at 1:49 pm)athrock Wrote: If OBJECTIVE moral values exist, then there must be an independent standard from which these values are derived or against which they are evaluated.

Otherwise, our moral values are merely the result of personal preferences or social conventions.

Or even something else which isn't altogether understood in a way that is satisfying to all parties. I don't personally think moral values are objective. They seem to be precisely the sort of thing which exist subjectively. Why do you think they are objective?

Still trying to manufacture an objective morality out of agreement, Athrock?

(December 15, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Vincent Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 1:49 pm)athrock Wrote:

---

So, it's racial discrimination is okay under some circumstances, places and times? It's not always wrong to treat people differently because of the color of their skin?

I've already responded to and defeated this argument several times in the last post I made that you failed to reply to. You have a flawed understanding of subjective morality. 

Subjective is not what we perceive to be moral always and everywhere. Subjective is what is decided through feelings and opinions. And everything that man has ever declared immoral has been decided by his own perception of what is right and wrong. Thus, everything moral is subjective. 

I ask you again, what makes murder wrong?

Objective Moral Values are those that would still exist even if every single human being living on the planet were to be killed by a virus.

Murder would still be wrong. Racial discrimination would still be wrong. Even if there were no humans around to commit those acts.

Quote:

Quote:Euthyphro's Dilemma again. Answered previously. In brief, theists argue that God does not "decide" what is good; God IS good, and all things are measured against that absolute standard.

Alright. How? You're walking around the dilemma not by approaching it directly, but by changing your word choice.

How do you decide what is good? You cannot communicate with god directly. 
And furthermore, how do you know that God is good?
And furthermore, explain to me the science behind something being factually good?
Good is subjective. Something can be perceived to be good or bad, depending on the individual, but it cannot exist as being good as fact.  

Well, you're asking me to respond on behalf of theism, so okay...here's what I think a believer might say in response to your questions:

Theists would say that they CAN communicate with God directly. Further, they would say that He has initiated this contact (Judaism, Islam, etc.). Christians would say that God chose to become a man in order to communicate even more directly (though this was not the main reason). Above all, Christians hold that we all have an understanding of right and wrong that is hardwired into our makeup, so even people who have never heard of God still understand some truths about right and wrong.

God is good by definition. Evil is merely the absence of Good and not a thing in and of itself. God must be Good and cannot be bad.

Does science make determinations about "good" and "evil", between "right" and "wrong"?

Finally, the God of theism simply IS good, and all other things are determined to be good or bad depending upon how closely they correspond to his nature.

---

(December 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Heat Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 1:49 pm)athrock Wrote: No. Because that is not the argument.

If OBJECTIVE moral values exist, then there must be an independent standard from which these values are derived or against which they are evaluated.

Otherwise, our moral values are merely the result of personal preferences or social conventions.

This breaks down with the simple argument of 'why?'

No, the argument does not break down by asking a simple question.

Without an independent standard, then you and I are simply left with our own personal preferences of what is right and wrong. We may agree (social convention), but we may not.

---

(December 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Still trying to manufacture an objective morality out of agreement, Athrock?

Still trying to get people to think rather than simply accepting the silly notion that mere social convention is the basis for morality.

So, yeah.

(December 15, 2015 at 7:20 pm)athrock Wrote: Objective Moral Values are those that would still exist even if every single human being living on the planet were to be killed by a virus.

No. Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.

If humans went extinct, it would be a fact that humans believed that murder was wrong. But it would not be a fact that murder is factually wrong, because there is no sense of right and wrong in the universe. Universe don't care if someone kills someone else. Universe don't give a shit. 

Collective agreement based on mutual emotions and personal feelings between a species =/= objective fact. 

I ask you again, what makes murder wrong?

Quote:Theists would say that they CAN communicate with God directly. Further, they would say that He has initiated this contact (Judaism, Islam, etc.). Christians would say that God chose to become a man in order to communicate even more directly (though this was not the main reason).

To which I can only say this: prove it. If I claim that a unicorn manifested itself to me, and I believe so strongly that it happened, would I be right? Or would it be more reasonable to think that a psychological explanation lends greater credibility? 

Quote:Above all, Christians hold that we all have an understanding of right and wrong that is hardwired into our makeup, so even people who have never heard of God still understand some truths about right and wrong.

Then why is it that people have of the past felt it moral to rape women in a village they raided, or torture their enemies, or enslave their rivals? Why is it that if you dropped a baby born today into those times, it would grow up to act in the same manner? Is it because their wiring was fucked up or is it more probable that morals are just relative and change with time?

Quote:God is good by definition... God must be Good and cannot be bad.

Why? How do you know? Is it not you and other humans describing him as good? That perception of good and bad makes it subjective by definition. 

Quote:Does science make determinations about "good" and "evil", between "right" and "wrong"?

Science doesn't say anything about right and wrong. That is not the purpose or duty of science. It aims only to describe reality and the natural world as it is. It doesn't have an opinion about what is moral. 

Quote:the God of theism simply IS good, and all other things are determined to be good or bad depending upon how closely they correspond to his nature.

Ok. Prove it. 

(December 15, 2015 at 7:20 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Vincent Wrote: I've already responded to and defeated this argument several times in the last post I made that you failed to reply to. You have a flawed understanding of subjective morality. 

Subjective is not what we perceive to be moral always and everywhere. Subjective is what is decided through feelings and opinions. And everything that man has ever declared immoral has been decided by his own perception of what is right and wrong. Thus, everything moral is subjective. 

I ask you again, what makes murder wrong?

Objective Moral Values are those that would still exist even if every single human being living on the planet were to be killed by a virus.

Murder would still be wrong. Racial discrimination would still be wrong. Even if there were no humans around to commit those acts.

Quote:Alright. How? You're walking around the dilemma not by approaching it directly, but by changing your word choice.

How do you decide what is good? You cannot communicate with god directly. 
And furthermore, how do you know that God is good?
And furthermore, explain to me the science behind something being factually good?
Good is subjective. Something can be perceived to be good or bad, depending on the individual, but it cannot exist as being good as fact.  

Well, you're asking me to respond on behalf of theism, so okay...here's what I think a believer might say in response to your questions:

Theists would say that they CAN communicate with God directly. Further, they would say that He has initiated this contact (Judaism, Islam, etc.). Christians would say that God chose to become a man in order to communicate even more directly (though this was not the main reason). Above all, Christians hold that we all have an understanding of right and wrong that is hardwired into our makeup, so even people who have never heard of God still understand some truths about right and wrong.

God is good by definition. Evil is merely the absence of Good and not a thing in and of itself. God must be Good and cannot be bad.

Does science make determinations about "good" and "evil", between "right" and "wrong"?

Finally, the God of theism simply IS good, and all other things are determined to be good or bad depending upon how closely they correspond to his nature.

---

(December 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Heat Wrote: This breaks down with the simple argument of 'why?'

No, the argument does not break down by asking a simple question.

Without an independent standard, then you and I are simply left with our own personal preferences of what is right and wrong. We may agree (social convention), but we may not.

---

(December 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Still trying to manufacture an objective morality out of agreement, Athrock?

Still trying to get people to think rather than simply accepting the silly notion that mere social convention is the basis for morality.

So, yeah.

Any assumption that by definition God has to be responsible for any one thing is torn apart by the simple question "why?"

This is a false dichotomy. You are jumping to conclusions ignoring the logical process. Based on your logc, let's assume God exists, we'll then since magic exists Harry Potter must exist too. It makes no sense. As well, outside morality meaning the existence of God would only work if th morality was all the same, but it's not, it's not consistent.

Of course you can, Dylan. You can take a card to your mom on Mother's Day and donate blood twice a year. There you have it - proof that atheists can do good.

Clearly, there are atheists who act morally just as there are theists who act immorally.

But this is a strawman argument.

Theists don't say that atheists can't behave well without God, but two questions are not answered by your billboard:

1. How would you know that you have acted in an objectively moral way?
2. Who decides whether your behavior is "good"? You? Your friends and family?

What if all of your friends and family are psychopathic killers who think you have done a good thing by robbing a liquor store without leaving any living witnesses?

Is that being "good" in your personal opinion, Dylan?

I think the reason billboards like this are being purchased is because atheists recognize that the Moral Argument is one that they cannot really refute.

Find me a religion who's morality isn't subjective, and I'll convert.

What does "objectively moral" mean?

Can anyone tell me? I keep hearing the term, but I can't think of what that might actually be, beyond a meaningless phrase to imply the existence of something that likely does not and cannot exist.

And yes, we are social animals. Our societies determine what is right and wrong behavior, but it's hardly objective, and often wrong. Nature of the beast. We must all decide what is moral for ourselves, lest we agree with some principle (such as the form of slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46) that is not suited to the empathy in a normal conscience. Humans are capable of both social-program type morality, and of self-determination. Sometimes a person self-determines to do harm, so societies come up with ways to punish and discourage such destructive behaviors. So we do determine morality subjectively, on both a cultural and personal level.

Really, all the phrase "objective morality" does is attempt to assert that there is some universal moral law, as claimed in Romans, which is objectively not a reality when we look at the various definitions of what is moral throughout history and cultural studies. Some are more common than others, like not killing, because they are clearly destructive to societies, but every society has exceptions to the rule. The same is true for all the other items. The demonstration of the pro-slavery verses also demonstrates that even religious morality is not "objective", but shifts with time and cultures.

So the idea that the "Moral Argument" refutes anything is not only ridiculous, it's such an outright and obvious lie that the theist should spot it before making such an assertion contrary to the facts... but they never do. How sad.