My views on objective morality

[Chas]

You utterly missed the point.

You have a belief based on nothing.  Why?

It's not based on nothing.

It is not based any objective evidence.

[Whateverist]

World's fastest proof of god:

P - If God didn't exist, nothing would exist.
P - The world exists.

C - God exists.

That wasn't meant to be proof of God. I've said repeatedly all over this forum that I do not believe there is proof of God that can be demonstrated.

No, no.  I wasn't saying you were putting forth the proof.  I just extracted that myself from what you did say.  I realize you're not looking to persuade but rather just putting out what you believe.

[Whateverist]

I don't think so.  Wouldn't he just disagree?  He dissents from God's opinion/rule/call-it-what-you-will.  Given free will his morality merely does not coincide with God's.  He is only 'wrong' if he was in fact attempting to predict God's rule.  Perhaps he wasn't?

Yes, he would disagree, but he would be incorrect. It's like if I disagreed that 2+2=4. I could disagree all day, but I'd still be wrong. What we believe is that the person who thinks rape is good is wrong because we believe rape is objectively immoral. That's what objectively immoral means.

Still that is pretty different isn't it?  You can demonstrate in multiple ways why 2+2=4.  But in the morality example the only thing that makes the human's appraisal of what is moral in correct is that it doesn't agree with God.  Going to your parent/child parallel, what makes an action right isn't the fact that your parent says don't (or do) do it.  What makes it right can only be amplified meaningful by laying out the consequences good and bad of the action.  In other words, what makes the right action right isn't a matter of authority.

[Catholic_Lady]

What exactly do you want to know?

I want to know what you think morality is, and why you think it's objective. We're 100 pages in, and you've not really bothered (so far as I can see) to explain either of those things-- things which I would have expected to be done on the 1st page of any thread, ideally in the OP.

Here, let me give you an example. I think morality is a communal agreement about which behaviors are or aren't desirable. They represent a balance between our instincts (for example the instinct to protect loved ones) and the evolution of various cultural ideas (for example, religious ideas about God). I believe this because some morals (like the protection of children) are consistent across most cultures, while others (like views on homosexuality) are radically different. I'd argue this is because most people have instincts for/about children, but we do not have instincts about sexual alignment. My evidence for this is that North American culture just a few decades ago was massively against homosexuality, but now is much less so-- in such a short time, the instincts of people could not have changed (that takes thousands or millions of years), so it is only ideas which have changed.

See? I have ideas, can explain my reasons for holding them, and can even provide some evidence supporting my reasons.


Okay, now it's your turn. . . *begins holding breath*  

I feel like I have already addressed this though. 

I don't have some sort of alternate definition for the word "Morality". By its dictionary term, it is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." I'm on board with this and wouldn't define it any differently. The objective part is my belief that God has established between what is "right and wrong, and good and bad", and it is a real distinction. Not a matter of opinion.

(Off topic here for a second, I don't like the condescending/rude way you talk to me. I'll probably stop responding because I don't enjoy talking to someone who is consistently rude to me. Sorry, just not in the mood.)

[Catholic_Lady]

It's not based on nothing.

It is not based any objective evidence.

Never said it was.

[Bob Kelso]

So... nothing but "feelies" then.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

There is no evidence that supports that.

It's actually obvious to me in many ways.

I will present one way that I haven't. I know you guys get bored of same arguments so I will present another reflection.

"Reflection" is in no way, and in no context presentable as "evidence". You are using reflection as a form of argument, and unsupported argument (which is everything which anyone may possibly say in an attempt to prove an unfalsifiable claim such as your deity) is never evidence either. What, do you still not know this, for all the time that you hang out here? Every time somebody offers some weak reflective argument as evidence, they are told this difference - you must have been told it 1000 times already!

I'd like to meet you in person some day, because I've never seen anybody whose head becomes a giant whistle when there's a breeze, and has nothing to block the light between his ears.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the point is we'd always find something to complain about. If stubbing a toe was the worst thing that could happen to a person, we'd be talking about how horrible it was and why would God allow us to feel that sort of pain. Assuming God is real, we should humble ourselves and trust that God knows this setup (not intervening, giving us free will, etc) is the best setup for us in the long run, and it's good consequences will far outweigh the bad ones.

I don't know, I think people can somehow manage to keep a sense of perspective about these things. I don't worry myself much about the petty indignities an ant suffers in its life, but I still avoid killing them until they enter my home uninvited.

Honestly, I think the more valid form of praying is to pray for mental state. Like, to pray for strength to get through a rough time, etc. Not necessarily to pray for something that you want to have happen, or for miracles. That's how my mom taught me to pray. I do believe miracles do occur but they are not common.

How is your god changing your mental state not divine intervention? This has more than a whiff of special pleading about it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

CL, you keep writing "we believe", all the while ignoring the fact that that is a direct admission of subjectivity influencing, and most likely shaping, your view on morality.

[GrandizerII]

You forgot the pages of textwall to make the simplest and stupidest argument ever given look like it has some substance.

I'm here to have discussions with people who aren't ass holes.

What kind of discussions? I'm serious, what's the aim exactly? Just to be heard?

It seems you want us to not challenge what you say.