(December 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 12:09 pm)Divinity Wrote: Find me a religion who's morality isn't subjective, and I'll convert.

1. If a god exists, then objective moral values must exist.
2. But objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, a god must exist.

Prove this wrong.

Start with Premise (2). Prove that objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 1: You haven't proven that god is the source for objective morals
Premise 2: You haven't established that objective morals exist, your merely asserting it.
Premise 3: Can't be accepted until you prove premise 1 and 2

We do not have to prove that objective morals do not exist, since you are claiming they exist you have to prove they exist, it's called the burden of proof.

(December 11, 2015 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: In post #40 you asked where I got my morals. I responded in post #54 and then asked you where you got your morals. As of yet, no response.

So, again, where do you get your morals from?

Next, you use the words god, angels, supreme being. Then you talk about "the theists". Almost painfully. Are you a theist?

athrock, are you ever going to respond to me as to where you get your morals from? I'm assuming a god. Which god? Got a description?

Again are you a theist? More specifically a christian theist?

(December 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm)athrock Wrote: Perhaps not but you can reason your way to an understanding that something exists. Surely there are concepts in everyday usage that might be used as imperfect examples of this process? What about imaginary numbers? Do they really exist? Or are they merely ideas that mathematicians agree upon? Merely "defining" the Flying Spaghetti Monster (by describing its characteristics) hasn't made it real, either...other than as an idea.

However, it seems to me that by use of our reason, we can conclude that there are certain moral values, duties and obligations that are universally accepted and therefore, objectively true. Of course, others including you, seem to dispute that objective moral values exist. Yet, even our lived experience seems to tell us that they do.

Have a care with the terms "we" and "us". No, I can't reason my way to an understanding that something exists. I can have it proved to me, and I can use my ability to reason to understand the proof (as in things like imaginary numbers and bosons), but they can't be reasoned into existence. They either exist, and can be demonstrated, or they don't.

You clearly don't understand why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is satire.

(December 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm)athrock Wrote: Whoops. Time out. There is an error in what you have written. I have repeatedly stated as you noted that "objective morality is that which is found universally in societies" but finding morality there does not imply that it is the societies themselves which are the source of this morality. I can find beer universally in fraternity houses but that fact does not mean the fraternities are the breweries, does it?

However, it is your insistence upon "exceptions and variations" that is the real issue. I see that you get to this point next.

False analogy. I have shown you that moral values are derived both from personal feelings (usually, hopefully, based on our evolved sense of empathy) and from societies. That means the societies are the breweries, when it comes to generating the agreed-upon sets of social/behavioral values we call "morality". It is plainly observed, and is basically what cultural anthropologists study for a living. If you're going to assert that there is another source, an "objective" source, then as has already been pointed out to you, you're going to have to demonstrate it.

(December 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm)athrock Wrote: That's an answer? That's YOUR answer to my question?

This is why I wonder if the Moral Argument may not be the Achilles' Heel of atheism. The inability to answer direct questions about morality must haunt the thinking skeptic. Non-thinkers suffer no ill effects, of course.

I thought I answered as directly as possible, including providing an example. In the most famous Morality Play on the planet, we're told the story of a virgin who gives birth to a demigod, and we know that in that time and culture, 13-14 year old girls were considered to be ready for marriage, etc. Today, we consider that abuse. It seems the most obvious possible example of shifting moral values, subjectively determined by cultures (and thus changing with those cultures).

(December 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm)athrock Wrote: So, if genital mutilation of female children is acceptable "over there", it's okay? C'mon...I don't believe you actually believe this.

No, and I said pretty much the opposite of "okay". But that's an idea you and I share because we have a particular set of western social values which say that it is not okay. Keep in mind that, while it's not the same (in terms of removing the ability to orgasm) as what happens to women, our culture also practices routine male genital mutilation for primarily religious reasons. At least, I know I'm circumcised. Why? Because it's a value of this culture.

(December 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm)athrock Wrote: You wrote: "there are...arguments to be made for the rights of every person, regardless of social prejudices. [emphasis added]"

I think you've just made my point.  

Are you being willfully dishonest?

"There are arguments to be made for" means that someone must make the argument. It's not universal, it's something that must be asserted as a right, argued for in front of others in order to convince them to agree, and sometimes it must be fought for. That's not the point you're making at all! So I must conclude that you are either being disingenuous or simply dense. I do not need to say something is universally wrong in order to judge it, nor does it need to be universal in order for enough of us to be horrified by it in order to act to counter those who find it perfectly acceptable.

Others have pointed it out to you, as well, but the fact remains that:

1) You have in no way demonstrated that there exists such a thing as "objective" morality.
2) You have in no way demonstrated that even if such a thing did exist, it would have anything to do with God.
3) You have in no way deflected from the above two facts by your false analogy and misleading restatements of my arguments.

Far from being an Achilles' heel of atheism, it's starting to look to me like this may be an A.H. for religion, since you guys keep asserting this concept known as "objective morality" which appears to be made up entirely of lies and bullshit. Ironically, that makes it not a very moral thing (according to my subjective, Western post-Enlightenment standard, anyway) to do when trying to claim the moral high ground as religionists. Try a different approach, perhaps?

(December 18, 2015 at 11:18 am)athrock Wrote: 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?

I can't believe you're still trying to polish this turd of objective morality, my friend. 

1. Neither the billboard nor atheists say that they are acting in an objectively moral way. They only claim to be acting morally. Morally meaning, in accordance to the acceptable standards of morality present in one's society. 

2. The culture and society you live in decides whether your behavior is good. Derpaderp obviously. 

Quote: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?

 
The only reason you think that an immoral action is because you were raised in a society that taught it to be so. Why don't you visit and live in a third-world country for a while, where people don't have enough resources or wealth in their pockets to keep themselves alive and you'll soon see morality behind stealing. 

Quote: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.

Most intelligent people understand that when we say "morality" we mean "our society's morality" or else, subjective morality. Seriously fam, let this objective shit go. Name one objective moral that exists, and I'll prove it to be subjective by definition. Morality itself is a subjective concept. Thus anything created under it is inherently subjective.

(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.

Epistemically objective or ontologically objective?

1. If you mean epistemically objective your argument is invalid. Science is epistemically objective and no scientist is an absolute arbiter or god.
2. If you mean ontologically objective, what would that even mean? That there's some absolute right and wrong "out there" that is only knowable by a supreme mind that doesn't even exist, and that this absolute right and wrong that is "out there" is completely indistinguishable from its nonexistence from the perspective of actual human beings whom actually exist?

I haven't read through all this, but I'll throw in my thoughts:

I define morality as a value judgement, usually regarding an action or attitude. It requires some sort of intelligence to make that judgement. The criteria for the value judgement are essentially arbitrary, and as such totally subjective. We do happen to mostly agree, very generally, on some aspects of how this value should be calculated. But even regarding those areas, there is no consensus on the details.

We can objectively measure physical outcomes, but it's in how those outcomes are assessed that morality comes in.

Individuals have their own morality, and each society has moral norms which represent the most popular views. These are all entirely dynamic.

I've never heard anyone define objective morality in such a way that it means anything useful. If the value formula is fixed, then someone, or some group, has to decide how to fix it, and then "objective morality" just becomes that person(s) subjective morality. If it "just is" a certain way, then it's arbitrary and therefor useless.

No one who seems to think objective morality is a thing has been able to give me a single non-trivial example of a real life situation showing this in action. By non-trivial, I mean there is at least some conflict going on between potential outcomes. If "objective morality" can't handle anything more complicated than shooting people in the head is worse than not shooting people in the head, then it's no more than common sense. And that still doesn't account for why anyone should care that someone is being shot in the head anyway, until some way of measuring morality has been agreed. And it's in agreeing that way of measuring it that no consensus can ever be reached, even if the basics can be roughly thrashed out.

The biggest problem with the moral argument for god, is that there's no reason for god to be required for moral objectivity. Morals are a human construct. The second biggest problem is that morals are all subjective. They only appear to be objective due to social conditioning. So it's a nice try, but it falls flat pretty quickly.

(December 18, 2015 at 11:18 am)athrock Wrote:

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.

Your nonsense still baffles.

_______________________________________________

(December 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm)athrock Wrote: Start with Premise (2). Prove that objective moral values do not exist.

You are the one making the claim, it is your job to substantiate the claim.

Since you have shown us absolutely no evidence so far to substantiate your claim, we can safely dismiss it without evidence. It is not our place to do your job.

If there is no heaven, no hell and life ends at the grave, then does it really matter whether one chooses to live one's life as a Stalin or as a St. Francis? 

Why or why not?

---

(December 18, 2015 at 7:38 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm)athrock Wrote: However, it seems to me that by use of our reason, we can conclude that there are certain moral values, duties and obligations that are universally accepted and therefore, objectively true.

Name one.

Physically abusing children simply for the the fun of it.

Rape. Always and everywhere.

That's two.

(December 22, 2015 at 12:14 pm)athrock Wrote: If there is no heaven, no hell and life ends at the grave, then does it really matter whether one chooses to live one's life as a Stalin or as a St. Francis? 

Why or why not?

These are the options? Really?

And yes how you behave in this life (the only one we have any evidence of) matters because it makes a difference in this life. Do you really think many people consider possible punishment in an afterlife when deciding whether to feed the squirrels, visit grandma, or have premarital sex?