RE: How to easily defeat any argument for God
August 26, 2019 at 4:18 pm
(This post was last modified: August 26, 2019 at 4:35 pm by possibletarian.)
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.
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.
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'