The Moral Argument for God

[Divinity]

I mean what decides if you are acting morally? Your bible?

Apparently eating Shellfish is objectively immoral. As is being gay, not believing in god, working on Sunday's, having sex before marriage, wearing fabrics of mixed cloth, and masturbating.

On the other hand it's objectively moral to stone people for being gay, or being raped. Slavery is also totally a-fucking-okay so long as you don't kill your slaves. Unless of course, they were having sex before marriage. Rape's also okay so long as you pay the father for the rape.

Christians especially might want to give up on the argument from fucking morality. Because they most certainly aren't fucking objective when it comes to morality.

[Whateverist]

Clearly, there are atheists who act morally just as there are theists who act immorally.

How can you expect this to be 'clear' if those you're addressing reject objective morality?

1. How would you know that you have acted in an objectively moral way?

How do you know? Aren't you just rolling the dice when you endorse biblical values? Certainly you have no more evidence for thinking biblical values are the bomb than you do for believing in a god.

2. Who decides whether your behavior is "good"? You? Your friends and family?

Everyone may have an opinion, just as I do. Who decides that biblical values are objectively the bestest? That would be little ol' you. So what you take to be objective rests entirely on your subjectivity the same way our knowingly subjective values do.

What if all of your friends and family are psychopathic killers who think you have done a good thing by robbing a liquor store without leaving any living witnesses?

And what if you grow up and quit writing such absurd drivel?
Is writing these obvious distortions "good" in your personal opinion, athrock?

I think the reason billboards like this are being purchased is because atheists recognize that the Moral Argument is one that they cannot really refute.

I've never contributed a dime to such billboards but I do find them amusing. Yeah you can take comfort in knowing that we can't prove your subjectively held morals aren't objectively moral any more than we can prove your grand Poobah law giver is total silly stuff. But that has more to do with its being silly stuff than with its being true.

[athrock]

Find me a religion who's morality isn't subjective, and I'll convert.

1. If a god exists, then objective moral values must exist.
2. But objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, a god must exist.

Prove this wrong.

Start with Premise (2). Prove that objective moral values do not exist.

[Divinity]

Start with Premise (2). Prove that objective moral values do not exist.

Show me a fucking religion that has objective moral values first. If you can't, then shut the fuck up.

[Whateverist]

Find me a religion who's morality isn't subjective, and I'll convert.

1. If a god exists, then objective moral values must exist.
2. But objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, a god must exist.

Prove this wrong.

Start with Premise (2). Prove that objective moral values do not exist.

Did you even read my post?  I conceded that we cannot prove objective moral values do not exist.  But that isn't because they do exist.  Rather it is because attributes of silly made-up stuff are neither true nor false but rather made up.  Made up stuff may be anyway you like it - in your head.

[athrock]

What does "objectively moral" mean?

The definition has been posted in this thread many times. Here it is again:

Objective moral values are those whose truth is independent of individual, personal opinions or societal conventions.

Can anyone tell me? I keep hearing the term, but I can't think of what that might actually be, beyond a meaningless phrase to imply the existence of something that likely does not and cannot exist.

You can google the phrase and find dozens of articles that might help you.

And yes, we are social animals. Our societies determine what is right and wrong behavior, but it's hardly objective, and often wrong [emphasis wrong]. Nature of the beast. We must all decide what is moral for ourselves, lest we agree with some principle (such as the form of slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46) that is not suited to the empathy in a normal conscience. Humans are capable of both social-program type morality, and of self-determination. Sometimes a person self-determines to do harm, so societies come up with ways to punish and discourage such destructive behaviors. So we do determine morality subjectively, on both a cultural and personal level.

Right, so society is NOT the source of objective morality. Nicely done.

Really, all the phrase "objective morality" does is attempt to assert that there is some universal moral law, as claimed in Romans, which is objectively not a reality when we look at the various definitions of what is moral throughout history and cultural studies. Some are more common than others, like not killing, because they are clearly destructive to societies, but every society has exceptions to the rule. The same is true for all the other items. The demonstration of the pro-slavery verses also demonstrates that even religious morality is not "objective", but shifts with time and cultures.

No, the phrase acknowledges the existence of something which we all recognize but struggle to accept as true or define. Even in this thread, opinions vary as to whether moral values are objective or subjective.

Is there ANYTHING you can think of that is ALWAYS wrong no matter what the circumstances?

You know the candidates: child abuse, rape, murder, racial discrimination...

Are you willing to hold that one or more of these is occasionally acceptable?

So the idea that the "Moral Argument" refutes anything is not only ridiculous, it's such an outright and obvious lie that the theist should spot it before making such an assertion contrary to the facts... but they never do. How sad.

To the contrary, the Moral Argument is the Achilles' Hell of atheism. The reason that folks in this thread struggle to refute it and why atheist organization spend money on billboards is because they have not been able to actually answer the questions:

Why is something really wrong and not just a matter of personal preference or group pressure?
How do you know if something is objectively wrong?

---

I mean what decides if you are acting morally?  Your bible?

Apparently eating Shellfish is objectively immoral.  As is being gay, not believing in god, working on Sunday's, having sex before marriage, wearing fabrics of mixed cloth, and masturbating.  

On the other hand it's objectively moral to stone people for being gay, or being raped.  Slavery is also totally a-fucking-okay so long as you don't kill your slaves.  Unless of course, they were having sex before marriage.  Rape's also okay so long as you pay the father for the rape.

Christians especially might want to give up on the argument from fucking morality.  Because they most certainly aren't fucking objective when it comes to morality.

We're not talking about Jewish or Christian morality...we're talking about whether something, ANYTHING is objectively moral.

Simply being a former Christian with a chip on one's shoulder is an incomplete understanding of atheism.

So, take off your anti-Christian glasses, and try to see the world as a theist sees it (or as a true atheist OUGHT to see it).

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What does "objectively moral" mean?

The definition has been posted in this thread many times. Here it is again:

Objective moral values are those whose truth is independent of individual, personal opinions or societal conventions.

You apparently missed my argument. You cannot define something into existence. My whole point is that your claim of "objective" morals exist only as a concept; the reality is quite different, as simply looking around will tell us.

Can anyone tell me? I keep hearing the term, but I can't think of what that might actually be, beyond a meaningless phrase to imply the existence of something that likely does not and cannot exist.

You can google the phrase and find dozens of articles that might help you.

You're presuming I haven't read what is claimed to be objective morality; I simply find it to be a ridiculous concept that falls apart under actual examination.

And yes, we are social animals. Our societies determine what is right and wrong behavior, but it's hardly objective, and often wrong [emphasis wrong]. Nature of the beast. We must all decide what is moral for ourselves, lest we agree with some principle (such as the form of slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46) that is not suited to the empathy in a normal conscience. Humans are capable of both social-program type morality, and of self-determination. Sometimes a person self-determines to do harm, so societies come up with ways to punish and discourage such destructive behaviors. So we do determine morality subjectively, on both a cultural and personal level.

Right, so society is NOT the source of objective morality. Nicely done.

Correct. Society is the source of subjective morality. You can't have it both ways; you're claiming that objective morality is that which is found universally in societies, and then trying to say that societies have nothing to do with morality. There are some things that are so detrimental to societies that they are almost universal, but there's certainly no such thing as a universal rule of moral behavior among humans. As I said, there are always exceptions and variations.

Really, all the phrase "objective morality" does is attempt to assert that there is some universal moral law, as claimed in Romans, which is objectively not a reality when we look at the various definitions of what is moral throughout history and cultural studies. Some are more common than others, like not killing, because they are clearly destructive to societies, but every society has exceptions to the rule. The same is true for all the other items. The demonstration of the pro-slavery verses also demonstrates that even religious morality is not "objective", but shifts with time and cultures.

No, the phrase acknowledges the existence of something which we all recognize but struggle to accept as true or define. Even in this thread, opinions vary as to whether moral values are objective or subjective.

Is there ANYTHING you can think of that is ALWAYS wrong no matter what the circumstances?

You know the candidates: child abuse, rape, murder, racial discrimination...

Are you willing to hold that one or more of these is occasionally acceptable?

Not acceptable to my social/moral standards, which are informed by Humanism and the post-Enlightenment Western cultural viewpoint, no. But that's a far cry from "always wrong no matter the circumstances". I certainly do consider child abuse, rape, etc, to be wrong... but I'd have a hard time explaining to Joseph that he shouldn't have married Mary at 13-14, even though it's pretty much universally acknowledged that that was "marrying age" at that time. Today, it would be considered child abuse, and certainly not a basis for the alleged "greatest [morality] story ever told".

So the idea that the "Moral Argument" refutes anything is not only ridiculous, it's such an outright and obvious lie that the theist should spot it before making such an assertion contrary to the facts... but they never do. How sad.

To the contrary, the Moral Argument is the Achilles' Hell of atheism. The reason that folks in this thread struggle to refute it and why atheist organization spend money on billboards is because they have not been able to actually answer the questions:

Why is something really wrong and not just a matter of personal preference or group pressure?
How do you know if something is objectively wrong?

1) It is a matter of how much we, culturally, value a particular personal "right", and whether or not we consider a behavior from other cultures to be so harmful that we must attempt to repress it in other societies as well as our own; an example is our resistance to groups who believe the education of women is immoral, and who are willing to kill/kidnap women to stop it, in places like Afghanistan and Nigeria.

2) As should be clear, by now, there is no "objectively wrong"; there are only arguments to be made for the rights of every person, regardless of social prejudices. This concept of universal rights was almost unique in history when the British established the concept as a development of the Danelaw that became known as The Rights of Englishment, in its various incarnations throughout history and post-Enlightenment, and eventually wound up as the bulk of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights... and even that, we've had to expand almost continuously throughout our nation's history.

Robert Heinlein said it best, I think, in Time Enough for Love : "Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)"

[Divinity]

---

We're not talking about Jewish or Christian morality...we're talking about whether something, ANYTHING is objectively moral.

Simply being a former Christian with a chip on one's shoulder is an incomplete understanding of atheism.

So, take off your anti-Christian glasses, and try to see the world as a theist sees it (or as a true atheist OUGHT to see it).

If objective morality means there is god, then that means that the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindu and all the other fucking religions out there with subjective morality, have the wrong fucking religion.  Because their religion isn't objective.  Meaning that the argument isn't an argument for THEIR god, it's an argument for A god (and a Deist god at that).  So at best Deists could use the argument in their favor.  But certainly not the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and shit ton of other religions out there.

[athrock]

The definition has been posted in this thread many times. Here it is again:

Objective moral values are those whose truth is independent of individual, personal opinions or societal conventions.

You apparently missed my argument. You cannot define something into existence. My whole point is that your claim of "objective" morals exist only as a concept; the reality is quite different, as simply looking around will tell us.

Perhaps not but you can reason your way to an understanding that something exists. Surely there are concepts in everyday usage that might be used as imperfect examples of this process? What about imaginary numbers? Do they really exist? Or are they merely ideas that mathematicians agree upon? Merely "defining" the Flying Spaghetti Monster (by describing its characteristics) hasn't made it real, either...other than as an idea.

However, it seems to me that by use of our reason, we can conclude that there are certain moral values, duties and obligations that are universally accepted and therefore, objectively true. Of course, others including you, seem to dispute that objective moral values exist. Yet, even our lived experience seems to tell us that they do.

You can google the phrase and find dozens of articles that might help you.

You're presuming I haven't read what is claimed to be objective morality; I simply find it to be a ridiculous concept that falls apart under actual examination.

Then I look forward to your informed explanation of why this is so.

Right, so society is NOT the source of objective morality. Nicely done.

Correct. Society is the source of subjective morality. You can't have it both ways; you're claiming that objective morality is that which is found universally in societies, and then trying to say that societies have nothing to do with morality. There are some things that are so detrimental to societies that they are almost universal, but there's certainly no such thing as a universal rule of moral behavior among humans. As I said, there are always exceptions and variations.

Whoops. Time out. There is an error in what you have written. I have repeatedly stated as you noted that "objective morality is that which is found universally in societies" but finding morality there does not imply that it is the societies themselves which are the source of this morality. I can find beer universally in fraternity houses but that fact does not mean the fraternities are the breweries, does it?

However, it is your insistence upon "exceptions and variations" that is the real issue. I see that you get to this point next.

No, the phrase acknowledges the existence of something which we all recognize but struggle to accept as true or define. Even in this thread, opinions vary as to whether moral values are objective or subjective.

Is there ANYTHING you can think of that is ALWAYS wrong no matter what the circumstances?

You know the candidates: child abuse, rape, murder, racial discrimination...

Are you willing to hold that one or more of these is occasionally acceptable?

Not acceptable to my social/moral standards, which are informed by Humanism and the post-Enlightenment Western cultural viewpoint, no. But that's a far cry from "always wrong no matter the circumstances". I certainly do consider child abuse, rape, etc, to be wrong... but I'd have a hard time explaining to Joseph that he shouldn't have married Mary at 13-14, even though it's pretty much universally acknowledged that that was "marrying age" at that time. Today, it would be considered child abuse, and certainly not a basis for the alleged "greatest [morality] story ever told".

That's an answer? That's YOUR answer to my question?

This is why I wonder if the Moral Argument may not be the Achilles' Heel of atheism. The inability to answer direct questions about morality must haunt the thinking skeptic. Non-thinkers suffer no ill effects, of course.

To the contrary, the Moral Argument is the Achilles' Hell of atheism. The reason that folks in this thread struggle to refute it and why atheist organization spend money on billboards is because they have not been able to actually answer the questions:

Why is something really wrong and not just a matter of personal preference or group pressure?
How do you know if something is objectively wrong?

1) It is a matter of how much we, culturally, value a particular personal "right", and whether or not we consider a behavior from other cultures to be so harmful that we must attempt to repress it in other societies as well as our own; an example is our resistance to groups who believe the education of women is immoral, and who are willing to kill/kidnap women to stop it, in places like Afghanistan and Nigeria.

So, if genital mutilation of female children is acceptable "over there", it's okay? C'mon...I don't believe you actually believe this.

2) As should be clear, by now, there is no "objectively wrong"; there are only arguments to be made for the rights of every person, regardless of social prejudices. This concept of universal rights was almost unique in history when the British established the concept as a development of the Danelaw that became known as The Rights of Englishment, in its various incarnations throughout history and post-Enlightenment, and eventually wound up as the bulk of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights... and even that, we've had to expand almost continuously throughout our nation's history.

Robert Heinlein said it best, I think, in Time Enough for Love : "Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)"

You wrote: "there are...arguments to be made for the rights of every person, regardless of social prejudices. [emphasis added]"

I think you've just made my point.

---

---

We're not talking about Jewish or Christian morality...we're talking about whether something, ANYTHING is objectively moral.

Simply being a former Christian with a chip on one's shoulder is an incomplete understanding of atheism.

So, take off your anti-Christian glasses, and try to see the world as a theist sees it (or as a true atheist OUGHT to see it).

If objective morality means there is god, then that means that the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindu and all the other fucking religions out there with subjective morality, have the wrong fucking religion.  Because their religion isn't objective.  Meaning that the argument isn't an argument for THEIR god, it's an argument for A god (and a Deist god at that).  So at best Deists could use the argument in their favor.  But certainly not the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and shit ton of other religions out there.

Bingo!

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of (a) god.

Not for Jesus. Not for Allah. Not for Baha'u'llah. Not for Krishna.

So, the fact that all these different groups have some moral values in common with one another (as well as with atheists) seems to suggest that these common moral values transcend them all and may be considered "objective" rather than "subjective".

Agreed?

[IATIA]

However, it seems to me that by use of our reason, we can conclude that there are certain moral values, duties and obligations that are universally accepted and therefore, objectively true.

Name one.