Objectively, nothing matters.

Subjectively, everyone's life matters to them. If you don't care about other people's lives, then there's not much that can be done. If your only reason not to kill and maim is because you're sucking up to some sky daddy for better treatment in another imaginary life, then you are a psychopath, and by all means keep believing.

Chances are, most people who believe this aren't actually psycopaths, they've just swallowed the magical explanation for morality rather than the scientific one.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(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.

How strongly do you feel about the Big Bang as the likely beginning of the universe? Can it be proven as a historical event? Or do we simply reason that it must have occurred based on other things that we know (such as the observed expansion of the universe?) Aren't we reasoning that everything must have been denser previously?

Maybe this is going to fail because I'm not really up on things like dark energy and dark matter, etc., but it seems to me that scientists observe things and then hypothesize that other these things which they cant' actually observe must exist.

So, can't we use reasoning based upon things we can observe (like moral values or a finely-tuned universe) to determine that there must be a standard against which our values and obligations are measured or a tuner who designed everything?

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You clearly don't understand why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is satire.

Right.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(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.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Demonstrating that there is another "objective" source? And the methodology being employed is to eliminate all other options leaving a supreme being as the last best remaining explanation. IOW, if evolution, personal preference and societal convention are NOT the source of OMV's, then what is? And why?

YOUR argument fails, IMO, because what one society accepts another rejects. BZZZZZ! Nazis exterminated Jews, remember. Sorry, but that's not the technical definition of "objective". A truly objective moral value would exist even if every single person on the planet rejected it.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(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).

I agree that our values regarding the appropriate age for marriage have changed, but this is not proof that objective moral values do not exist. All this proves is that the age of marriage WAS NEVER AN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE.

So, yes, Rocket, I can agree that some moral values are based on societal convention, and I've never said that ALL moral values are objective nor have I denied the existence of subjective moral values. Got that?

But not all moral values are subjective. Some moral values are immutable, and these are objective moral values.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(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.

So, just to nail this down in a word, I hear you agreeing that female genital mutilation is always wrong. Yes or No.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(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?

Never. Don't be rude.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: "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.

This will depend upon how you respond to the above and the "Yes or No" question in particular.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 2) You have in no way demonstrated that even if such a thing did exist, it would have anything to do with God.

You have me there. I have had to spend far more time than I anticipated just getting otherwise intelligent people to see that yes, there are things that are right and wrong always and everywhere. I thought this would be intuitively obvious.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 3) You have in no way deflected from the above two facts by your false analogy and misleading restatements of my arguments.

Nor was there any intent to deflect. Please stop assigning negative motivations to me.

(December 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 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?

Lies and bullshit, eh? If that's all there was to the Moral Argument, Rocket, then it would have been quietly discarded as a useful tool by theist philosophers long ago.  I mean, why continue pitching softball arguments if your opponent is simply going to knock them out of the park?

No, the fact is that the Moral Argument makes atheists squirm...or attempt change the subject...as you have just done.

(December 22, 2015 at 12:14 pm)athrock Wrote:

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

Physically abusing children simply for the the fun of it.

Rape. Always and everywhere.

That's two.

athrock Wrote:A truly objective moral value would exist even if every single person on the planet rejected it.

Let's assume that every one on earth rejects these. Where and how does it/them continue to exist as a moral value?

(December 22, 2015 at 12:22 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(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?

Premarital sex? Sure, lots of people consider that "wrong" for religious reasons. Just no one you know maybe.

But your answer seems to center on "how you behave in this life...matters because it makes a difference in this life", so let me follow up with this:

If I make life better for my tribe at the expense of your tribe (think food, water, limited available resources, better schools, etc), have I done something that is good or bad?

And using my original example, being a Stalin clearly makes a difference in this life...it makes life better for me and my friends. Screw you. Or worse.

Why should I feel guilty about the fact that I'm enjoying my life to the fullest?

And if I'm genetically bigger, stronger, faster, or smarter than you are, is it my fault that I can kill and eat more red meat or get promoted to the top of the corporate ladder and you can't?

So, I don't think you've given me a reason why I should live one way or the other. You've given personal preferences about how I ought to live, but why should I care what you think?

(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? 

So your only options are to live as Georgian orthodox or Roman catholic? Somehow I don't think this is the argument you are trying to make.

Here's your argument from the other end: "Does it really matter if you live as if you were Terry Pratchett or Brendan Smyth?" It shows that religious people don't have a monopoly on morality.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have stated from the beginning that there is no such thing as this concept of "objective" morality you Christers keep pimping. You don't then get to turn around and say that I failed to demonstrate objective morality! That is your concept. Y'all made it up; like much in philosophy, it's an imaginary extreme used to demonstrate an idea, but it just doesn't play out in reality.

As to your example of FGM, do you know why they do that? They believe that their Ultimate Moral Lawgiver has said that women's place is to be breeders for one man, and remove the clitoris so she isn't tempted into sin by the ability to have sex for fun. To them, it is a moral act. To us, it is a horrifying breach of individual rights. Many things allegedly commanded by scripture are morally horrifying in this way (see e.g. Leviticus 25:44-46) to our modern idea of morality... but if we accept that morals come from the gods described by scripture, what basis is there to say it isn't, even when it conflicts with our post-Enlightenment values? This is true for slavery in Leviticus as much as for the FGM.

You can sneer at us all you like, but the fact remains that your concept of "objective" morality is not reality. It's a philosophy exercise, but it's not some kind of problem for atheists except in the minds of people who can't tell fantasy from reality.

(December 22, 2015 at 1:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 22, 2015 at 12:14 pm)athrock Wrote: Physically abusing children simply for the the fun of it.

Rape. Always and everywhere.

That's two.

athrock Wrote:A truly objective moral value would exist even if every single person on the planet rejected it.

Let's assume that every one on earth rejects these.  Where and how does it/them continue to exist as a moral value?

Are you asking if everyone on earth (every woman included, obviously) rejected the idea that rape is wrong, then would rape be okay? But then it's no longer rape, is it? It's just universally agreed that all sex is consensual.

Are you asking if a two-year old consents to having its head smashed against a concrete wall so that someone else can laugh at her crying or lifeless body, then it's okay?

What are you really asking?

athrock Wrote:A truly objective moral value would exist even if every single person on the planet rejected it.

"Exist." Sounds like ontological objectivity. Ontologically objective values are unfalsifiable bullshit. I mean, tell me: What would an ontologically objective value look like?

And don't give me Divine Command Theory because "because God said so" isn't objective, especially when "God" is also unfalsifiable.

(December 22, 2015 at 2:05 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 22, 2015 at 1:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Let's assume that every one on earth rejects these.  Where and how does it/them continue to exist as a moral value?

Are you asking if everyone on earth (every woman included, obviously) rejected the idea that rape is wrong, then would rape be okay? But then it's no longer rape, is it? It's just universally agreed that all sex is consensual.

Are you asking if a two-year old consents to having its head smashed against a concrete wall so that someone else can laugh at her crying or lifeless body, then it's okay?

What are you really asking?

I'm asking you where these moral values go to hide when they're not in people's heads? Are they in the rocks? Where and how do objective moral values exist?

Jor, I think we've reached the Ontological Bullshit Hour.