The Struggle to do Good

[possibletarian]

He's trying to bring it back on script.   We were supposed to be craven subjectivists and nihilists, committed to ungodly hedonism...as he valiantly championed moral objectivity.  

That didn't pan out.

Now he's going to bitch about mindless unguided this or that's.

I really don't get why theists think this is a good argument at all, even when i was a devout Christian i dismissed this along with things like the KCA as being simply too fanciful.

[Deesse23]

Do you need a God to stop you from killing?

Do you want to kill?

Do you need a God stopping you from doing it?

These are very deep and illuminating questions. I'm going to have to think about it and get back to you.

You know where to find me

[The Grand Nudger]

@
That's just the frustration coming out, not the intended purpose, imo.

---

I really don't get why theists think this is a good argument at all, even when i was a devout Christian i dismissed this along with things like the KCA as being simply too fanciful.

For the same reason that many atheists think that functional or descriptive subjectivity is a good argument against moral realism, actually.  That's why these nutbars script is all about human opinions and the omni-rightness of their god.

[Mr.wizard]

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.

Oh my goodness man, it doesn't matter if god's moral values are floating around his head or inside his foot, the fact that they are contingent on god means they are subjective. You can not argue that morality isn't contingent on god and then argue that morality can not exist without god. I wasn't arguing that Morals where outside of god, I have been arguing from your position that morality is necessarily a part of god's nature and that makes it subjective. 
Saying the god is the foundation for morality tells us nothing about what makes something moral or immoral, it is simply contingent on what god's nature is and completely subjective.
In a secular moral system we determine what is moral and immoral with respect to a goal and that goal is well-being. So we can make determinations and in some cases even objective determinations about what is moral and immoral with respect to our goal of well-being.

[downbeatplumb]

The good and the bad based on the nature of a given subject, god.  

We've been through this several times already. I've tried teaching you what objective (and subjective) means, but you're unwilling or unable to learn. I don't know if you have a mental deficiency or if you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, a thing is objective if it's existence is independent of any subject's perception. God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception. Therefore, God's moral nature is objective.

Where did god get those morals?

If he just deciding what is good or bad then they are subjective.

Oh and how is god imparting his morals to people?

It isn't through the bible. if you lived by biblical morals you would be rightfully imprisoned.

I think I am quite a moral person and I don't think there is a god.

So where do I get my morals?

Humans are a social creature and like all social animals we have behaviours that are acceptable and if we transgress we are punished.
But more than that I have empathy, when I see another person or animal treated badly I can imagine myself in there place and I don't like it.

There is a way that has been used to lessen empathy and that is to "Other" people. They aren't one of "us" so we can treat them as lesser. One of the main ways to do this through religion.

So I think religions make people less moral.

This is a widely held view in the UK where religious people are viewed as less moral the atheists.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2018/01/bri...than-good/

An eye-opening survey conducted in the UK reveals a truth many in the United States will find shocking. When asked if atheists are more or less moral than religious people, our allies across the pond favor atheists.
The British feel those who identify as atheists are more likely to be good people. In fact, 12.5% of Britons believe atheists are more moral, while only 6% say atheists are less moral.
Fewer than a quarter of Britons believe religion is a force for good. On the contrary, over half believe religion does more harm than good. Even 20% of Britons who describe themselves as ‘very religious’ are on record stating religion is harmful to society.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

Can you demonstrate a god, any god? Of course you cannot.

So why should anyone here accept YOUR god above the countless thousands of claimed gods?

---

Your god existing doesn't solve the problem your raising, because all you've done is say that right and wrong would be a matter of god's opinion instead of our opinion and that doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion.

It wouldn't be merely an opinion if it is grounded in God's existence because God is by definition a necessary being.

Super. Then I can claim that universe forming pixies are necessary. So what?

In philosophy, a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist.

The universe forming pixies cannot fail to exist since without them, there would be no universe.

In other words, if God were intrinsically different in any possible world, then He wouldn't be a necessary being. This means God's moral values are the same in every possible world.

What are "god's" moral values? And how do you know them?

To use an analogy, 2 + 2 = 4 is true in all possible worlds, including the actual world. That's why 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true. Its truth isn't contingent upon anything external.

It is trivial to demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. Can you demonstrate a god, any god at all? Of course you cannot.

The same is true for God and His properties.

What properties? Thug? Genocidal maniac? Failed parent? Which?

But if God doesn't exist, then there's no such kind of foundation for moral values. What's odd is The Grand Nudger seems to think there is such a foundation, despite not believing in the existence of God.

That would be a flat out lie. Why must you lie?

Are you seriously suggesting that you want to rape murder and pillage everywhere and the only thing preventing you is a magic book?

[Paleophyte]

Whether morality is objective or subjective is not a question of whether god exists.

Sure it is because without God there cannot be objective moral values and duties.

This is a fascinating assertion that's patently false. Morality is little more than the mathematics of social interaction and no less objective.

You can demonstrate this quite simply using the jolly, if somewhat extreme example that The Grand Nudger provided of "skull fucking your neighbour to death." In any society where that behaviour is the norm you quite quickly end up with the majority a pile of truly gruesome corpses and a small minority end up dying from gangrene courtesy of the bone splinters in their dicks. Clearly that isn't a stable society, so any society that fails to evolve morals against skull fucking your neighbour to death simply ceases to exist. That's the very simple, objective, 2+2=4 reason for it that requires no deity whatsoever.

A very quick series of thought experiments reveals that the same principle holds for murder, theft, adultery, and any behaviour that is a net negative for the in group.

A quick study of the Bible shows that the morality presented therein is entirely subjective, exactly what you'd expect a human society to evolve. There are huge lists of proscriptions, but only as they apply to the Israelites. Thou shalt not murder, steal from, or commit adultery with the in group. There are then entire books exalting the conquest, rape, murder, enslavement of pretty much everybody that the Israelites encounter. The morality of the Bible is demonstrably subjective because it would have to apply to everybody if it were objective, not just god's chosen people.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

Can you demonstrate a god, any god? Of course you cannot.

So why should anyone here accept YOUR god above the countless thousands of claimed gods?

---

It wouldn't be merely an opinion if it is grounded in God's existence because God is by definition a necessary being.

Super. Then I can claim that universe forming pixies are necessary. So what?

In philosophy, a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist.

The universe forming pixies cannot fail to exist since without them, there would be no universe.

In other words, if God were intrinsically different in any possible world, then He wouldn't be a necessary being. This means God's moral values are the same in every possible world.

What are "god's" moral values? And how do you know them?

To use an analogy, 2 + 2 = 4 is true in all possible worlds, including the actual world. That's why 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true. Its truth isn't contingent upon anything external.

It is trivial to demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. Can you demonstrate a god, any god at all? Of course you cannot.

The same is true for God and His properties.

What properties? Thug? Genocidal maniac? Failed parent? Which?

But if God doesn't exist, then there's no such kind of foundation for moral values. What's odd is The Grand Nudger seems to think there is such a foundation, despite not believing in the existence of God.

That would be a flat out lie. Why must you lie?

Are you seriously suggesting that you want to rape murder and pillage everywhere and the only thing preventing you is a magic book?

The silly Ontological arguments Theists trot out