A Question of Morality (3 Viewers)

[rounder]

So what? If he's right then he says there is objective morality without god. Doesn't help religion at all.

I'm not saying I agree with him. But he does make a few good points about objective morality despite being an atheist.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

It's so sad that some people refuse to read the argument first before arguing against it.

What's really sad is when people try arguing for something they themselves don't understand.

 

[Seven]

I'm not saying I agree with him. But he does make a few good points about objective morality despite being an atheist.

So he:

a) does not prove there's an objective morality
b) thinks there is no God.

HOW DOES THIS HELP YOU?

 

[Enron]

I'm not saying I agree with him. But he does make a few good points about objective morality despite being an atheist.

So atheists aren't capable of thought?

 

[Raz]

You do realize that the fellow steps on his one feet by saying that values are something that must be learned? According to the theory of objective morality these values would be passed down from god, which means that from birth people are morally sound yet we know that isn't the case.

Thats the thing, that we arent, but supposedly there is this truth anyway, but we cant now it. SO whats the point of the objective morality if we cannot know what it is?

 

[Enron]

So he:

a) does not prove there's an objective morality
b) thinks there is no God.

HOW DOES THIS HELP YOU?

He doesn't understand how, he just know it does.

 

[Martin]

Thats the thing, that we arent, but supposedly there is this truth anyway, but we cant now it. SO whats the point of the objective morality if we cannot know what it is?

This is the biggest mystery known to man in this thread.

 

[Seven]

This is the biggest mystery known to man in this thread.

It's about power. Believers want to have the power to say what's right and what's wrong. JR wants to be able to condemn our actions.

 

[rounder]

Have you read that article? The objective moral standard this guy is proposing is something very different than the one JR is talking about.

I bet he typed in "atheism objective morality" on Google and randomly selected a link.

EDIT: it's the fifth link

His argument is not the same as mine ofcourse but..

"First, it is important to understand that the skeptic answer can be seen as simply absurd and hypocrite. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area (except perhaps some nihilists), especially things like science. We rightly blame many Christians for holding Creationist positions on faith and subjective appreciation, because their position is not based on reality. But we must put the same blame on the shoulders of the subjectivist position in morality. To argue that morality is not knowledge and that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default.

One may claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism. But that is unacceptable: in the absence of objective evidence for a proposition, we must remain silent. We must go to the extent that a rational evaluation of the evidence will take us, and no further. To do otherwise is to indulge in fantasy, which can be very good in art but a detriment in philosophy as well as in our daily experience."

I agree with this part and it suffices to favor my argument.

 

[Seven]

That part doesn't really say anything.

 

[Enron]

Thats the thing, that we arent, but supposedly there is this truth anyway, but we cant now it. SO whats the point of the objective morality if we cannot know what it is?

Like I said it's purely faith based. Basically it takes independent thought and totally gives all the credit to God. Which is pretty hard to believe, even from a religious standpoint, considering the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[Seven]

Like I said it's purely faith based. Basically it takes independent thought and totally gives all the credit to God. Which is pretty hard to believe, even from a religious standpoint, considering the story of Adam and Eve.

THIS is GOLD, Aaron.

I completely forgot about all this. We are banned from paradise because we wanted to know the difference between right and wrong. Yet my right can be JR's wrong.

...

 

[rounder]

So atheists aren't capable of thought?

If they were, you just proved otherwise.

It's about power. Believers want to have the power to say what's right and what's wrong. JR wants to be able to condemn our actions.

Yes, because nothing would give me more satisfaction in my life.

It serves us greatly and like I mentioned we are gradually revealing objective moral truths. Is it really farfetched to say that in 200 years we will have much more absolute truths than we do now? I insinuate that we are aprroximate an objective moral standard graduall through time.

 

[Raz]

Like I said it's purely faith based. Basically it takes independent thought and totally gives all the credit to God. Which is pretty hard to believe, even from a religious standpoint, considering the story of Adam and Eve.

Which in itself would contradict god wouldnt it? Freewill anyone?

Ok im off to training, see ya later

 

[Seven]

If they were, you just proved otherwise.



Yes, because nothing would give me more satisfaction in my life.

It serves us greatly and like I mentioned we are gradually revealing objective moral truths. Is it really farfetched to say that in 200 years we will have much more absolute truths than we do now? I insinuate that we are aprroximate an objective moral standard graduall through time.

And then the Antichrist will reign the Earth for a thousand years.

 

[rounder]

Like I said it's purely faith based. Basically it takes independent thought and totally gives all the credit to God. Which is pretty hard to believe, even from a religious standpoint, considering the story of Adam and Eve.

THIS is GOLD, Aaron.

I completely forgot about all this. We are banned from paradise because we wanted to know the difference between right and wrong. Yet my right can be JR's wrong.

...

You don't honestly think the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally do you? You do understand that it serves as a moral lesson and not as an actual event in history yes?

 

[Enron]

His argument is not the same as mine ofcourse but..

"First, it is important to understand that the skeptic answer can be seen as simply absurd and hypocrite. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area (except perhaps some nihilists), especially things like science. We rightly blame many Christians for holding Creationist positions on faith and subjective appreciation, because their position is not based on reality. But we must put the same blame on the shoulders of the subjectivist position in morality. To argue that morality is not knowledge and that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default.

One may claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism. But that is unacceptable: in the absence of objective evidence for a proposition, we must remain silent. We must go to the extent that a rational evaluation of the evidence will take us, and no further. To do otherwise is to indulge in fantasy, which can be very good in art but a detriment in philosophy as well as in our daily experience."

I agree with this part and it suffices to favor my argument.

It just says that you can't prove moral objectivism and that morality is knowledge, just like Biology. Both of which are true, neither of which state that morality comes from god.

 

[Martin]

You don't honestly think the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally do you?

You're right, it's just a story in a book.

 

[Enron]

If they were, you just proved otherwise.

 

[rounder]

Like I said it's purely faith based. Basically it takes independent thought and totally gives all the credit to God. Which is pretty hard to believe, even from a religious standpoint, considering the story of Adam and Eve.

You can independatly realize this can you not?