The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

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.

LOL.

The Moral Argument posits that objective moral values exist; it's the theists burden to prove that they do. At the same time, the atheist (and this means you this time) posits that objective moral values do not exist (ie, that all moral values are subjective); it's your burden to prove that all moral values are purely subjective.

Your explanation that Mary's marriage at a young age was appropriate then but not know merely demonstrates that the age of marriage is NOT and never was an objective moral value. 

So, you attempted to give an example of how society makes up its moral values subjectively as it goes along. And that may be true in SOME cases (the age of marriage being one), but you fail to prove thereby that objective moral values do not exist, and you have not proven that all moral values are subjective. 

You haven't proven yourself right or me wrong with this example.

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.

And as I have explained twice now, I have not said that you failed to prove the existence of OMV's. You simply failed to show that all moral values are subjective.

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.

Sneer? Rocket, this is really poor thinking. I have not argued for a Jewish god or a Christian god. I'm simply asking the questions that arise from considering the argument for ANY god, and this has you completely unraveled. I'm not asking you to be a Christer, but you're not merely a-Christ or a-Krishna -- you're a-theist. So, you reject all gods or concepts of god, and I'm asking you to give a coherent explanation as to why you deny the existence of ANY supreme being in light of what appears to be a solid moral argument in favor of one.

And this you have not done.

Look, I get that you are a former Christian, and you have a big chip on your shoulder. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you can adequately explain the existence or non-existence of moral values that appear to be objective and NOT the result of personal preference or societal convention.

As a thoughtful a-theist, don't you owe it to yourself to have an answer?

---

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?

Two days ago, I watched the documentary, "India's Daughter". Have you seen it? It's available for free on Netflix.

India's Daughter covers the story of the rape and murder of Jyoti Singh, a young medical student, who was assaulted by six men on a bus in Delhi in 2012.

The producer interviewed many people involved with the case including Jyoti's parents and friends, the convicted men and their parents, lawyers on both sides and various government officials.

The attitude of the attackers and their lawyers seems to reflect an ancient (thought changing in part because of this case) cultural understanding that any woman who goes out of her home in the evening without a family member (she went to see a movie with a male friend) is asking to be raped. By wearing certain clothing, women are asking to be raped. It's not the man's fault - how can men be expected to control themselves when women are so provocative? And if she hadn't struggled and merely accepted the gang rape, she wouldn't have been killed. So, this is all on her.

Now, Jorm, let me ask: if everyone in India decided that women are always responsible for being raped, would that make it right in your mind? And if you, personally, decided that Jyoti had no right to go to see a movie, would that make her rape okay?

Or is it really the case that because you think she deserved to be raped for violating a cultural convention, it's perfectly acceptable because all moral values are subjective?

As for where and how OMV's exist, that's what the Argument seeks to establish. 

But that's putting the cart before the horse if there is no agreement that they even exist at all.