(August 25, 2019 at 1:48 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(August 24, 2019 at 5:35 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: That was Simon Moon. I happen to disagree

So there is no objective morality, every atheist has his own opinion.

Even if every atheist has a subjective opinion of morality, that does not make their subjective opinion, moral. If it interferes with other sentient beings well being, it is immoral.

There is a difference between situational ethics/morality, and subjective morality. Most theists are unable to understand the difference.

Quote:It is impossible to be nice to atheists that killed 100 million people

First, I'll go for the low hanging fruit. Hitler was not an atheist.

Second, even if Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were atheists, their motivation for their mass murderous regimes was not disbelief in gods. Their motivation was being totalitarian dictators.

What they actually did, was replace the bad dogma of an infallible god, with the bad dogma of an infallible State. Bad dogma leads to murderous regimes, not disbelief in deities.

If atheism makes for such murderous countries, how do explain; Sweden (80% atheist), Denmark (70% atheist), Norway (70%), Japan, France, Finland, all over 50% atheist populations. Where are the mass murdering Swedish regimes?
What they actually did, was replace the bad dogma and doctrine of an infallible god, with the bad dogma and doctrine of an infallible "State". Bad dogma is what creates totalitarian murderous dictators, not lack of belief in deities.

(August 26, 2019 at 2:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Even if every atheist has a subjective opinion of morality, that does not make their subjective opinion, moral. If it interferes with other sentient beings well being, it is immoral.

Isn’t the “you should do things that are beneficial to the wellbeing of society, and you shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to it” a subjective opinion/goal you assigned yourself, and want others to share with you?

if I rejected this, it wouldn’t be a rejection of some objective truth, right? Just a dismissing of your personal preferences?

(August 26, 2019 at 2:17 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 2:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Even if every atheist has a subjective opinion of morality, that does not make their subjective opinion, moral. If it interferes with other sentient beings well being, it is immoral.

Isn’t the “you should do things that are beneficial to the wellbeing of society, and you shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to it” a subjective opinion/goal you assigned yourself, and want others to share with you?

if I rejected this, it wouldn’t be a rejection of some objective truth,  right? Just a dismissing of your personal preferences?

Once again, conflating "oughts" with "ises".

(August 26, 2019 at 2:21 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 2:17 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Isn’t the “you should do things that are beneficial to the wellbeing of society, and you shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to it” a subjective opinion/goal you assigned yourself, and want others to share with you?

if I rejected this, it wouldn’t be a rejection of some objective truth,  right? Just a dismissing of your personal preferences?

Once again, conflating "oughts" with "ises".

That doesn’t answer the question.

So do you acknowledge the ought here as a subjective opinion, and not an objective truth?

If I reject it, it wouldn’t be a rejection of some objective truth, but just your opinion on how you wish I behave, or act in accordance to?

(August 26, 2019 at 2:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 2:21 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Once again, conflating "oughts" with "ises".

That doesn’t answer the question.

So do you acknowledge the ought here as a subjective opinion, and not an objective truth?

No.

If the goal is well being, then there are objective moral actions (based on the objective laws of the universe) that will increase, have no effect, or decrease well being.

Take chess for example. The rules are arbitrary, but once the goal is decided on (winning the game), there are objective truths about the best moves to make, that will lead to that goal

Quote:If I reject it, it wouldn’t be a rejection of some objective truth, but just your opinion on how you wish I behave, or act in accordance to?

It is not opinion.

Is it simply my opinion that, with respect to the goal of well being, life is preferable to death?

(August 26, 2019 at 3:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 2:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: That doesn’t answer the question.

So do you acknowledge the ought here as a subjective opinion, and not an objective truth?

No.

If the goal is well being, then there are objective moral actions (based on the objective laws of the universe) that will increase, have no effect, or decrease well being.

Take chess for example. The rules are arbitrary, but once the goal is decided on (winning the game), there are objective truths about the best moves to make, that will lead to that goal

Quote:If I reject it, it wouldn’t be a rejection of some objective truth, but just your opinion on how you wish I behave, or act in accordance to?

It is not opinion.

Is it simply my opinion that, with respect to the goal of well being, life is preferable to death?

Why do atheists like yourself get tripped over a fairly straightforward question? Is it that scary?

I’m not asking about things in respect to the goal, but about the nature of the goal itself.

Here I’ll ask the question again, let’s see if you can answer this time without the song and dance.

The goal in your moral frame work is the maximization of human well being.

You come up to me and tell me that I ought to do things that are beneficial to well being, and shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to wellbeing.

If I reject this, telling you no, I’ll do whatever I like to do regardless of whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to the wellbeing of others. In doing so have I rejected an objective truth, like 1+1=2, or the earth is round?

I haven’t right?

All I’ve rejected is some goal you wish I subscribe to, some subjective goal you want me to subscribe to.

(August 26, 2019 at 3:38 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 3:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: No.

If the goal is well being, then there are objective moral actions (based on the objective laws of the universe) that will increase, have no effect, or decrease well being.

Take chess for example. The rules are arbitrary, but once the goal is decided on (winning the game), there are objective truths about the best moves to make, that will lead to that goal


It is not opinion.

Is it simply my opinion that, with respect to the goal of well being, life is preferable to death?

Why do atheists like yourself get tripped over a fairly straightforward question? Is it that scary?

I’m not asking about things in respect to the goal, but about the nature of the goal itself.

Here I’ll ask the question again, let’s see if you can answer this time without the song and dance.

The goal in your moral frame work is the maximization of human well being.

You come up to me and tell me that I ought to do things that are beneficial to well being, and shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to wellbeing.  

If I reject this, telling you no, I’ll do whatever I like to do regardless of whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to the wellbeing of others. In doing so have I rejected an objective truth, like 1+1=2, or the earth is round?

I haven’t right?

All I’ve rejected is some goal you wish I subscribe to, some subjective goal you want me to subscribe to.

Once again, conflating the "oughts" with the "ises" and confusing yourself in the process.

1+1=2 is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is".

Beneficial/detrimental to wellbeing is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is". You ought to consider one's wellbeing is the goal.

(August 26, 2019 at 3:50 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 3:38 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Why do atheists like yourself get tripped over a fairly straightforward question? Is it that scary?

I’m not asking about things in respect to the goal, but about the nature of the goal itself.

Here I’ll ask the question again, let’s see if you can answer this time without the song and dance.

The goal in your moral frame work is the maximization of human well being.

You come up to me and tell me that I ought to do things that are beneficial to well being, and shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to wellbeing.  

If I reject this, telling you no, I’ll do whatever I like to do regardless of whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to the wellbeing of others. In doing so have I rejected an objective truth, like 1+1=2, or the earth is round?

I haven’t right?

All I’ve rejected is some goal you wish I subscribe to, some subjective goal you want me to subscribe to.

Once again, conflating the "oughts" with the "ises" and confusing yourself in the process.

1+1=2 is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is".

Beneficial/detrimental to wellbeing is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is". You ought to consider one's wellbeing is the goal.

You’re conflating the ought with the is. I’m not asking about the is (what is it is not beneficial to well being) but the ought ( I ought to do what’s beneficial to wellbeing).

I’m pointing out that that the ought is just some subjective goal, something you wish other people like myself subscribe to, and not an objective truth. Ain’t that right?

This seems to be the million dollar question many atheists seem scared to answer. Am I just gonna get some more song and dance from you?

I've never really seen the issue here, for me it's not whether morals (as in a set of rules) is objective or subjective or not, but rather why do theists think it could ever be objective given that's it's made up.

To me it's obviously evolved in societies tribal even, there are many differences around the world to what people consider being moral, most of what we agree on obviously has benefit for us all, to have a punishment for murder means that we are less likely to be murdered for instance, less likely to be stolen from if there is a punishment for such, this puts an objective goal on everyone abiding by the same rules, simply to not face punishments for breaking those agreed rules.


I find the whole moral argument a little odd to be honest, I always understood it based on self preservation, with the details to achieve that goal made up.   To argue that a objective super intelligent superbeing made them up otherwise they could not exist is beyond stupid in my opinion.  Self preservation (both as individuals, societies, even genders)  explains us agreeing on a moral code in a much simpler elegant way, while at the same time explaining the differences in how societies moral codes differ.

Believing a deity gave a set of rules does not make it truly objective unless of course you can prove that such deity exists, it just states a belief.

(August 26, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 3:50 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Once again, conflating the "oughts" with the "ises" and confusing yourself in the process.

1+1=2 is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is".

Beneficial/detrimental to wellbeing is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is". You ought to consider one's wellbeing is the goal.

You’re conflating the ought with the is. I’m not asking about the is (what is it is not beneficial to well being) but the ought ( I ought to do what’s beneficial to wellbeing).

I’m pointing out that that the ought is just some subjective goal, something you wish other people like myself subscribe to, and not an objective truth. Ain’t that right?

It's a goal. Goals are always subjective. They're not deduced logically from the is.

Quote:This seems to be the million dollar question many atheists seem scared to answer. Am I just gonna get some more song and dance from you?

Says the guy whose username is Acrobat.