WLC's Moral Ontology Argument

[SSY]

So much wrongness in your post.

Murder is not defined as wrong, it is defined as unlawful, and laws are set only by the society in which they apply.

A 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?

[VanReal]

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.

What 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.

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.

That 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.

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.

We 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.

Look 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?

[Recusant]

Thank you, Phillysoul11, for an interesting topic, and for your consistently polite responses here.

I think I've made my position on it clear, as have my fellow atheists theirs,  but once more for the record:

I do not accept that an objective morality, defined as god-given, exists.  I do not accept that the belief that one is guided by such an objective morality is in any way superior to the belief that one is guided by subjective morality as determined by culture or evolved memes inherent in the nature of homo sapiens as a social animal.  To put it quite baldly; objective morality is not superior to subjective morality, in fact it is inferior, because it allows one who believes in it to avoid questioning the basis for their morality and act in blind obedience to it.

There is a saying: "Legend conquers History." That may or may not be true, but I think "Reality conquers Myth" is an inevitable fact.

Finally: Theistic morality's claim to objectivity is simply a farce, given the huge multitude of variations within that realm.

[Phillysoul11]

A 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.

What 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.

There is no conflict in the "thinking" that something is immoral, its when someone acts out and imposes his/her own view of morality on someone who shares a different view which I think is a both arrogant and naive accusation for someone who does not believe in objective morality.

That 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.

when I said stating I didn't simply mean sharing an opinion, I should have been more clear and I apologize for that. What I mean't was that the Atheist has no basis by which he could ever impose his/her morals on another being which disagrees without showing inconsistency. Why should anyone listen to what I have to say, if I only think that what I have to say is true for me, my beliefs and my societies beliefs ect.

We 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.

Again, I don't know you personally, but I have my doubts.

Look 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?

 God 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. you seem to be on the verge of posing euthyphros dilemma. We will see

[Recusant]

If I believed that objective morality existed, yet found no need in finding out what that morality was I would be a blundering fool.

Once 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.

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.

I 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.

I 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."

[Phillysoul11]

Once 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.

I don't think that is true, obviously, there are people who might live there 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.

I 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.

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.

I 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.

Lets be careful with the analogies here, I have claimed that "True Objective Morality" is represented in the Ladybug, all other religions/belief systems are represented in EVERY other insect. Not all insects (belief systems) are the ladybug (objective morality), only the ladybug is the ladybug.
again, thanks for keeping the discussion going  

[SSY]

A 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.

Your 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?

Your argument about the existance of objective morality also seems a bit silly. there is this moral, objective standard, but no one knows it, and they all have their own subjective standards, rendering the objective morals that supposedly exist as completley meaningless. A world with or without objective morals would be compltely indistinguishable from each other.

I fail to see how I have double standards, could you enlighten me as to where I have shown this?

The morals you have are subjective, as you still have not given me anything other than your oppinion on why something is wrong, nothing concrete about why it is wrong. It sounds like you may have a case of the intelectual dishonesty going on here.

[Phillysoul11]

Your 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:

[Ihateyoumike]

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God,

And yet your god has been the basis of more murder than you can possibly imagine.  

[SSY]

Your 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:

Sigh, I knew this post was coming.

 Murder 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.

How 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?

I do not have double standards. When I say something is wrong, that comes with the proviso that is only wrong in my oppinion, just like when I say something is tasty, it comes with the proviso it is only my oppinion. Thats why I dont go around spouting my morality as the best, shoving it down the throats of the young and the vulnrable as christianity does.

I 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. Let me pre-empt you by saying, 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.

Also, 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?

[Phillysoul11]

Murder 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.

Where 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. I mentioned this in post #19

God 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.

How 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?

As I said before, to prove objective morality, you would need to prove objective truth, which is impossible, yet still rational to believe.
 

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.

I 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.

well here goes my weak defense
1. I think the absurdity of subjective morality is reason enough to believe in objective morality

As 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

it is not a deductive proof but objective morality seems to line up with reality much more than anything subjective
2.My goal was to show the implications of subjective morality, not prove objective morality exists
3. How does me not being able to prove that my morality is objective make it subjective? please elaborate

Also, 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?

I apologize if the smiley offended you, I'm a bit new to forum etiquette, but I think I have been simple and clear and VERY repetitive. Your right, I did originally start off with a different objective and the conversation did shift. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you would rather discuss WLC's argument then we can do that, it matters not to me. I never said anything about atheists being immoral, I have some very intelligent, friendly (and happy) atheist friends and to say that they are somehow more immoral than any of my Muslim, Christian, or Agnostic friends would be a mistake. I think discussing/debating objective morality was the point of WLC's argument and so I fail to see how by taking his side on the issue is off topic.
I apologize if I came off the wrong way with the smiley though. I will discontinue using them.

[SSY]

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God

What is it you mean by this then?

Why 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.

Murder 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.

What 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.

Let me summarise your argument so far as i see it.
Objective morals exist
Therefor 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 exist
Atheists 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.

I am going to sum up my whole problem with your argument as well, if you only answer one bit, answer this bit.

Even 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.

[Recusant]

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.

Okay, let me get this straight:  We have an objective morality bestowed upon us by a thoughtful god.  Right and wrong are clearly defined by that benevolent god. The acts of humans are observed and judged by this interested god.  However the morality so thoughtfully  provided is inevitably vague enough that many moral issues are unclear.  Or perhaps some of the objective morality is hidden?  It must be because otherwise we would always know wrong from right.  So some of the objective morality is hidden by a benevolent god.  He has chosen to leave his beloved creation scratching their collective heads, tormented by terrible moral dilemmas, the answers to which are not as clear cut as the poor people would like them to be.  Not only that but they have an eternal soul which could end up in eternal torment if they, in their ignorance of the crucial hidden moral clause choose wrongly.  They end up constantly questioning moral decisions.  OK then.  I guess I was wrong. I have an admittedly primitive understanding of one particular god's morality, and it seemed fairly clear on pretty much all the important points, so one would not need to be constantly questioning moral decisions.  But I was only subject to a god-raddled education for 9 years.  I guess I missed or forgot the part about the missing moral precepts.  I stopped believing what they were teaching about religion when I was 11, and only paid enough attention to get  A's in the class most of the time. (Not hard.)

On the other hand we have some people who foolishly disbelieve in this god.  They think they have nobody to account to, but somehow have manged to decide to behave in a moral way. How?  It seems they would have to think about morality some, just to be able to make a moral decision. Without even the partially hidden objective morality supplied by a thoughtful god, one would think that questions about morality come to their minds at least as often as those lucky people who have Somebody to help guide them, however inadequately. But you say they have less incentive to question their morality.  I guess you mean the eternal torment part.  I think the decision to live a moral life in an amoral universe shows remarkable incentive, and can only work if one makes a point of seriously considering moral questions.  We'll just have to differ about that one.

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.

I happen to believe that the only objective truth is reasoned from objectively provable facts, while there are many varieties of truth which are entirely subjective, in that they are reasoned from, shall we say unprovable facts (among them such things as one might take on faith.)  But that is not the subject if this thread, which seems to have evolved into a discussion of the existence of objective morality.
I do not put world views into categories like true and false, since they always comprise elements of both.  No one person's view is ever entirely "true" in my opinion.  Rather, as you might have already surmised, I consider world view to be unique to each individual; subjective, in other words.  You are the only one who actually knows what the world looks like from within your skull.  We all make at least some decisions based entirely on subjective standards, and some on objective standards. We're just talking about where the line between the two lies.
I think theism, being based as it is on faith, is only true in a subjective sense.  At the same time, seeing as there is no known way to objectively prove the non-existence of gods, atheism is also only true in a subjective sense.  I hope that clears up that point.  


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.  

[SSY]

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.  

I am happy we seem to agree on some things, I thought your posts in this thread have been very good so far. The considered nature of your typing also shows, maybe I should start drafting my posts. . . .

[Phillysoul11]

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God

What is it you mean by this then?

What do you mean by this then?

If this is a response to the claim in which I said
 

Where 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.

then you are completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to argue. Murder is wrong, it is not wrong because god "says" its wrong, after all then it would be subjective because God could have decided to say something else. I'm not sure what you don't understand but then again you might be referring to something else so let me know if you were.

Why 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.

You can objectively state it yes, and you can offer compelling evidence for it, but you cannot deductively prove it. I could respond by stating that you and I are the figments of stardust who have been manipulated into believing a false reality. You can offer as much evidence as you like, but science and observation cannot prove many things.

What 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.

"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."

If objective morality does not exist than the rape of children would be bad only by our standards, and if it is only wrong by our standards than if someone has other standards we have no right to impose our standards on them. the 911 terrorist attacks were not really acts of evil, they were merely a conflict between two societies, nothing can say that what they did was wrong, they believe they were in the right, we believe they were in the wrong. If objective morality doesn't exist than trying to end evil deeds is a selfish unwarranted attempt at imposing your opinions on others. Why condemn a man for acting morally in his culture when it is immoral in ours?

Murder 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.

Because by its definition it is an unjustified killing. Now you could obviously say that it is only unjustified as define by our society, but (since your asking for my opinion) I think that making such a claim is a naive one. If murder is only bad because our society has decided it is bad than it ultimately it is not bad. My point is that whether it be in our conscience or subconscience we all know that killing someone unjustly is wrong.

Let me summarise your argument so far as i see it.
Objective morals exist
Therefor 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 exist
Atheists 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.

you are a tad bit off, but that is probably my fault for not being clear.
(edits in bold)

 a Thiest who believes in objective truth is being completely consistent with his beliefs when he  proclaims others actions as wrong, even if his morals are totally against the objective moral code that may exist
Atheists are not consistant when they  call the actions of others wrong, as they believe in opinion based morality

Even 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.

it is in my opinion, irrational to believe in opinion based morality as the consequences that such a world view entails do not match up with reality. Which is what I have been (for the most) part writing about.  The only other option to the opinion based morality is morality that does not hinge upon the fragility of human opinion. Morality that is outside of our whimsical decisions. On a bit of a side note I believe that if one really believes in subjective morality and lives their life in consistency with their beliefs that one will have to (at best) settle for nihilism as it is the best explanation that logically follows a subjective morality world view. Now you might be a nihilist,( like I said I don't know who the heck you are) and if you are than good for you!  :pop:




We are sailing in uncharted waters so my replies will be of a different sort, I will take the position of a classical theist and respond as if I were one, let me break up your reply if I may and evaluate what you had to say

Speaking of which, I think I will join you in forgoing the use of the cute little masochist (frustrated) smiley.  

if you feel as though you are frustrated with something that I am saying I would rather know.  

cheers