Jump to content


Photo

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#61 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

I think Gilbo gave a good example to what subjective moral values are all about. If morals are subjective you have no ground to classify murder as wrong for example.

1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.
2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.
3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.



If you think abortion is morally wrong. Do you think a woman that makes an abortion since a child would hamper her career makes a morally correct choice or not? If you have any moral opinion on other peoples action, with which right do you judge others people actions based on your own preferences. Should not everyone (if moral is just personal preferences) be judged by their own preferences. But what we are discussing are if this premise is true or not :

1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.


The only thing this premise says is that if moral is subjective then people in general should think that their moral preference is just a point of view. Like people know that their favorite color is a preference that is not shared by everybody.



Of course not. People might have moral standards that are more or less in tune with the objective moral ground that they are derived from. Some standards might be so far from the objective ground that they could be called immoral. But here we where discussing if this premise is true :

2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.

What this premise is describing is that it exists at least one circumstance, namely wrongs against oneself, where people do not act in accordance to the 1st premise. Or would you like to try and convince us that people that are lied to, raped or stolen from do not think that those actions are really wrong. Do you really think that they will view those actions as if they where only wrong from their point of view and that the offender did not do anything wrong?

So since both premises seems to be true the conclusion is also true, namely :

3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.



What is legal or social accepted does not need to be morally right. Of course you can set up some sort of rules, like it is illegal to :

1 - Murder people
2 - Like any other color but green

But without some objective moral ground the standard just contains arbitrary points that is just rules decided by someone containing no real moral value.

Remember that in the beginning I said that objective morals are discovered, not invented. So different moral standards might have discovered more or less about the underlying objective moral that all standards are indirectly referring to. One way to find out would be if the lawgiver would have given us some writings where his law is stated.

Is liking any another color besides green morally good or morally bad. How do you know? By what objective standard did you measure the liking of red to determine if it was morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral?

What objective morals have been discovered? What has this lawgiver given you that you would consider an objective moral standard?

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:03 PM

Is liking any another color besides green morally good or morally bad. How do you know? By what objective standard did you measure the liking of red to determine if it was morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral?

What objective morals have been discovered? What has this lawgiver given you that you would consider an objective moral standard?


It was an example, to demonstrate how silly the concept of subjective morals is...... You didn't know that?

As per subjective morals I can claim that killing a person each day is morally good, or that looking behind you is morally bad. Being subjective means that there is no foundation outside of ones own whims, that is the point we are trying to get you to understand.

Torturing children is an objectively evil act

#63 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:47 PM

The most atheistic nation on earth is sweden where around 80% of the population does not believe in a personal god that makes moral demands. Last year the homicide rate was 1 murder per 100,000 citizens.

In the united states 85% of the population believes in a personal god that makes moral demands. Last year the homicide rate in the US was 4.1 murders out of every 100,000 citizens. Or 410% the homicide rate of the most secular country on earth.

Can we stop pretending that if you don't believe in god that somehow makes you a serial killer? It's not how the world works and it's incredibly insulting.

#64 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:04 AM

The most atheistic nation on earth is sweden where around 80% of the population does not believe in a personal god that makes moral demands. Last year the homicide rate was 1 murder per 100,000 citizens.

In the united states 85% of the population believes in a personal god that makes moral demands. Last year the homicide rate in the US was 4.1 murders out of every 100,000 citizens. Or 410% the homicide rate of the most secular country on earth.

Can we stop pretending that if you don't believe in god that somehow makes you a serial killer? It's not how the world works and it's incredibly insulting.


Did anyone ever say that?

Strawman fallacy = EPIC FAIL

#65 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:06 AM

The most atheistic nation on earth is sweden where around 80% of the population does not believe in a personal god that makes moral demands. Last year the homicide rate was 1 murder per 100,000 citizens. In the united states 85% of the population believes in a personal god that makes moral demands. Last year the homicide rate in the US was 4.1 murders out of every 100,000 citizens. Or 410% the homicide rate of the most secular country on earth. Can we stop pretending that if you don't believe in god that somehow makes you a serial killer? It's not how the world works and it's incredibly insulting.


It's funny you mention Sweden, I'm from Sweden. The moral standard in Sweden (as well as the law in Sweden) are essentially based on 500 years of Lutheran faith and around 70% of the people in Sweden are still members of the Swedish Lutheran church, but I'm not one of them Posted Image

So a Lutheran moral standard together with a very restrictive gun law, seems to make a good moral base against murder. It's just a shame that the Swedish government is trying to take away the very foundation for the Swedish moral, namely the Christian faith. 40 years ago 95% of the Swedish population where part of the Lutheran church. It has happened a lot in 40 years, but thankfully all moral standards do not vanish that easily. Today 23% of Swedish people do believe in God and 23% are atheist. The majority of people in Sweden believe in the supernatural, but not that it needs to be a personal God. But hey that are what they are taught to think. They see that there are more to life then just the material, but it is politically incorrect to be presumptuous and say that this points to the fact that God exists. And they are taught in schools that evolution explains everything, which is another obstacle in believing in a personal God. This is of course just my point of view as a Swede and not all Swedes would agree Posted Image

But anyway, what have all this to do with the fact that objective moral values do exist?

#66 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:21 AM

It was an example, to demonstrate how silly the concept of subjective morals is...... You didn't know that?

As per subjective morals I can claim that killing a person each day is morally good, or that looking behind you is morally bad. Being subjective means that there is no foundation outside of ones own whims, that is the point we are trying to get you to understand.

Torturing children is an objectively evil act

You actually didn't answer my question. I can understand that because I wasn't addressing you directly.

To reiterate: If you determine the morality of a particular act by comparing it with the "objective moral standard", to what did you compare "Torturing children" in order to determine that it was an evil act? You claim it is objectively evil. If God told you to torture children, would it then be evil?

If God can determine what is morally good at any particular time, how can there be any actions that are objectively evil or objectively good? Is God constrained by what is morally good or are morals subject to God's determination of what is good?

#67 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:26 AM

Did anyone ever say that?

Strawman fallacy = EPIC FAIL

Insisting that atheists have no reason to not oppose murder, yes, is implying that atheists are more murderous. And it's unbelievably insulting.

#68 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:32 AM

Insisting that atheists have no reason to not oppose murder, yes, is implying that atheists are more murderous. And it's unbelievably insulting.

They aren't saying that atheists are more murderous. They are saying that although atheists have no reason to oppose murder (from their perspective), atheists actually do oppose murder. Therefore, atheists must believe that there is a objective moral standard and that standard must be God...so, atheists actually believe in God but are in denial or are lying about what they believe so they don't have to subject themselves to God's commandments.

#69 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:32 AM

It's funny you mention Sweden, I'm from Sweden. The moral standard in Sweden (as well as the law in Sweden) are essentially based on 500 years of Lutheran faith and around 70% of the people in Sweden are still members of the Swedish Lutheran church, but I'm not one of them Posted Image

So a Lutheran moral standard together with a very restrictive gun law, seems to make a good moral base against murder. It's just a shame that the Swedish government is trying to take away the very foundation for the Swedish moral, namely the Christian faith. 40 years ago 95% of the Swedish population where part of the Lutheran church. It has happened a lot in 40 years, but thankfully all moral standards do not vanish that easily. Today 23% of Swedish people do believe in God and 23% are atheist. The majority of people in Sweden believe in the supernatural, but not that it needs to be a personal God. But hey that are what they are taught to think. They see that there are more to life then just the material, but it is politically incorrect to be presumptuous and say that this points to the fact that God exists. And they are taught in schools that evolution explains everything, which is another obstacle in believing in a personal God. This is of course just my point of view as a Swede and not all Swedes would agree Posted Image

But anyway, what have all this to do with the fact that objective moral values do exist?

Yes, and what is the basis of the new testament morality? The old testament. What is the basis of the old testament's morality? The code of hammurabi (ancient babylonian law which stated the golden rule and other "biblical" edicts over a thousand years before they became scripture), and the basis of the code of hammurabi is whatever came before that. And what is the basis of that? Human psychology and the social instincts we have toward helping and not harming each other. What is the basis of that? Natural selection. Which is why if you look at animals in nature they have pretty much the same moral behaviors we do. This is why psychologists can do experiments with lab rats and learn as much about us as they do about the rats. Even giving the lab rats moral dilemmas.

#70 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:39 AM

They aren't saying that atheists are more murderous. They are saying that although atheists have no reason to oppose murder (from their perspective), atheists actually do oppose murder. Therefore, atheists must believe that there is a objective moral standard and that standard must be God...so, atheists actually believe in God but are in denial or are lying about what they believe so they don't have to subject themselves to God's commandments.

And this is ridiculous. It's assuming with no logic that our moral sense comes from not just a god but the god of the bible, then projecting theism onto atheists and claiming that atheists are secret theists. Doesn't that strike you as a tad bit crazy? If I ever start arguing atheism by claiming that you're all secretly atheists and know I'm right please somebody shake me until I stop talking nonsense.

The reason evangelists have had some success with this line of reasoning isn't because it makes sense, but because most people don't know where their morality really comes from. To understand that you need to understand your cultural history, human psychology, and yes, even evolution and the development of the brain, most of which we have in common with other species (which is why they exhibit the same behaviors to various degrees). A reptile for instance has the same fight or flight response that we do, but it doesn't exhibit concern for it's offspring because it lays eggs and when they hatch the offspring are good to go. Human beings care intensely for our children because when they are born they are completely vulnerable, if we didn't have an instinct to protect them our species could not have developed to it's current level of intelligence. I can elaborate if you like.

#71 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:46 AM

And this is ridiculous. It's assuming with no logic that our moral sense comes from not just a god but the god of the bible, then projecting theism onto atheists and claiming that atheists are secret theists. Doesn't that strike you as a tad bit crazy? If I ever start arguing atheism by claiming that you're all secretly atheists and know I'm right please somebody shake me until I stop talking nonsense.

The reason evangelists have had some success with this line of reasoning isn't because it makes sense, but because most people don't know where their morality really comes from. To understand that you need to understand your cultural history, human psychology, and yes, even evolution and the development of the brain, most of which we have in common with other species (which is why they exhibit the same behaviors to various degrees). A reptile for instance has the same fight or flight response that we do, but it doesn't exhibit concern for it's offspring because it lays eggs and when they hatch the offspring are good to go. Human beings care intensely for our children because when they are born they are completely vulnerable, if we didn't have an instinct to protect them our species could not have developed to it's current level of intelligence. I can elaborate if you like.


No-one ever claimed you were a secret atheist ergo strawman fallacy.

What is being claimed here can be put very simply.

1- Objective moral values are grounded in something moral that is not a part of human society or society in general.
2- Objective morals exist
3- The foundation / grounding for objective morals is God, (since God is moral and is not a part of human society).

There is a way to debunk the moral argument, this is to find something that also fits the bill, ie- something moral (thus sentient) but is not a part of human society or society in general. At this time the only answer we have for this is God therefore God is chosen by logical deduction.

#72 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

"No-one ever claimed you were a secret atheist ergo strawman fallacy."

What? That makes no sense, and yes the person I was responding to posited that I somehow knew god was real and was following his commandments.

"What is being claimed here can be put very simply.
1- Objective moral values are grounded in something moral that is not a part of human society or society in general."

I think morality is grounded in natural law, a concept which has a long history in both secular and religious thought. In other words that moral truths flow from truths about nature itself. Human nature, physical properties of things etc. A hand grenade is a bad gift to give a small child because of what it intrinsically is, not because there's some rule in some big book somewhere about hand grenades. It is a bad gift because of it's potential to do harm, which is determined by the nature of human beings. If grenades didn't harm people there would be no problem. If bullets didn't harm people shooting each other wouldn't be immoral. And if god made human beings the way we are, made us capable of fear and pain and made us so that bullets and grenades hurt us, then god is the author of morality. If we evolved naturally then it is an artifact of our evolution.

On the other hand you have authoritarian morality, the notion that something is good or bad not because of it's intrinsic nature or potential consequences, but because god (or whatever authority figure) says so. That might makes right. In which case god could say raping children is good and it would be good (even though it still causes horror and incredible pain to the child).

The typical response to this is that god would not say that because he's not evil. But if it would be evil for god to make the decree then morality exists independent of god (even if he is the author of it).

Another problem you run into is that even if morality is authoritarian and god's will is "the" morality, how do you account for all the stuff in scripture (even in the new testament) nobody in this forum wants to follow? Why does slavery and having different rules for men and woman and stoning people to death for things that wouldn't get you a ticket in a modern society feel so horribly wrong if it's supposedly god's perfect will. If god wrote moral laws on our heart as many theists claim, why do so many biblical edicts make us cringe and recoil?

I'm not saying this as a dig, I'm genuinely opening it up for discussion.

"2- Objective morals exist"

I think morals are human ethics, I would say that human morality has an objective basis.

"3- The foundation / grounding for objective morals is God, (since God is moral and is not a part of human society)."

If by "morality" you mean why we do what we do, not a lot of that has to do with god. The premarital s@x rate, divorce rate, etc isn't very different among believers than it is among non-believers. I firmly believe human psychology, culture etc drive our morality much more than religion, faith, god etc. You could say god is the author of human psychology, but then he's got to be responsible for the bad stuff too.

"There is a way to debunk the moral argument, this is to find something that also fits the bill, ie- something moral (thus sentient) but is not a part of human society or society in general. At this time the only answer we have for this is God therefore God is chosen by logical deduction."

At one time the only answer for lightning was zeus. The logical thing to do then would've been to wait for a better answer.

And granted that answer could have been how zeus makes lightning, where zeus was, where zeus came from and proof to back it up. There could be a god that is the author of morality. But I don't see any more evidence of that than I do for zeus. Or that illness is caused by demons etc.

#73 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:30 AM

"No-one ever claimed you were a secret atheist ergo strawman fallacy."

What? That makes no sense, and yes the person I was responding to posited that I somehow knew god was real and was following his commandments.

"What is being claimed here can be put very simply.
1- Objective moral values are grounded in something moral that is not a part of human society or society in general."

I think morality is grounded in natural law, a concept which has a long history in both secular and religious thought. In other words that moral truths flow from truths about nature itself. Human nature, physical properties of things etc. A hand grenade is a bad gift to give a small child because of what it intrinsically is, not because there's some rule in some big book somewhere about hand grenades. It is a bad gift because of it's potential to do harm, which is determined by the nature of human beings. If grenades didn't harm people there would be no problem. If bullets didn't harm people shooting each other wouldn't be immoral. And if god made human beings the way we are, made us capable of fear and pain and made us so that bullets and grenades hurt us, then god is the author of morality. If we evolved naturally then it is an artifact of our evolution.

On the other hand you have authoritarian morality, the notion that something is good or bad not because of it's intrinsic nature or potential consequences, but because god (or whatever authority figure) says so. That might makes right. In which case god could say raping children is good and it would be good (even though it still causes horror and incredible pain to the child).

The typical response to this is that god would not say that because he's not evil. But if it would be evil for god to make the decree then morality exists independent of god (even if he is the author of it).

Another problem you run into is that even if morality is authoritarian and god's will is "the" morality, how do you account for all the stuff in scripture (even in the new testament) nobody in this forum wants to follow? Why does slavery and having different rules for men and woman and stoning people to death for things that wouldn't get you a ticket in a modern society feel so horribly wrong if it's supposedly god's perfect will. If god wrote moral laws on our heart as many theists claim, why do so many biblical edicts make us cringe and recoil?

I'm not saying this as a dig, I'm genuinely opening it up for discussion.

"2- Objective morals exist"

I think morals are human ethics, I would say that human morality has an objective basis.

"3- The foundation / grounding for objective morals is God, (since God is moral and is not a part of human society)."

If by "morality" you mean why we do what we do, not a lot of that has to do with god. The premarital s@x rate, divorce rate, etc isn't very different among believers than it is among non-believers. I firmly believe human psychology, culture etc drive our morality much more than religion, faith, god etc. You could say god is the author of human psychology, but then he's got to be responsible for the bad stuff too.

"There is a way to debunk the moral argument, this is to find something that also fits the bill, ie- something moral (thus sentient) but is not a part of human society or society in general. At this time the only answer we have for this is God therefore God is chosen by logical deduction."

At one time the only answer for lightning was zeus. The logical thing to do then would've been to wait for a better answer.

And granted that answer could have been how zeus makes lightning, where zeus was, where zeus came from and proof to back it up. There could be a god that is the author of morality. But I don't see any more evidence of that than I do for zeus. Or that illness is caused by demons etc.


1. Absolutely false, laws have nothing moral about them. Nature has nothing moral about it.. When a lion kills a zebra does it "murder" the zebra? No... When a lion forces himself onto a lioness is that claimed as rape? No... Dawkins agrees with me

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we shouldexpect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, nogood, nothing but blind pitiless indifference . . . DNA neither caresnor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995), 133.

Giving a hand grenade to a child is bad because we know that the hand grenade will kill the child and that killing people with no just cause is wrong, ergo no nature here, just your own mental gymnastics.

Did God ever say raping childrent was good? Why even say that when you know its false?

I'm saying the objectivity of morality comes from God, not saying God zaps you and you becomes more moral or that he forces it on you, just saying that he has put in place a set of objecive guidelines to follow, if someone follows them or not is entirely up to the individual.


You are new here so how can you make claims such as "nobody on this forum", how can you possibly know that... Seems like someone is trying to puff up their argument ;)


2. Morals are morals, and yes they are objective. Ergo objectivity comes outside of this world since if it comes from this world then its subjective.

3. Not saying he is the author of what people choose to do with their freewill, I am saying he is the cause of objectivity. Its a totally different thing.

#74 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:54 AM

Yes, and what is the basis of the new testament morality? The old testament. What is the basis of the old testament's morality? The code of hammurabi (ancient babylonian law which stated the golden rule and other "biblical" edicts over a thousand years before they became scripture), and the basis of the code of hammurabi is whatever came before that. And what is the basis of that? Human psychology and the social instincts we have toward helping and not harming each other. What is the basis of that? Natural selection. Which is why if you look at animals in nature they have pretty much the same moral behaviors we do. This is why psychologists can do experiments with lab rats and learn as much about us as they do about the rats. Even giving the lab rats moral dilemmas.


The basis of the old testament morality is God, didn't you know that? At least if you are to believe what the old testament actually says, instead of just assuming that it's all made up as you do. To know if the Bible is made up or not is something for another thread, so let's not get into that discussion.

But if you look in nature for moral guidance you will have some interesting moral dilemmas.

Is it OK for a woman to kill and eat their lover after mating?
Is it OK for a man to first chase away a man from a group of females and then kill all children that the females have and finally rape each of the female to produce their own offspring?

Normally you don't hold animal responsible for the moral consequences of their actions. Why is that?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#75 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:04 AM

They aren't saying that atheists are more murderous. They are saying that although atheists have no reason to oppose murder (from their perspective), atheists actually do oppose murder. Therefore, atheists must believe that there is a objective moral standard and that standard must be God...so, atheists actually believe in God but are in denial or are lying about what they believe so they don't have to subject themselves to God's commandments.


No. We just say that whoever believes morality is subjective has no ground for accusing anybody of doing anything wrong. And we don't say atheist believe in God, but argue that the only logically coherent objective ground for morality is God.

But who said that a worldview needs to be logically coherent :)
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#76 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:35 AM

Couldn't have said it better Tirian :D
  • Tirian likes this

#77 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:18 AM

"1. Absolutely false, laws have nothing moral about them."

I never said they did. This, like most of your response is incoherent. You did not honestly take in anything I had to say.

"Nature has nothing moral about it.. When a lion kills a zebra does it "murder" the zebra? No..."

No, no more than we're committing murder when we eat a steak. It does when it kills another lion though. Species have moral instincts against killing or harming their own kind, not against eating other animals. As someone pointed out once, even during a feeding frenzy pirahna never attack each other.

"When a lion forces himself onto a lioness is that claimed as rape? No..."

How exactly would it be "claimed" as rape by a lion? You're saying that species have no social instincts guiding their behavior whatsoever? So a school of fish has no instincts telling them to stay close and swim in the same direction? A lion will just as gladly eat it's fellow lions as it will a gazelle?

"Dawkins agrees with me"

No, he doesn't. The quote you gave is talking about the properties of the universe being indifferent, not evolved species having no sense of right or wrong. In other words gravity accellerates everything downward at the same rate whether it's pulling a game-winning free throw into the hoop or pulling your head toward concrete to kill you. It is by definition constant which is by definition indifferent. Animals on the other hand have the same basic psychology we do in many cases. If animals are "pitiless and indifferent" as you mis-quote dawkins saying, how do you account for this:



Are you saying animals don't love and want to protect their offspring or members of their group? Seriously?

"Giving a hand grenade to a child is bad because we know that the hand grenade will kill the child and that killing people with no just cause is wrong, ergo no nature here, just your own mental gymnastics."

You think you're some genius for pointing out to me that hand grenades kill people like I didn't know that? Stop being dishonest and deal with what I actually said.

"Did God ever say raping childrent was good? Why even say that when you know its false?"

I didn't say that god said raping children was good, stop lying and deal with what I actually said. Or just don't respond if you're not going to.

"I'm saying the objectivity of morality comes from God, not saying God zaps you and you becomes more moral or that he forces it on you, just saying that he has put in place a set of objecive guidelines to follow, if someone follows them or not is entirely up to the individual."

So is it wrong to rape a child because it would harm the child or is it wrong because god decrees it's wrong? And if the latter, if god said it's good would it be morally good (even though it still does the same harm)?

"You are new here so how can you make claims such as "nobody on this forum", how can you possibly know that... Seems like someone is trying to puff up their argument Posted Image"

I went out on a limb and guessed there are no slavery supporters here. Are you saying there are racists on this forum? I just read in the youtube guidelines that videos posted must be "mostly non-racist", so who knows.

"2. Morals are morals, and yes they are objective. Ergo objectivity comes outside of this world since if it comes from this world then its subjective."

That isn't what subjective and objective mean. Something is objective if it exists outside of the human mind, ie an atom or a chair or the planet. It can be verified by others to exist. Morality is just as much an objective part of human (and animal) nature as sexuality or anger or anything else.

"3. Not saying he is the author of what people choose to do with their freewill, I am saying he is the cause of objectivity. Its a totally different thing."

Then how is that different than what I said that if right and wrong are dictated by the intrinsic nature of things and if god created life and people and the universe with specific properties he is by definition the author of morality. You chose to ignore that and misrepresent my other comments instead.

#78 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:38 AM

"The basis of the old testament morality is God, didn't you know that? At least if you are to believe what the old testament actually says, instead of just assuming that it's all made up as you do. To know if the Bible is made up or not is something for another thread, so let's not get into that discussion."

The ethics in the old testament like the golden rule were already in the culture for a long time at the time the texts were written. The bible was not their origin in that culture whether you like it or not.

"But if you look in nature for moral guidance you will have some interesting moral dilemmas."

I didn't say I look to nature for moral guidance, I said that moral instincts (including pretty much all of ours) exist in nature to some degree.

"Is it OK for a woman to kill and eat their lover after mating?
Is it OK for a man to first chase away a man from a group of females and then kill all children that the females have and finally rape each of the female to produce their own offspring?"

This is intellectually dishonest, I already discussed how different species have different moral instincts, ie reptiles do not feel the need to care for their young. And as far as your examples you're saying that murdering your spouse, killing children the males and then having your way with the women is all clearly evil. I couldn't agree more. However...

Killing your spouse:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die;"

- Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Killing all the men and children and having your way with the women:

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

- Numbers 31:7-8 (it's moses speaking btw)

"And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee."

- Deuteronomy 20:13-14

etc.

Why are you arguing against killing people and raping their sisters and daughters? It's commanded in the bible, which is supposedly your objective source of morality.

"Normally you don't hold animal responsible for the moral consequences of their actions. Why is that?"

What, like make an animal jail? Do the words "wildly impractical" mean anything to you? I do not have the means to "fix" all of nature.

#79 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:40 AM

No. We just say that whoever believes morality is subjective has no ground for accusing anybody of doing anything wrong. And we don't say atheist believe in God, but argue that the only logically coherent objective ground for morality is God. But who said that a worldview needs to be logically coherent :)/>

I don't believe morality is subjective, though I think it is complex and situational.

#80 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:43 AM

I don't believe morality is subjective, though I think it is complex and situational.


Situational = Subjective... Since when one considers the situation then its becoming based on how you view that situation and your feelings towards it, therefore subjective. Therefore you're beliefs are clashing with each other.

If you feel that morality is not subjective then on what foundation is the objectivity?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users