1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

I think more theists would have universalist leanings if religion wasn't so damned frequently divisive.

[shadowhawk]

What difference would it make if he were an atheist or not?

 

Well he is a leading Atheist who admits there is no objective basis for morality in Atheism.  Just pointing out I am not the only one saying this.  Each person does what is right in their own eyes.

 

lets look at this argument, if true is an argument against Atheism.

 

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Let's deconstruct it.

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 August 2015 - 10:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I think more theists would have universalist leanings if religion wasn't so damned frequently divisive.

 

Tell me what "Unilateralist" is.  What does the universe and nature teach us that is evidence for Atheism morality?
 

[Duchykins]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

 

*sigh*

 

P1 cannot be substantiated.  It's useless.

P2 is problematic because objective morals and duties were not specifically defined (yes they should be since these are broad categories)

 

 

Why would we need to talk about unilateralism?

 

Since you have not acknowledged both descriptions of universalism that I posted, we can proceed no further in the discussion on how atheists could be moral universalists.

 

Would you kill me if God told you to?

[shadowhawk]

Since you have done nothing to warrant a death penalty God would never tell me such a thing.  Your illustration asks me to suppose something God wouldn't do and then wants to fault me for it.   Now if you did something worthy of the death penalty and it was my responsibility to carry it out, maybe.

 

If P 1 can't be substantiated then there is no God and no objective morality.  Given Atheism there is no objective morality.  Since P2 now asks for a definition of objective values I shall give you one in exchange for a "universalism " definition.  Without the definition yo are talking gobligoop.

[Vardarac]

 

What difference would it make if he were an atheist or not?

 

Well he is a leading Atheist who admits there is no objective basis for morality in Atheism.  Just pointing out I am not the only one saying this.  Each person does what is right in their own eyes.

 

You're still missing my point. Everyone is already doing what is right in their own eyes. A book declaring a law is not going to make individuals with their own values suddenly value those laws more unless the individual naturally and/or is influenced to value such a law.

Edited by Vardarac, 08 August 2015 - 06:49 AM.

[Duchykins]

Since you have done nothing to warrant a death penalty God would never tell me such a thing.  Your illustration asks me to suppose something God wouldn't do and then wants to fault me for it.    Now if you did something worthy of the death penalty and it was my responsibility to carry it out, maybe.

 

If P 1 can't be substantiated then there is no God and no objective morality.  Given Atheism there is no objective morality.  Since P2 now asks for a definition of objective values I shall give you one in exchange for a "universalism " definition.  Without the definition yo are talking gobligoop.

 

 

Who are you to dictate what God does or does not do?

 

How did you acquire omniscience in order to know everything I've done?

 

Why would you first require knowledge of a capitol offense before following God's orders?

 

 

This is not about blaming you for the immorality in this tribal desert god's personality.  You didn't write the Bible, you are just trying to follow it.  

 

Actually, this is about demonstrating your moral superiority over your own religion.  It's about your general default source of moral agency, and that is your own moral compass, your own instincts and your own intellect.  You use your own morality to check some of the immorality in Christian doctrine.  You consult yourself first.

 

You were already given two different descriptions of universalism, two for two slightly different contexts, they are on the last post of the previous page of this thread. It's not my fault if you missed them or choose to pretend I never posted them.

 

Your answers also indicate that you are not a moral objectivist in the sense that is defined by traditional Christianity.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

What difference would it make if he were an atheist or not?

 

Well he is a leading Atheist who admits there is no objective basis for morality in Atheism.  Just pointing out I am not the only one saying this.  Each person does what is right in their own eyes.

 

You're still missing my point. Everyone is already doing what is right in their own eyes. A book declaring a law is not going to make individuals with their own values suddenly value those laws more unless the individual naturally and/or is influenced to value such a law.

 

Well while I strongly disagree with your statement it does perfectly illustrate the total subjectivity of Atheism and there not being any basis for morality given atheism.  You have no more basis to criticize Hitler than He does you.  In his case he is wrong because might made right not because He was objectively wrong.

[shadowhawk]

I notice you completely ignored my request for definition with this nonsense.  I do not dictate what God does and your declaration is simply an attempt to derail the discussion.  I never said I knew what you have done.  Another ridiculous straw man which you completely made up.
 
 

Duchykins: You ask, “Why would you first require knowledge of a capitol offense before following God's orders?”

Because first God does not order such a stupid thing without reason.  Second and more absurd, I don’t go around killing people for no reason.  Gobligoop
 

Actually, this is about demonstrating your moral superiority over your own religion.  It's about your general default source of moral agency, and that is your own moral compass, your own instincts and your own intellect.  You use your own morality to check some of the immorality in Christian doctrine.  You consult yourself first.

What nonsense.  God didn’t tell me to do anything, but it is clear He would not have me killing anyone without moral reason and I have none.  That is Christianity which I folllow.  So your reasoning sounds more like a thought disorder than a cogent argument.

 

You were already given two different descriptions of universalism, two for two slightly different contexts, they are on the last post of the previous page of this thread. It's not my fault if you missed them or choose to pretend I never posted them.

Baloney.  The fact is you don’t have a clue is not my fault.  You don’t have a definition of “Universalism” nor an explanation of how it can provide a basis for Atheistic morality.

lets again look at this argument, if true is an argument against Atheism.

1.    If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2.    Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3.    Therefore, God exists.

Let's deconstruct it.

You have denied P1 from your above posts.

[Vardarac]

Well while I strongly disagree with your statement it does perfectly illustrate the total subjectivity of Atheism and there not being any basis for morality given atheism.  You have no more basis to criticize Hitler than He does you.  In his case he is wrong because might made right not because He was objectively wrong.

 

How many times do I have to repeat what I've said? Whether or not there is an "objective" basis for morality is irrelevant. Moral criticism or praise is levied based on the values held by the audience. Those values will not be held equally among all audiences, which is why we have ideological struggles in the first place.

Edited by Vardarac, 09 August 2015 - 03:44 AM.

[Duchykins]

 

I notice you completely ignored my request for definition with this nonsense. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You were already given two different descriptions of universalism, two for two slightly different contexts, they are on the last post of the previous page of this thread. It's not my fault if you missed them or choose to pretend I never posted them.

 

 

 

 

 

WE (most atheists that have posted here) practice universalism.  You've seen us exercise UNIVERSALIST moral reasoning dozens of times in a variety of threads here.

 

 

 

Nonsense.  More name calling without evidence.  Change the subject and make it be about me!  What ever universalism is and you claim to know every atheist is one! 

 

 

 

 

Still proving how little you know about morality and philosophy in general?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Universalism

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...us_Universalism

 

Non-religious Universalism[edit]

 

 

Universalism is not only a set of values, but a worldview to which any can subscribe if they observe and believe in the universality of the human experience — and that of all sentient life — and work to uphold the principles, ethics, and actions that safeguard these fundamental things.^[50]

 

Indeed, many Universalists may be attracted to the logic of universally applicable principles, rather than any belief or dogma. Human unity, solidarity, and the perceived need for a sustainable and socially conscious global order are among the tendencies of non-religious Universalist thought.^[51]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...al_universalism

 

 

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",^[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.^[2] Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.

 

In addition to the theories of moral realism, moral universalism includes other cognitivist moral theories, such as the subjectivist ideal observer theory and the divine command theory, and also the non-cognitivist moral theory of universal prescriptivism.^[3][4]

 

 

 

 

It is clear at this point that you are not reading anything we say.  Either you are are half-assedly skimming our posts or you are a disgraceful liar and a monument to Christianity.

[The Brain]

Don't forget he's an asshole too !!!

[Duchykins]

1.    If God does exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2.    Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3.    Therefore, God does not exist.

 

 

 

 

Look how easy that was.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

So P1

 

if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist

 

1)  Does not define "god"

 

2)  Does not define "moral values"

 

3)  Does not define "objective moral values"

 

4)  Does not establish that "god" has any interest in morality

 

5)  Does not establish that the definition of "objective moral values" specifically requires or even mentions a "god" source; concomitance.  It may be the case that the definition of "god" in this argument includes "objective moral values," but it has never even been suggested that the definition of "objective moral values" necessarily includes "god" somewhere in it.

 

6)  If the definition of "objective moral values" necessarily includes a "god" source, then this definition requires its own justification and establishment

 

7)  Does not say why "objective moral values" cannot exist apart from "god"; why "god" is the source apart from the assertion "it is just so."

 

8)  Does not define "duties."  Does not establish the existence of "duties."

 

9)  Does not establish how we would know or verify any of the above

 

 

 

 

If your definition of "objective moral values" hinges on it (or its truth values) existing independently from humanity or any social species, then it is rejected here and now because it implies any kind of morality can exist in a social vacuum.

 

Your definition of "objective morality" has to contend with the existence of other definitions and arguments for "objective morality" that are incompatible with yours, this is why you not only have to define it but establish why it's valid and why your definition ought be adopted by everyone.

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

 

Well while I strongly disagree with your statement it does perfectly illustrate the total subjectivity of Atheism and there not being any basis for morality given atheism.  You have no more basis to criticize Hitler than He does you.  In his case he is wrong because might made right not because He was objectively wrong.

 

How many times do I have to repeat what I've said? Whether or not there is an "objective" basis for morality is irrelevant. Moral criticism or praise is levied based on the values held by the audience. Those values will not be held equally among all audiences, which is why we have ideological struggles in the first place.

 

I agree with you over and over.  Given Atheism, there are no objective moral values and each person does what is right in their own eyes.  Subjective moral values.  How many times do I have to agree?

[Vardarac]

I agree with you over and over.  Given Atheism, there are no objective moral values and each person does what is right in their own eyes.  Subjective moral values.  How many times do I have to agree?

 

Superficially. You find something undesirable about that, as though there is no point to having moral values unless Big Man in Sky spells them out for you. Why? Surely you have values related to how the consequences of actions make you feel. And if not, if you're what they call a sociopath who doesn't value those things, then why not come out and say it?

[shadowhawk]

This is Is there Evidence For Atheism topic.  So in keeping with this, ethics and morality is given Atheism subjective to each person.  Ethics cannot therefore be evidence for Atheism.  Given Atheism any thing any person subjectively believes is right..

[Vardarac]

So people have no sense of values in a godless universe. Got it. /s

[shadowhawk]

So people have no sense of values in a godless universe. Got it. /s

I didn't say that, you did.  In fact I have several times just said the opposite.  Let me repeat.  Atheists, from a theist perspective be very moral.  The Bible says all humans have the law of God written on  their hearts.

 

[shadowhawk]

1.    If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2.    Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3.    Therefore, God does exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What I love about this is you don’t know what “God,” “Moral Values,” “Objective,” “Duties,”
and other common words are..  Yet you reject the argument as if you do understand it.  Then you edit and change the argument I presented so that it is something else entikrely. .  P1 simply says if God does not exist than objective moral values do not exist.

Duchykins:  1)  Does not define "god"

Since this is about Atheism which denies God or any God, I will not try to an answer this here because it is off topic.  I am a Christian but I will take this in the Christian sense.  The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.  The Atheist sense can mean any Gods.  If God does not exist there are no objective moral duties.
 

2)  Does not define "moral values"

Let me distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

  3)  Does not define "objective moral values"

Unlike your gogligoop speech where you won’t define your words, I will.  there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

 

4)  Does not establish that "god" has any interest in morality.

Every religion has God interested in morality.  If God has no interest in morality P 1 would also be true since it would have the same effect as there being no God.  In God has no interest in morality then there is no objective morality as I have stated all along.

5)  Does not establish that the definition of "objective moral values" specifically requires or even mentions a "god" source; concomitance.  It may be the case that the definition of "god" in this argument includes "objective moral values," but it has never even been suggested that the definition of "objective moral values" necessarily includes "god" somewhere in it.

My argument is that if there is no God, then all morality is subjective.  How many times do I have to repeat it.   My argument is that if there is no God, then all morality is subjective.

6)  If the definition of "objective moral values" necessarily includes a "god" source, then this definition requires its own justification and establishment

Are you ready to argue there is no God as our topic states?  If so, given your argument, ethics and morality are entirely subjective given Atheism. Something I have argued all along.  Have it your way, and you have destroyed objective morality.

7)  Does not say why "objective moral values" cannot exist apart from "god"; why "god" is the source apart from the assertion "it is just so."

You are the one saying, “It is just so.”  Evidence eeds to be shown for objective Moral Values given Atheism.

8)  Does not define "duties."  Does not establish the existence of "duties."

See number 3 above.

9)  Does not establish how we would know or verify any of the above

You do not know how to define, “do not rape likttle children?”  You wouldn’t know it if you saw it?  Given Atheism I understand why this would be a problem.
 

If your definition of "objective moral values" hinges on it (or its truth values) existing independently from humanity or any social species, then it is rejected here and now because it implies any kind of morality can exist in a social vacuum.

I think you are at last getting it.  By basing morality on each persons subjective desire any kind of morality can exist.

Your definition of "objective morality" has to contend with the existence of other definitions and arguments for "objective morality" that are incompatible with yours, this is why you not only have to define it but establish why it's valid and why your definition ought be adopted by everyone.

You have it wrong.  I CAN AND DO THAT.  Here it again, and again, AND AGAIN THIS IS ABOUT ATHEISM.  Don’t you understand Atheism is bankrupt when it comes to sourcing morality.

[Vardarac]

 

So people have no sense of values in a godless universe. Got it. /s

I didn't say that, you did.  In fact I have several times just said the opposite.  Let me repeat.  Atheists, from a theist perspective be very moral.  The Bible says all humans have the law of God written on  their hearts.

 

 

So why even bring up the topic of morality for atheism, as though the existence and purveyance of ethics is some kind of problem for people in a godless universe? If you weren't saying it was a problem, and agree that morals, despite being subjective, are not a barrier to a society that places values on things we typically define as good, then what was your point in bringing it up at all?

 

I ask you again, if morality is subjective, so what? We would still form our own ideological tribes, just the same as we do now. There's just no big player's values to contend with also, that people may accept or reject based on who they happen to be.

Edited by Vardarac, 11 August 2015 - 04:01 AM.

[Duchykins]

 

My argument is that if there is no God, then all morality is subjective.  How many times do I have to repeat it.   My argument is that if there is no God, then all morality is subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your definition of "objective morality" has to contend with the existence of other definitions and arguments for "objective morality" that are incompatible with yours, this is why you not only have to define it but establish why it's valid and why your definition ought be adopted by everyone.

You have it wrong.  I CAN AND DO THAT.  Here it again, and again, AND AGAIN THIS IS ABOUT ATHEISM.  Don’t you understand Atheism is bankrupt when it comes to sourcing morality.

 

 

 

 

You did not provide a definition of "objective moral values" that includes a god or necessitates a god-source.  

 

If you do not do this, then something other than god can give rise to universal morality.  Then it would not follow that if a god did not exist, objective morals would not exist.   That's how logic works.  Actual logic, not "common sense."

You keep saying this is about atheism but YOU have taken it upon yourself to post a Christian argument for God in this thread.  You now have to defend it or have it dismissed.

 

You are having problems defending this argument because it is William Lane Craig's and he never bothered to fix his argument.  It takes a very knowledgeable and reasonable theist to address the problems of the argument directly and satisfactorily.  It's rare but I have seen it before.

The reason you have to define god is because YOU brought up the argument and are arguing for the existence of some god you have in mind.  If you are not specific, then god can be defined as a monstrously evil troll.

 

You posted a logical proof.  This is how we establish the usefulness of logical proofs.

 

The fact that you think that because I made that list, I do not know what those things are.  Wrong.  Your reaction to it means that you don't know how to logic or philosophy, or you would have immediately understood why those points were being made.

You post this proof, and when we try to discuss it, you say we cannot talk about because this is a thread about atheism?

[Duchykins]

So since WLC uses divine command theory, which basically advances that anything God does or says is moral.  It is a specific type of universal morality wherein acts have no real moral value in themselves, nor is their value at least partially determined by the suffering or happiness it imparts to sentient beings.  Also, the truth values of moral acts can theoretically change if the maker changes its mind.  

 

DVC can usually be reduced to "might makes right."

 

These are the "objective moral values and duties" that the proof is talking about. 

 

Nobody has established that "objective morality," described as "independent of people's opinions" used the meaning of the word "objective" in this manner meaning something other than not subjective to a mind.   When using "objective" in this manner, "objective morality" cannot be dependent upon a mind, even if it's a divine one, because it would necessarily be subjective to that mind.

 

 

That is why "objective morality" is not always defined that way, even by some theist philosophers.  That definition is too puerile and has too many problems.

 

Does William Lane Craig know this?  Maybe.  But he still believes in divine command theory and will define "objective morality" however he can make it fit under DVC.

The best definitions of objective morality includes the stipulation that the morals (whatever their truth values are) apply universally (to everyone), and are circumstance-dependent.  This doesn't mean make up morals on the spot.  It means that in a given set of events (set A), an individual has a spectrum of decisions to make and acts to take.  The moral truth values of the acts on that spectrum apply to anyone in a situation like set A.  That doesn't necessarily mean that same spectrum of moral acts also applies to sets B, C, D, etc because that would be absolute morality which is different from objective morality (they can co-exist but they don't have to).

 

This is why the Golden Rule is objectively useful and is found all over the place in human history, variations of it developing in nearly every culture, independent of each other.  This is not wholly unlike people in different countries being able to come to certain answers to mathematical and scientific questions, all coming to the same or similar conclusions, consistently and repeatedly, completely independent of each other.  This is because they are using the same conceptual tools to make moral judgments, and culture is not having as much influence as people think it is.  These tools are also universal partly because they are demonstrably useful to all people, in all circumstances.

 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

So people have no sense of values in a godless universe. Got it. /s

I didn't say that, you did.  In fact I have several times just said the opposite.  Let me repeat.  Atheists, from a theist perspective be very moral.  The Bible says all humans have the law of God written on  their hearts.

 

 

So why even bring up the topic of morality for atheism, as though the existence and purveyance of ethics is some kind of problem for people in a godless universe? If you weren't saying it was a problem, and agree that morals, despite being subjective, are not a barrier to a society that places values on things we typically define as good, then what was your point in bringing it up at all?

 

I ask you again, if morality is subjective, so what? We would still form our own ideological tribes, just the same as we do now. There's just no big player's values to contend with also, that people may accept or reject based on who they happen to be.

 

Are you asking me or yourself.  That you have no basis of ethics in a Godless universe should bring up all kinds of issues but apparently in your case it does not.  The Nazi society had its own "good" values so what is the problem?  "So what," you say?  I will say that you are consistent and not trying to BS anyone.  Given Atheism, no problem.

 

[Vardarac]

So what is the problem to whom, exactly? By definition, it wasn't a problem for the Reich (and where was the "God-written law" on their hearts, anyway?) - But the spread of that philosophy is and was a huge problem for anyone that believed in the sort of individual freedoms and rights that we enjoy in Western countries today, people who, oh, don't like being starved, rounded up like cattle, and exterminated, which is a lot of us. That's easy enough to figure out with or without a God.

Edited by Vardarac, 11 August 2015 - 08:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

So what is the problem to whom, exactly? By definition, it wasn't a problem for the Reich (and where was the "God-written law" on their hearts, anyway?) - But the spread of that philosophy is and was a huge problem for anyone that believed in the sort of individual freedoms and rights that we enjoy in Western countries today, people who, oh, don't like being starved, rounded up like cattle, and exterminated, which is a lot of us. That's easy enough to figure out with or without a God.

We are not robots.  Because there are moral laws does not mean we keep them.  Who are you talking about who figures it out?  In My experience there are lots of people who do immoral things which they know they should not do.

[shadowhawk]

Seven Problems of Subjective Moral Relativism. 

 

1. Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

[Vardarac]

That's like saying that you can't define velocity in a relative reference frame because there's no master reference frame.

Edited by Vardarac, 12 August 2015 - 03:13 AM.

[shadowhawk]

How fast are we really going?

[Dakman]

  In My experience there are lots of people who do immoral things which they know they should not do.

 

 

 

Like christians raping babies?

 

And christians covering up child sexual abuse?

[shadowhawk]

 

  In My experience there are lots of people who do immoral things which they know they should not do.

 

 

 

Like christians raping babies?

 

And christians covering up child sexual abuse?

 

You do not seem to be able to get perversion with children off your mind.  We all agree it is wrong and have repeatedly said so but for some reason you cant seem to be able to give it a rest.  I know many thousands of Christians and they all, including myself don't do anything like you have said.  In fact it has been just the opposite.  Regardless molestation of children is a sin in Christianity.