(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: First, your asserting there is an absolute moral law(s).

Is not incest or to torcher a baby reckon as absolute immoral? If so then from where that sense of absoluteness comes from?

In the absence of God there are no objective moral values and duties. Ethics is basically a subjective illusion of human beings.

Historically, governing by absolute morality is favoured because it simplifies the creation of laws, obedience to them, and it facilitates the judicial process.

Ethical obligations are based on external moral principles (“higher truths”) that are absolute, invariable and do not allow for exceptions or extenuating circumstances. These principles create absolute duties that must be performed regardless of the consequences and in spite of social conventions and natural inclinations to the contrary. There are no exceptions, no excuses.

First off, an absolute moral law is moral always for everyone.

Giving examples of possible absolute moral laws doesn't prove they're absolute.

God forcing his laws by might-is-right doesn't make it absolute nor objective.

Historically, we governed by an agreed morality. This is why we no longer consider slavery moral.

Ethical obligations are based on external moral principles that are NOT necessarilly absolute.

Quote:

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: Second, the data is not on your side. For example, the atheist prison population is about 1%.

Someone should be naïve enough to assert such an illogical comparison.

According to “Population Matters” there are 7.125 billion (2013) inhabitants in the world.

http://www.populationmatters.org/?gclid=...tAod32gAgg

“Atheists comprise an estimated 2.01% of the world population.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Let us do a simple math:

Case one:
If you mean that atheist prisoners are only 1% of total prison population than according to above mentioned statistics:

Atheist = 2.01% of the total world population

Total world population = 7 billion

2.01% Atheist population = 140,700,000

1% atheist prisoners of total world population = 70,000,000

Above calculation shows, 50.2% atheists of total atheist population are spending their lives in prisons.

You know there are countries where just being an atheist is illegal. So taking the world population gives you a skewed view. So I'll narrow it down to the US.

So the latest statistics say that there are 0.07% atheist are in federal prisons
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...-imagined/
1.6% atheist in the U.S.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Total population in US is 313.9 million people
Total population in Federal Prisons is 214,506.
So 5,022,400 atheist in the US and 150 atheist are in prison. So that is 0.003% of atheist in prison.

Quote:

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: Third, atheism is not a world view, so it doesn't provide a moral code to live by. Secularism and humanism are atheistic world views.

You can say that God does not exist, that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved, that we develop our own morals, etc. Your disbelief in God is the standard of how you perceive the world.

No, I don't say God does not exist. I say the existence of God has not been proven; hence, I will live my life as if God doesn't exist until he is proven to exist.

A worldview requires positive claims. Atheism is not a worldview because atheism is a negation of one claim (no positive claim). The worldview an atheist develops can be Humanism, Buddaism, etc...

Quote:However, this demonstrates your concern about the world, purpose, morals, etc. You may say that every atheist has his own personal worldview and based on that you can argue that atheism is not a worldview. If atheism is not a worldview then every atheist, lives with a subjective worldview, which display a defective understanding of social relations. It is not surprising that selfishness has found favour with most of those who subscribe to the worldview of secular modernity.

People having different world views makes them subjective and 'defective understanding of social relations?' So all the different Christian denominations that have different world views means all the Christians' world views are subjective which display a defective understanding of social relations. It is not surprising that selfishness has found favour with most of those who subscribe to the worldview of Christianity.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: First, your asserting there is an absolute moral law(s).

Is not incest or to torcher a baby reckon as absolute immoral? If so then from where that sense of absoluteness comes from?

In the absence of God there are no objective moral values and duties. Ethics is basically a subjective illusion of human beings.

Abosolute moral laws and objective moral laws are not the same thing. Absolute means that they apply in all circumstances without exception. Objective means they are independent of subjective opinion. If God thought up these laws then your religious laws are not objective either, as they depend on the subjective opinion of God. Being a god doesn't make your pronouncements objective.

Are there absolute moral laws? It's an interesting question, but since the subject is whether God's law provides a foundation for morals that secular views cannot, it is irrelevant. Since your religious laws are dependent on the being called God they are thoroughly subjective, whether they are absolute or not. Since your religion doesn't provide an objective foundation for morals, only a secular morality or that of a different religion than yours can provide an objective moral code.

(September 24, 2014 at 8:29 pm)rasetsu Wrote: If God thought up these laws then your religious laws are not objective either, as they depend on the subjective opinion of God. Being a god doesn't make your pronouncements objective.

Are there absolute moral laws? It's an interesting question, but since the subject is whether God's law provides a foundation for morals that secular views cannot, it is irrelevant. Since your religious laws are dependent on the being called God they are thoroughly subjective, whether they are absolute or not. Since your religion doesn't provide an objective foundation for morals, only a secular morality or that of a different religion than yours can provide an objective moral code.

Wow that's GOOD rasetsu! I have saved that pic for future use. Thanks a bunch!

Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck did you guys read all that bullshit? I can't even begin to muster the patience it takes to read something so long and stupid from the get go, let alone put the work in to counter. You guys are goddamned professionals.

(September 24, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Exian Wrote: Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck did you guys read all that bullshit? I can't even begin to muster the patience it takes to read something so long and stupid from the get go, let alone put the work in to counter. You guys are goddamned professionals.

I read the first paragraph and realized it was going to be a waste of time, so I scrolled down to see the conclusion.

(September 24, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Exian Wrote: Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck did you guys read all that bullshit? I can't even begin to muster the patience it takes to read something so long and stupid from the get go, let alone put the work in to counter. You guys are goddamned professionals.

Somebody read it?

I just read the beginning and the parts that were direct replies to me.

Cheaters! How do you know the parts you didn't read weren't spot on?

(September 24, 2014 at 10:41 pm)Exian Wrote: Cheaters! How do you know the parts you didn't read weren't spot on?

Does that seem likely to you?

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Although atheism fails to answer this dilemma, it sternly criticise morals based on religion by undermining the fact that religion is the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life.

Given the entirety of history, this statement is clearly false and fatally undermines any thesis you might be developing. I can't say what that might be, because I stopped when I read this laughably naive sentence.