When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...
Started by Phillysoul11, February 24, 2009, 11:40:11 PM
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"the theist can state that something is right/wrong objectively, regardless if it actually is right /wrong and hold consistent to their world view. The atheist cannot, for in doing so would contradict the very position he/she holds to.
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Say for example that both a theist and an atheist witness an act of murder, both the theist and the atheist state know that the act is immoral, both parties claim something to be wrong/immoral but only the theist is justified in stating that the act is immoral, the atheist would have to conclude that "Well I think its wrong, and my society thinks it is wrong, but I don't know for sure if it is wrong, since wrong is merely opinion" since there is nobody the atheist claims to objectively determine right/wrong claiming things to be right/wrong would simply be contradictory to what he/she believes.
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Consistency is what I'm after. If you would like to believe that objective morality is illusory than by all means, go for it. I'm just here to try and point out what that belief entails. I believe that if one is intellectually honest with themselves it would be much more plausible to conclude that objective morality does exist. Can I prove it does? No I can't, but then again I can't prove the existence of reality, truth or anything else for that matter.
QuoteA theist can't state it is wrong ( well, they could, but it would be false ), they can only state it is against the moral code they happen to beleive in. An atheist can say, "I think it is wrong based on my morals, and also wrong based on the morals/laws of my society"You seem to take it as a given that a theist can state something as objectivley wrong, when the morals they have are just as subjective as anyone elses. if you can prove that the morals of a theist come from somewhere other than another human/group of humans, then I would be all ears.I am perfectly happy to say that the judging of an act as right or wrong depends on the people judging it. I can say the holocaust was wrong, in my oppinion, in the oppinion of practically everyone else on earth, and by all modern international law, but that is far as I can go. Is that intelectually honest enough for you? Are you willing to be honest in stating that the morals you adhere to are also subjective?
QuoteWhat position would it be that the atheist is violating if they state that something is immoral or "wrong"? If the atheist believes that morality is subjective and derived from their culture or society, or quite simply something they personally feel where is the contridiction of their world view? You are looking at this as someone that believes morals are objective and set down by an all mighty, but the atheist does not. There is no conflict in an atheist thinking something is immoral.
QuoteThat is just not true. The atheist can state that the act they witnessed was immoral because they feel as such. There does not need to be a consensus on that. The theist would be saying it's wrong because they feel their morality on the subject is objective. The atheist does not. That does not mean they can't give their opinion or agreement that it's immoral. Your saying that the atheist is not justified in making that statement is an opinion based on your belief in absolute/objective morality.
QuoteWe are being consistent. We consistently believe that morality is not objective. It may not be pallatable to you or how you prefer to think about it but their is nothing intellectually deceptive (or fallacious as you said earlier) about it.
QuoteLook at your own example of the 9/11 terrorists. God tells them that killing the infidels is not only moral but necessary and rewarded. By your own admission God determines objective morality so killing those people was not immoral. Or is that just the wrong God?
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"If I believed that objective morality existed, yet found no need in finding out what that morality was I would be a blundering fool.
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Claiming that since there are so many religions and so many people claiming that objective morality exists, it is highly unlikely that any of them are true seems a bit like saying that because there are so many different kinds of insects on this planet that the claiming that a ladybug exists is a laughable notion.
QuoteOnce you, or anyone else has found it, though, one can reasonably assume that the search for truth, having been successful, will cease, and the true believer will cleave unto the Word, and uphold it for all they are worth, questioning no more, and will try to avoid blundering by deviating from that Word. They will heed not the promulgators of false moralities.
QuoteI do not claim that it's highly unlikely any of the various objective moralities are true, I assert that they are all absolutely true for those who believe them, and a person who has found the "correct" one will henceforth consider all others untrue, rendering them automatically into subjective moralities.
QuoteI think your simile is interesting, but to follow it though, it seems to me that the theist who has earnestly searched, and found the one true objective morality is saying, "This species, 'ladybug' is the only true insect on the planet. All other species which some may call insects are actually in a different class of arthropod, and only seem to be insects despite qualifying in every respect other than they are not ladybugs.
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"QuoteA theist can't state it is wrong ( well, they could, but it would be false ), they can only state it is against the moral code they happen to beleive in. An atheist can say, "I think it is wrong based on my morals, and also wrong based on the morals/laws of my society"You seem to take it as a given that a theist can state something as objectivley wrong, when the morals they have are just as subjective as anyone elses. if you can prove that the morals of a theist come from somewhere other than another human/group of humans, then I would be all ears.I am perfectly happy to say that the judging of an act as right or wrong depends on the people judging it. I can say the holocaust was wrong, in my oppinion, in the oppinion of practically everyone else on earth, and by all modern international law, but that is far as I can go. Is that intelectually honest enough for you? Are you willing to be honest in stating that the morals you adhere to are also subjective?This is where I think we split, You think murder is something that a society defines as wrong, I think a societies job is to merely recognize that it is wrong. Its the difference between deciding what morality is, and recognizing it. My whole point was that the Theist is being completely consistent with there beliefs when they state that something is objectively wrong. Doesn't mean they are right, it just means they don't have double standards. Someone who believes that Thor is the very standard of morality makes no contradiction with his beliefs when he states that certain things are wrong because Thor says so. He is being consistant with his beliefs no matter how crazy and absurd they are. If objective morality exists, than it would be objective to all people in every people group. I already told you that one cannot deductively prove objective morality just as one cannot deductively prove reality or truth. Now that doesn't mean it is somehow irrational to believe that objective morality exists, after all if you held the same standard in assessing objective truth as you do objective morality you would be considered a lunatic. You are basically stating that because one cannot logically or deductively "prove" objective morality, than the idea of absolute right/wrong is absurd. I'm sure you fine with saying that morality is opinion based, and for all I know you might actually live your life with the same standards that you claim to be right, I doubt it but hell, I don't know you. If I stated that the morals I adhere to are subjective I would be very dishonest indeed. I believe what is right, is right regardless whether or not people or societies decide to adhere to them.
QuoteYour argument is circular, you have said murder is wrong, becuase it is defined as such by society, and society define it as wrong, because it is wrong. Why do they define it as wrong in the first place?
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God,
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"QuoteYour argument is circular, you have said murder is wrong, becuase it is defined as such by society, and society define it as wrong, because it is wrong. Why do they define it as wrong in the first place?murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing. :blink: :blink:
QuoteMurder is wrong, becuase god says it is wrong? Pfft, what if another god says it is ok? Why is it objective if it comes from god? It is still just his oppinion of it being wrong.You can't claim your morality is objective without providing any proof, what so ever that it is. You have not even proven that your morality comes from god. To prove your morality is objective, you must show there is something intrinsically wrong with murder itself, not just say "Murder is wrong becuase X says it is wrong". If it is only wrong becuase X says it is wrong, then it is still a subjective judgment.
QuoteGod does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective.
QuoteHow can you know it exists? Saying something exists, because you know it exists is a massive crock, please provide proof, or admit you have none, and are just making it up.WHY do you beleive in an objective moral code if you acknoledge there is no proof for one?
Quoteone cannot deductively prove objective morality just as one cannot deductively prove reality or truth. Now that doesn't mean it is somehow irrational to believe that objective morality exists, after all if you held the same standard in assessing objective truth as you do objective morality you would be considered a lunatic.
QuoteI can already see the reply to this post, a weak defence that you have said there is no proof, therefor my continuing insistance on one is unreasobale. unless you can prove your morality is objective, or at the very least provide a reason as to why you think it is objective, then your morality is just as subjective as anyone elses. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp this concept.
QuoteAs Ruse himself confesses, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."11
QuoteAlso, I find your use of the wall bang smiley very rude, that was the first time you mentioned god, all your previous posts about it being wrong provided no evidence whatsoever that it was wrong, other than you saying it was wrong becuase it is wrong. Using the smiley implies you have said something repeatedly that is simple and clear, and i have failed to grasp it, this does not tally with reality. For the sake of completeness, I will add that you posted this topic saying you wanted help finding the flaws in the argument of WLC, then turn around and start preaching about how atheists are imoral and how a moral objective code does exist ( without any evidence I might add ). Why were you not honest with your intentions in the first post?
Quotemurder is wrong because it runs contrary to God
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I don't think that is true, obviously, there are people who might live their life with that ideology, but I think that morality isn't something that once you "believe" or decide on sort of world view, than you have no need to question that morality, I don't think that many moral issues are as clear cut as we would all like them to be, and because of this I think it only wise to be constantly questioning moral decisions. If there is nobody to account to than the incentive to question your morality is weakened. Not obliterated, but definitely weakened.
Quote from: "Phillysoul11"They cannot all be true if they contradict each other, it is much more likely for no world views to be correct than all of them. They all claim to be true not all of them are true, our job is to find out which world view(if any) is true. Once you believe in one IF you actually DO believe in one, than you obviously believe it to be true, meaning that you other see other world views as false (if you thought they were true you would follow them) Most world views claim exclusivity, Atheism is not compatible with Theism. It would be absurd you Think both Atheism and Theism are both true ect.
Quote from: "Recusant"I just read SSY's post, and I see some convergence and agreement in our points. I wrote my answer more slowly than he did, is all.
QuoteWhat is it you mean by this then?
QuoteWhere did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective.
QuoteWhy is it rational to beleive in something you cannot prove? You still have not addressed this. Objective truth and morality are not the same. i can, objectivley state the sky is blue ( or more precisley, the wein distribution peak of the optical photons is at 650nm). This is a fact, intrinsic to the photons coming from the sun and the properties of our atmosphere in scattering them. Anyone who measure he photons with a sufficently accurate detector can know his fact. It is demonstably false that te photons are of any other wavelength.
QuoteWhat is so absurd about subjective morality?If your morality is not objective, then it must be subjective. As you have thus far provided no evidence about why your morality is different from anyone elses, or objective in anyway, or even from someone other than primitive bronze age men living in the middle east, I would conclude that your morality is subjective. We all know subjective morality exists, and until we see any evidence of objective morality, it is rational to assume subjective morality is the only one that exists. Beleiving in something with no evidence is irrational.
Quote"The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."
QuoteMurder has no such intrinsic property about it that says it is wrong. I would be interested to see why you think there is something intrinsically wrong about murder. Beleiving in something you can't prove, or don't even have any evidence for is totally irrational. Please provide proof or evidence that objective morality exists. You still have not done this, or even said why it is rational to beleive that objective mroality exists.
QuoteLet me summarise your argument so far as i see it. Objective morals existTherefor a christian who thinks he has them has the right to proclaim others actions as wrong, even if his morals are totally against the objective moral code that may existAtheists are not allowed to call the actions of others wrong, as they don't claim to be gods special little condemers.Your first premise is just an asertion i have so far seen no evidence for.the other two are so silly i am not even going to bother, though please correct me if I have misrepresented your argument.
QuoteEven if you can't prove it, please show some evidence that objective morality exists. Beleiving in something without evidence is irrational.Failing presenting evidence, please tell me any other reason you beleive they exist.
QuoteSpeaking of which, I think I will join you in forgoing the use of the cute little masochist (frustrated) smiley.