(December 14, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(December 14, 2013 at 8:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I think your father is full of shit.

Most xtians are.

Blunt as ever eh Min?

Quote:"You believe in an absolute moral philosophy. What is the basis for that?

He makes an assertion and then attributes it to someone else. Yes. That makes him full of shit.

Check out the atrocities of the OT that were commanded and/or carried out by god. God doesn't keep to his own laws and commands others to break those laws at his whim. The morality of god is far from absolute, so if there is such a thing as absolute morality then it cannot come from god. To claim otherwise is to show either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

I would ask him why other herd animals treat there own kind with a type of morality code. Why do Bonabos and chimpanzees have developed social mores? Why would human social mores not follow logic and be more advanced befitting our increased mental capacity? Why would he think our human morals are out of sync with the expected level as observed from evolution?

Then I would ask him if he had any morals before he became a christian? Where did he get his morals from if they weren't from his mother and father, who got theirs from their mother and father and so on as would be expected from evolutionary processes. For his morals to have come from god, he would have had to have had them "injected" at some time after birth. Ask him what day god injected his babies with goodness, or were they always good?

Your dad is putting the cart before the horse.

First, ask him to prove the existence of an absolute moral standard, and then have him prove that it must come from a moral lawgiver. By trying to answer his question in such a manner, you are allowing him to take conclusions he needs to prove as a given.

Every single person I have ever seen appeal to an absolute moral standard is making an appeal to emotion in the hopes that no one will question them about its existence.

First of all, I'd question him on why god's opinion on morality is somehow absolute, because merely appealing to him as the creator of the universe doesn't give his thoughts on good and evil any more credence.

Second, try pointing out all of the old testament moral pronouncements that your dad himself doesn't follow; technically, he's meant to kill you if you don't believe. No doubt you'll get the excuse that the old testament no longer applies, in which case, you've got him: how can a moral system change, and still be absolute?

Finally, ask your dad why god selected X set of actions as morally good, and Y set of actions as morally evil. Does god have a reason for doing that, or is it just a random grab bag of the guy's opinions, with nothing to base it on? If it's just god's opinion, then it's hardly absolute, but moreover your dad is admitting that his moral code isn't based on anything real, just someone else's opinions. If it's not an opinion, if there's reasons god chose those specific moral guidelines, then ask him what those are, and why those practical concerns wouldn't occur to an atheist with sufficient thought, with or without a god. Don't let him just say that god's reasons for doing what he did is that he knows what's morally right and wrong, or some shit, because that's just circular reasoning. Try and pin him down on what reasons god might have, for example, of making murder a sin.

Quote:Why do Bonabos and chimpanzees have developed social mores?

Not particularly germane to the topic at hand, but this reminded me of the time I saw a news-type person who didn't quite understand the difference between bonobos and chimps. The primatologist she was interviewing thought for a moment and said, 'If you put a cardboard box into an enclosure with two chimps, they'll fight to see who gets to keep it. If you put a cardboard box into an enclosure with two bonobos, they'll climb into it and have sex.'

On second thought, maybe it IS germane to the topic...

Boru

What these guys said basically.

Quote:that makes it arbitrary. A person's philosophy of murder is as good as anyone else's. There needs to be something else that comes up with a moral law: a moral law giver

All communication is arbitrary. Your dad must first prove that there is a lawgiver and that he has given laws. We can demonstrate that the bible was penned by men, thus making it second hand information and not revelation. Remind him of the contradictory accounts of certain events and most importantly remind him that the bible is the CLAIM not the evidence for the claim.

Simply ask him why there must be a moral law giver. Demonstrate that the bible was written by men using their own arbitrary and rather primitive moral and legal systems and show that they are no different to a contemporary moral system. The second a human pens down an idea it becomes basically as valid as any guff from the bible. When multiple humans agree on an idea it becomes consensus. When, over time, huge numbers of people agree that on the whole a certain idea has merit and is worth adhering to (let's say, not murdering for example) then it become a moral code. This is exactly how bible laws were dished out, only with less consensus and more coercion typically, making them more fascist than democratic. Until your father can prove that there is a lawgiver and that his specific scripture is the real law, which he can't do, then he has crushed his own argument. And even if he does use crafty word play, simply use his own argument to insist that the qur'an is the correct law, because every single point he makes could be ported to Islamic law, or Hindu law etc.

(December 14, 2013 at 8:54 pm)Severan Wrote: I tried the evolutionary social being stuff already and he said: "that makes it arbitrary. A person's philosophy of murder is as good as anyone else's. There needs to be something else that comes up with a moral law: a moral law giver". I agree, in that he is full of shit.

Morality should work something like this:

I won't murder you, because I don't want you to murder me.
I won't steal from you, because I don't want you to steal from me. etc etc

It's all to do with the interactions of people, and making sure we can get along together. One man living alone on an island has no need of a moral code.

If you and a group of people go an live on an island and decide what rules you do and don't obey, then they would probably be similar to those above, plus a fair few more.

I'd say it is arbitrary, but if you repeated this experiment a fair few times, the rules would probably be very similar. (The exception being if you put a few hardcore Christians/Jews/Muslims etc onto the island)*

* That would make a great TV show, until they all abandoned the don't murder rule on day 2.

Thanks. I'll be sure to tell him this.

And send him here if he doesn't get the picture