RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
April 15, 2015 at 9:18 am
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2015 at 9:54 am by DeistPaladin.)
A few important points:
Definitions Straightened Out
What's Your Point Again? How Does This Prove God?
So your line of reasoning is apparently:
Conflation Fallacy: "Subjective" Does Not Necessarily Mean "Relativism"
Not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are based on facts while others are just bare assertions. This is why we debate subjective values and opinions at all. If it were not so, there would be no point to any discussion of anything subjective.
Therefore, "subjective morality" does not mean "anything goes".
We can subjectively evaluate that certain things are "wrong" because of the damage they do, the impact they have, the freedoms they curtail, the intrusion on the lives of others, etc. We can logically argue and debate these things and call upon studies and other data to back up our assertions. There are many tools we have used by philosophers from Bentham's Utilitarianism to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to Mill's Social Contract. I can go into much further detail but I trust I've made my point.
The fact that we can have this discussion at all underscores just how vapid the Christian apologists are when they insist on this simplistic false dichotomy of "either personal God or anything goes". Having a "personal God" doesn't get them Objective Morals and lacking a God doesn't mean anything goes.
Euthyphro's Dilemma
If things are good because God wills them to be so, then "morality" is nothing more than God's arbitrary fiats and this is nothing more than "might makes right." Hardly a good basis for morality.
The "solution" posited by Christians at this point is to babble nearly incoherently of both-yet-neither. Like their Trinity, they want their cake and to eat it too. They'll say something along the lines of "goodness is the very substance of God" or "God is the very substance of goodness" or some other inscrutable babble. This attempted escape is thick with logical fallacies, from bare assertions to question begging.
Hope this helps.
Continued from above...
...And Then We Crack Open The Bible...
So if your god is so great at determining right and wrong, whether by judgment or arbitrary fiat or some woo-ish being-the-substance-of-goodness-whatever-that-means, then why does your god's Holy Word fail so miserably at even moral no-brainers?
The Bible has rules for slavery, how to buy and sell slaves, how to beat your slaves, how to rape your slaves, etc. During their campaign into "The Promised Land" the servants of your god were told to murder and enslave and take their women for themselves. The Bible has many laws that would be considered barbaric by modern sensibilities. The Bible fails miserably to establish either democracy or equality, instead supporting the Divine Right of kings and perpetuating the subjugation of women.
The Christian will at this point tie themselves into knots coming up with the most obtuse interpretations and dismissing you as a "fundy atheist". What they're doing is starting with the conclusion (the Bible is good) and then reading the verses with that preconception and interpreting them accordingly in a classic act of Confirmation Bias.
The fact that they interpret so intensely underscores that the starting point for them is not "I will follow the Bible" but "I have a conscience and want to believe that the Bible is good". This brings us back to subjective morality.
The Same Way You Do
Christian, when you're determining what's right and wrong, do you really say, "hold on, let me check my Bible"? Unlikely. You have a conscience. You have a sense of empathy. You have a sense of fair play that works within the Social Contract. This is why you consider rape, slavery and murder to be wrong. We "get our morals" from the same place you do.
Some, as C.S. Lewis, showcase this innate sense of right and wrong to be a sign that God exists. If this is so, that such innate senses are from God, than as an atheist who follows your conscience, are you not then doing the will of God?
*Drops mic and walks offstage*
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnIoMjY9TU1d3a63LN88e...SKbCwLc29i]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnIoMjY9TU1d3a63LN88ePWL1qEFQXV4-PFbXSZ1SKbCwLc29i)
Definitions Straightened Out
- "Objective" by definition means "free from anyone's opinion's or values"
- "Morality" is a system of values.
- Ergo, "Objective Morality" is an oxymoron.
- Ergo, even if it wasn't an oxymoron, God couldn't establish "Objective Morality" because God, by definition, is a being and doing so, by definition, would be using opinions to establish said system of Objective Morals.
What's Your Point Again? How Does This Prove God?
So your line of reasoning is apparently:
- "Without God, there would be no Objective Morals"
- "With no Objective Morality, then anything goes, even rape, murder, slavery, etc."
- "That would be bad."
- "I don't want to live in that world."
- "Therefore, God exists because I want it to be that way."
Conflation Fallacy: "Subjective" Does Not Necessarily Mean "Relativism"
Not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are based on facts while others are just bare assertions. This is why we debate subjective values and opinions at all. If it were not so, there would be no point to any discussion of anything subjective.
Therefore, "subjective morality" does not mean "anything goes".
We can subjectively evaluate that certain things are "wrong" because of the damage they do, the impact they have, the freedoms they curtail, the intrusion on the lives of others, etc. We can logically argue and debate these things and call upon studies and other data to back up our assertions. There are many tools we have used by philosophers from Bentham's Utilitarianism to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to Mill's Social Contract. I can go into much further detail but I trust I've made my point.
The fact that we can have this discussion at all underscores just how vapid the Christian apologists are when they insist on this simplistic false dichotomy of "either personal God or anything goes". Having a "personal God" doesn't get them Objective Morals and lacking a God doesn't mean anything goes.
Euthyphro's Dilemma
- Is something good because God wills it? -OR-
- Does God will something because it is good?
If things are good because God wills them to be so, then "morality" is nothing more than God's arbitrary fiats and this is nothing more than "might makes right." Hardly a good basis for morality.
The "solution" posited by Christians at this point is to babble nearly incoherently of both-yet-neither. Like their Trinity, they want their cake and to eat it too. They'll say something along the lines of "goodness is the very substance of God" or "God is the very substance of goodness" or some other inscrutable babble. This attempted escape is thick with logical fallacies, from bare assertions to question begging.
Hope this helps.
Continued from above...
...And Then We Crack Open The Bible...
So if your god is so great at determining right and wrong, whether by judgment or arbitrary fiat or some woo-ish being-the-substance-of-goodness-whatever-that-means, then why does your god's Holy Word fail so miserably at even moral no-brainers?
The Bible has rules for slavery, how to buy and sell slaves, how to beat your slaves, how to rape your slaves, etc. During their campaign into "The Promised Land" the servants of your god were told to murder and enslave and take their women for themselves. The Bible has many laws that would be considered barbaric by modern sensibilities. The Bible fails miserably to establish either democracy or equality, instead supporting the Divine Right of kings and perpetuating the subjugation of women.
The Christian will at this point tie themselves into knots coming up with the most obtuse interpretations and dismissing you as a "fundy atheist". What they're doing is starting with the conclusion (the Bible is good) and then reading the verses with that preconception and interpreting them accordingly in a classic act of Confirmation Bias.
The fact that they interpret so intensely underscores that the starting point for them is not "I will follow the Bible" but "I have a conscience and want to believe that the Bible is good". This brings us back to subjective morality.
The Same Way You Do
Christian, when you're determining what's right and wrong, do you really say, "hold on, let me check my Bible"? Unlikely. You have a conscience. You have a sense of empathy. You have a sense of fair play that works within the Social Contract. This is why you consider rape, slavery and murder to be wrong. We "get our morals" from the same place you do.
Some, as C.S. Lewis, showcase this innate sense of right and wrong to be a sign that God exists. If this is so, that such innate senses are from God, than as an atheist who follows your conscience, are you not then doing the will of God?
*Drops mic and walks offstage*
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
