You all fail to understand my argument.

Let us suppose everyone thinks the world is flat. This does not make it true - the earth will always be round.

Let us suppose everyone thinks being homosexual is wrong - is this the case? In the past we have seen 'immoral' acts become acceptable, such as homosexuality. We have seen acts which were acceptable (slavery) become 'immoral'. Private property exists in the USA, but not in Soviet Russia.

The shape of our planet can be proven, morality cannot be. Regardless of whether there are universal moral rights and wrongs the moral consensus at any given time exists as fact for the people of that time, determining what they get arrested for, feel guilty for etc. Does this not make morality 'real'? Does this not make God 'real' if belief in God influences the law, education etc?

We understand your argument, but it just isn't up to much, man.

I do see where you are coming from... But that place where it is from might be your ass.

No.

Reality is the part that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

Now belief and its consequences are real, so I see where you're going with the question. It's the belief that's real, not the object believed in.

(October 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm)DrDolittle Wrote: Does this not make God 'real' if belief in God influences the law, education etc?

Belief in god only alters one's perception of reality. Never does it become 'real'.
It alters one's perception of right, wrong, good and bad. Some for good, others not so much.
Instinctively, we desire to stand together, because we are social animals. While at the same time, instinctively, we despise and fear differences. As society and understanding advances, so does our ability to be more civil and tolerant of others. Our perception of right and wrong evolves with our advancement in knowledge and understanding.

(October 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No.

Reality is the part that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

Now belief and its consequences are real, so I see where you're going with the question. It's the belief that's real, not the object believed in.

Does that mean that morality has no intrinsic value? If it's only belief in something being immoral that makes it immoral how can we use morality to justify our decisions?

If everyone decides its morally acceptable to kill whoever they want does that make murder no longer immoral? And if so does belief that God doesn't exist make God no longer exist?

(October 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm)DrDolittle Wrote: If everyone decides its morally acceptable to kill whoever they want does that make murder no longer immoral?

but that isn't going to happen, is it...

Quote:If everyone decides its morally acceptable to kill whoever they want does that make murder no longer immoral?

If that happened, we as a species would destroy ourselves.

Quote:And if so does belief that God doesn't exist make God no longer exist?

Belief does not affect reality.

Everytime this troll comes back he always tries to steer the conversation to his silly belief that God = Morality.

There is just something wrong with the boy...

(October 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm)DrDolittle Wrote:

(October 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No.

Reality is the part that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

Now belief and its consequences are real, so I see where you're going with the question. It's the belief that's real, not the object believed in.

Does that mean that morality has no intrinsic value? If it's only belief in something being immoral that makes it immoral how can we use morality to justify our decisions?

If everyone decides its morally acceptable to kill whoever they want does that make murder no longer immoral? And if so does belief that God doesn't exist make God no longer exist?

Morality is a value judgment. It is almost by definition not an objective matter. You can't plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine the most moral course of action.

That said, morality when discussed in a naturalistic mindset without all the confusing baggage that religion brings, is understood as a matter of how we treat one another as fellow sentient beings. We have a sense of empathy and have decided murder is wrong because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. That which we would not want inflicted on us is morally wrong to inflict on others. Morality is subjective and yet there is a rational framework in which it can be discussed.

By the way, I say "confusing baggage" because religious thinking on morality lead one to demonize and obsess over victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. In fact, reading the holy books makes it clear that little time is spend on the evils of murder or rape and more on failure to adhere to religious faith and rituals.

Religious people like to say that without God, there is no basis for moral judgement or justification to use rational thought. "GodWillsIt" is their justification. But do they really think that they would find murder acceptable but for their religious belief? Would they really forsake rational thinking for the lack of belief that some sky father wrote their holy book? This philoso-babble is sophistry. They create a problem that doesn't exist and posit their god who they already believe exists to solve that problem and then use their invented solution to justify a belief they had all along.

I prefer to say "WeWillIt". We choose to use logic because it delivers the goods. We choose to use moral judgment because the social contract helps society function. These things create a far better world than magical thinking has for the thousand years that preceded the Enlightenment, both morally and rationally.

I don't see a problem with doing so.