The Moral Argument for God

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

"True in some cases"? What!? You went from listing examples of things that you considered to be objective morals, shared by all; I showed you that even in cases of things that seem like moral absolutes, there are exceptions, including the concept of the Age of Consent (the story of the virgin Mary, in this example). I showed you that even FGMs are considered to be a moral action by the people who do that, based on that same invented concept of Objective (read: divine) Morality.

I have posited the very simple concept that your claim is invented nonsense, since every example I can see is an example of moral relativity, based on the cultures that devise them. It has been well established that societies benefit if they have social rules of behavior (what we like to call morals), with laws to back many/most of them up, that limit the harm done by individuals to that society, in comparison to those which do not (anarchy), which is hardly a controversial statement. You do not get to shift the burden of proof back to me by claiming I have made some wild, unsubstantiated claim... until you establish that Objective Morals even exist, subjective moral codes established by society is the default. I have already listed examples of how societies vary widely on their concepts of "what is moral", and that the things considered moral by those societies alter over time even within the same society (such that the Bible no longer dovetails neatly with the moral code of most post-Enlightenment Christians, as it did with the early Christians and Hebrews), so it is clear that moral codes are a subjective, cultural thing, despite your claims to the contrary. You're the only one here making a claim. I am simply showing you that the answers to the questions "What is moral behavior?" and/or "Is ____ moral?" will change depending on what city you're asking in.

If you can find an example where this is not true, I'd love to hear it.

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.

So let me get this straight... you start with the claim (paraphrased), "If you atheists don't believe in God, then how can you say one moral behavior is better than another?", a basic summary of your perception of the weakness of moral subjectivity, which presumes that morals are subjective (and thus, apparently, random) unless one follows the dictates of a Moral Lawgiver... then you try to bait-and-switch and pretend that I must now establish that morals are subjective?

I don't know a way to "prove that all moral values are subjective", except to show you examples of ones that seem like they'd be universally prohibited but in fact are not so, even in societies that consider themselves to be based on the height of human moral thinking, as in the FGM example. It is why I have repeatedly invited you to show me an example that you think I cannot show is in fact subjective. (I'm not expecting you to actually acknowledge that I have done so, just as you have not acknowledged my challenges to you to back up your statements that we gave up Christianity because we don't understand it by providing me an example of something about Christianity you think I can't grasp. You seem more content to sling dire insults our way, couched in polite language, and then take umbrage when we insult you in return. It's a fundamental form of dishonesty and is why I am becoming less-polite with you.)

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?

"Completely unraveled"? Are you taking hallucinogens? First of all, I did not leave my church in anger, nor did I have anything but positive experiences there until the moment I started asking questions that undermined the teachings of the church, just before I left... and even then, it was not hostile until I was thrown out of my house for refusing to attend church. I'm not even angry about that, at this point in my life. The only chip I carry has to do with hearing the lies about atheists repeated, over and again, until people actually believe the horrible things about us. The "subjective moralists are immoral" argument being first among the ones that are nothing but slander, and which make me angry. (I'm also pretty angry when I see science abused for ideological purposes of any kind, but that's a different conversation.) The reason I assume you are a Christian but just playing irritatingly coy is because I don't really hear this argument from other religionists, except the occasional Muslim... your phrasing of these questions and philosophies dovetails nicely with a lot of the latest that's coming from the Christian Apologetics Factories™, as I call them, so if I had to bet my last dollar, I'd say you're a Christian. And if you're a Christian, then you're playing rhetorical games just to try to win an argument via disingenuous means.

On to my point (the bold emphasis, above)... what "moral values that appear to be objective" would you be talking about? I don't know of any... but I'm willing to listen. So I guess I'll make my fifth request that you provide an example of such, since it's apparent to you but not to me. I don't think you can.