The Struggle to do Good

[Mr.wizard]

So God can't decide what is moral

I don't know what you mean by He can't decide since I never wrote that. I said His morals don't come from a decision. Instead, they come from His very existence which is a necessary one.

he gets his morals from himself

Correct.

and then gives them to us

Correct.

that is as clear as mud.

How so? Seems crystal clear to me.

The problem with this is it still makes morality subjective because it depends on whatever god's nature is.

That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is subjective because 2 + 2 = 4 depends on its own existence. Obviously, that's a non-sequitur. Are you going to start arguing that 2 + 2 = 4 is subjective because it depends on its own existence?

No not at all I said morality would be subjective if it depended on the existence of god.

[Deesse23]

You need your God to tell you this is bad? 

I assume you're an atheist.

What you're asking is akin to me asking you, "You need your evolution to tell you this is bad?  "

Your assumption is irrelevant
Your deflection was just a bad equivocation.

Please answer my question: do you need a God to stop you from murder? I don't.
If you don't as well, then stop pretending everyone else does.

[brokenreflector]

No not at all I said morality would be subjective if it depended on the existence of god.

This is why I have trouble taking many atheists seriously.

Your conclusion comes from either bad reasoning or intellectual dishonesty.

What you're essentially saying is one of God's properties (moral nature) is contingent upon God's existence; therefore, God's moral nature is subjective.

But that's like saying all the properties of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4 are contingent upon the existence of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4; therefore, those properties must be subjective.

That's false in both instances. If the thing in question exists in all possible worlds, including the actual world, then the things properties also exist in all possible worlds, including the actual world. This means the properties of the thing in question are also objective. This is because properties are just descriptions of a thing.

You also don't seem to understand what necessary means. Something is necessary when its existence isn't contingent upon anything external. The properties of a thing wouldn't constitute as something external, but internal (or intrinsic) to the thing that the properties are describing.

---

Please answer my question: do you need a God to stop you from murder? I don't.

If God doesn't exist, then that means your faculties and intuitions have come from an unguided and mindless natural process.

So my question to you is do you need an unguided and mindless natural process to stop you from murdering people?

[Mr.wizard]

No not at all I said morality would be subjective if it depended on the existence of god.

This is why I have trouble taking many atheists seriously.

Your conclusion comes from either bad reasoning or intellectual dishonesty.

What you're essentially saying is one of God's properties (moral nature) is contingent upon God's existence; therefore, God's moral nature is subjective.

But that's like saying all the properties of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4 are contingent upon the existence of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4; therefore, those properties must be subjective.

That's false in both instances. If the thing in question exists in all possible worlds, including the actual world, then the things properties also exist in all possible worlds, including the actual world. This means the properties of the thing in question are also objective. This is because properties are just descriptions of a thing.

You also don't seem to understand what objective means. Something is objective when its nature isn't contingent upon anything external. A thing's properties wouldn't constitute as something external, but internal (or intrinsic).

---

Please answer my question: do you need a God to stop you from murder? I don't.

If God doesn't exist, then that means your faculties and intuitions have come from an unguided and mindless natural process.

So my question to you is do you need an unguided and mindless natural process to stop you from murdering people?

Nothing wrong with my reasoning and not being dishonest at all. Your saying our morals are contingent on something external (god), by your own definition you are saying morality is subjective to whatever gods nature is. Morality being contingent on a mind whether its our mind or gods mind is by definition subjective.

[Deesse23]

Please answer my question: do you need a God to stop you from murder? I don't.

If God doesn't exist, then that means your faculties and intuitions have come from an unguided and mindless natural process.

So my question to you is do you need an unguided and mindless natural process to stop you from murdering people?

You keep deflecting. I will answer your question after you have answered mine, that's how honest discussion works.

Do. You. Need. A. Deity.to . Keep. You. From. Killing?

I dont

[brokenreflector]

by your own definition you are saying morality is subjective to whatever gods nature is.

God's moral values are intrinsically bound up in God's nature and existence. There isn't a "God's moral values" floating around outside God. There's just God's existence and nature. When we use terms like "God's moral values" all we're doing is focusing on an aspect of God. God's existence and nature are unchanging and necessary (exists in all possible worlds). This makes all of His aspects, including His moral values, unchanging and necessary.

Do you not understand that or are you being intellectually dishonest? Or are you trolling?

Morality being contingent on a mind whether its our mind or gods mind is by definition subjective.

God's morality isn't "contingent on a mind." God's nature, including His moral values, isn't contingent upon anything. He's a necessary being.

---

You keep deflecting.

First of all, your question isn't even a good one and it's not going to end up like how you think it will. The more interesting question is the one I posed.

Do. You. Need. A. Deity.to . Keep. You. From. Killing?

I dont

In order for you to say "I dont," you'd have to presuppose that God doesn't exist and didn't create you.

Do. You. Need. Evolution. To. Keep. You. From. Killing?

[Deesse23]

You keep deflecting.

First of all, your question isn't even a good one and it's not going to end up like how you think it will. The more interesting question is the one I posed.

It's no trick question like " when did you stop beating your wife?". It's a simple question about your, state of mind, your ability to empathize with others. You could just as well be a psychopath, I don't know.

It's a good question, the answer is the foundation for any further discussion about morality in that if the answer is " yes", then indeed you need somebody to stop you from killing. I don't. Do you?
If you do, then we may discuss how we can provide you with some basic rules you can follow, so you won't pose any threat to society. Providing a deity could be a way to achieve this.

The only expectation I have from your answer is that it's honest. I gave you mine, because the question is very simple to answer for anyone .... But you for some reason. Why is that? Would an answer, ANY answer trigger cognitive dissonance maybe?

Do you need a deity to keep you from killing? I do not. I think most other people on this planet don't need one as well.
Am I correct in assuming you don't either?

---

You keep deflecting.

First of all, your question isn't even a good one and it's not going to end up like how you think it will. The more interesting question is the one I posed.

Do. You. Need. A. Deity.to . Keep. You. From. Killing?

I dont

In order for you to say "I dont," you'd have to presuppose that God doesn't exist and didn't create you.

Since you don't presuppose a deity does not exist, is that your way of saying "I do"?*
In order to say in don't I just have to give you my state of mind: I don't. See, it's easy.

You are still deflecting. You are talking about the reasons for your answer, instead of giving it, and are trying to avoid it at all, at all cost.

What I want is just a simple answer to a simple question: do you need a deity to keep you from killing? I don't. No reasons needed, just a statement.

*That's what you got from trying to shift the burden of proof

[brokenreflector]

First of all, your question isn't even a good one and it's not going to end up like how you think it will. The more interesting question is the one I posed.

It's no trick question like " when did you stop beating your wife?". It's a simple question about your, state of mind, your ability to empathize with others. You could just as well be a psychopath, I don't know.

It's a good question, the answer is the foundation for any further discussion about morality in that if the answer is " yes", then indeed you need  somebody to stop you from killing. I don't. Do you?
If you do, then we may discuss how we can provide you with some basic rules you can follow, so you won't pose any threat to society. Providing a deity could be a way to achieve this.

The only expectation I have from your answer is that it's honest. I gave you mine, because the question is very simple to answer for anyone .... But you for some reason. Why is that? Would an answer, ANY answer trigger cognitive dissonance maybe?

Do you need a deity to keep you from killing? I do not. I think most other people on this planet don't need one as well.
Am I correct in assuming you don't either?

---

First of all, your question isn't even a good one and it's not going to end up like how you think it will. The more interesting question is the one I posed.


In order for you to say "I dont," you'd have to presuppose that God doesn't exist and didn't create you.

Since you don't presuppose a deity does not exist, is that your way of saying "I do"?*
In order to say in don't I just have to give you my state of mind: I don't. See, it's easy.

You are still deflecting. You are talking about the reasons for your answer, instead of giving it, and are trying to avoid it at all, at all cost.

What I want is just a simple answer to a simple question: do you need a deity to keep you from killing? I don't. No reasons needed, just a statement.

*That's what you got from trying to shift the burden of proof

I don't think existence is possible without God. And if God is the creator of all things outside of Himself, then our faculties and moral intuitions are from Him. What's more, objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God.

You saying you can be good without God is true only if God doesn't exist.

[downbeatplumb]

It's not just our opinion that skullfucking our neighbor to death is bad

If God doesn't exist, then that would just be your opinion that may or may not be shared by the majority of people.

An opinion produced by a bag of skin and bones. A bag of skin and bones that didn't have to exist that is the byproduct of a mindless natural process that didn't have to exist that just so happens to be pointed towards increasing the survivability of species rather than what is true.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then these principles that you admit are "not just our opinion" would be ultimately grounded in the first, necessary, and maximally powerful being.

What difference do you think the possible existence of god makes to morality?

Some people think it is moral to kill their daughters for talking to boys.
Some people think its moral to kill homosexuals.

Both of those are "morals" based on religion.


In the bible its immoral to eat shellfish, pig, wear mixed fabric or have tattoos.


I'm fairly sure you have "chosen" to do one or more of the above which are in the bible so would have come from god if there was one. But you subjectively chose to ignore them didn't you.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're certainly not the only person on earth who thinks that morality is subjective.  Welcome back.

If the reason that you can't take atheists seriously has to do with your inability to crack open a book, or your inability to accept your own position, that's hardly our problem.