Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[BradCube]

Basically the argument I'm seeing is that objective morality is better than subjective morality because you're getting it from a God who can determine good/bad better than anybody else.

But without proof of a God, I find it hard to accept that the objective morality Christians hold so dear is actually better than 'subjective morality' conjured up by Atheists.

Well of course, but this isn't' saying much because if God doesn't exist, then I would agree that subjective morality is no better then objective morality, since both of them would be human constructs and have no real truth value.

Tying it back again to our original starting point, if only subjective morality existed then I fail to see how good deeds are anything but worthless when all they satisfy is a personally constructed set of moral values. There is nothing innately good about doing some deed when you have decided what good in fact is. All acts seem equally in vain when subjective moral values are applied to them.


Btw, I think you realized where I was headed, so I won't bother answering the question that preceded this one

 

[katie tully]

The section bolded is contradictory to what you have stated above it. You go on to try and show that there is nothing actually wrong with rape and it's "wrongness" is a construct of society but then claim that objective morality does exist? By its very definition, objective morality exists outside and regardless of what society believes.

The atheist must believe there is no objective morality, because there is no objective source from which it could come. The theist and atheist both believe that objective morality must exist regardless of what people believe to be wrong or right because it is objective and independent of them

No, you’re confused by what I was asking.

No. Rape is wrong because people have decided, collectively, that rape is wrong. Thus it becomes socially unacceptable. A person, I don’t believe, is born with the knowledge that rape is wrong. They’re taught through social constructs that it is wrong, and to further reinforce the idea that it’s wrong there is a legal punishment for it.
So why is rape wrong regardless of whether people believe it. What is wrong about rape? If we are to forget the social aspects and the legal aspects, the religious aspects, why is rape wrong? You can’t answer it because everything we believe about rape is a result of our social and religious constructs.

You’re saying that objective morality, that is morality that exists free of bias and free of emotion and that exists ‘outside’ dictates what is right and wrong. You are then saying that this objective morality comes from a higher being with a greater understanding of what is right or wrong, an understanding greater than we could ever comprehend. Am I correct in saying this?
Without proof that a God exists, how can you accept that objective morality is a construct of this being. How can morality just exist without being a construct of anything? My question was, how can you explain rape is being wrong, by definition of objective morality. How can you prove that rape is wrong if you take away the social and religious constructs. You’re attributing this objective morality to a higher being, yet you’re accepting this higher beings definition of what is right or wrong without there being solid proof this being actually exists.
The bible says that women should not have short hair. How can this be an objective morality? If the Bible is the word of God, and if God is the source of objective morality, how can a shaved head on a woman be unmoral?

So now murder is wrong regardless of what society believes, but rape isn't?

To be honest I think atheists truly do have a sense and belief in objective morality but they don't like to admit it because it alludes to something outside of their own existence - but that's a different matter

Well isn’t that what you’re saying. You’re saying that for Christians, murder is wrong by virtue of objective morality. ‘It just is’, because God (the being who has defined what is right and wrong) the higher being, the source of objective morality, has said it is. Again, if you take everything away, how can you prove that murder is wrong?

 

[katie tully]

Well of course, but this isn't' saying much because if God doesn't exist, then I would agree that subjective morality is no better then objective morality, since both of them would be human constructs and have no real truth value.

Tying it back again to our original starting point, if only subjective morality existed then I fail to see how good deeds are anything but worthless when all they satisfy is a personally constructed set of moral values. There is nothing innately good about doing some deed when you have decided what good in fact is. All acts seem equally in vain when subjective moral values are applied to them.


Btw, I think you realized where I was headed, so I won't bother answering the question that preceded this one

Basically what I'm saying is that regardless of whether you want to believe in objective morality because of your belief in a higher being, everything we believe in is subjective. Thus I don't believe you can say with honesty that an atheists good deed has no bearing because the atheist has decided what is good.

Christians use their faith as a motivation for their good deeds. This is not objective, this is subjective.

Also, reading the Bible, you are taking the word of God as your own interpretation. Your subjective view of what God wants and intends.
As soon as humans take, and interpret and attribute, objective morality disappears.

 

[katie tully]

Where is KFunk

 

[Charizard]

i think the absence of emytaylor gives an overall net benefit for the topic then if kfunk was present.

 

[katie tully]

Also Brad;
You do not accept that murder is bad because some objective, higher being has decided so. You accept this because you empathise with the situation; how you would feel if somebody close to you was murdered. How you feel when you see what happens to families when somebody is murdered. You don't just believe this because thats how you were programmed.

You believe this because subjectively, you empathise with the situation.

 

[veloc1ty]

Atheists can follow an objective ethical system anyway. The one that comes to mind which I am familiar with was coined as Universal Utilitarianism and it is essentially founded on the following principle: Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness. This principle is universal because it applies to everyone - everyone desires happiness and following that principle offers the best chance of it.

Any moral system that ultimately rests on external authority is no moral system at all (such a system would suffer from the Euthyphro dilemma). True morality can only consist of a set of consistent, non-arbitrary principles which rational agents freely agree to obey.

 

[katie tully]

Let us imagine that a man against his own will is left isolated in a room with no access to humanity but provided with enough food to sustain his life. Under these conditions, if the man became a christian would we say that he could never go to heaven because he had no opportunity to demonstrate an outworking of his faith through good deeds? I doubt this is the case. More reasonable in my mind, is that as a necessary outworking of the faith there will be an intention of good deeds even if it is impossible to carry them out.

Lets go back to your original example. This man is a Christian, despite having no contact with humanity. Do you believe that this man just ‘knows’ what is good and what is bad, despite never having experienced humanity?

 

[BradCube]

You’re saying that objective morality, that is morality that exists free of bias and free of emotion and that exists ‘outside’ dictates what is right and wrong. You are then saying that this objective morality comes from a higher being with a greater understanding of what is right or wrong, an understanding greater than we could ever comprehend. Am I correct in saying this?

Sure.

Without proof that a God exists, how can you accept that objective morality is a construct of this being.

Because, there is no other appropriate answer to the origin of objective morality.

How can morality just exist without being a construct of anything? My question was, how can you explain rape is being wrong, by definition of objective morality. How can you prove that rape is wrong if you take away the social and religious constructs.

Well obviously, if we take away everything then I cannot prove to you that rape is wrong via objective morality. This is for two reasons:

a) Objective morality would exist regardless of whether I believed it to be so and this whether I could prove it or not (assuming here that it does in fact exist)
b) Morals are not the sorts of things which we can "prove" or demonstrate. They rely on our inner intuitions. Mine tell me that rape is wrong. How about you. Do you believe rape is wrong regardless of what people tell you?

You’re attributing this objective morality to a higher being, yet you’re accepting this higher beings definition of what is right or wrong without there being solid proof this being actually exists.

Your right, objective morality, isn't complete proof for God, but it gives me very good reason to make sure there is not one, before I dismiss the whole notion.

The bible says that women should not have short hair. How can this be an objective morality? If the Bible is the word of God, and if God is the source of objective morality, how can a shaved head on a woman be unmoral?

Could I ask you to quote some passages? I would like to do some research on this

Well isn’t that what you’re saying. You’re saying that for Christians, murder is wrong by virtue of objective morality. ‘It just is’, because God (the being who has defined what is right and wrong) the higher being, the source of objective morality, has said it is. Again, if you take everything away, how can you prove that murder is wrong?

Same as explanation for rape here.

 

[katie tully]

Also Brad;
Are you saying that every person is born with this notion of objective morality, and that they only reject / accept it once they're older. Or do they only come to this when they decide to be a Christian and refer to the Bible as their moral compass.

 

[katie tully]

Could I ask you to quote some passages? I would like to to some research on this

.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

 

[BradCube]

Also Brad;
You do not accept that murder is bad because some objective, higher being has decided so. You accept this because you empathise with the situation; how you would feel if somebody close to you was murdered. How you feel when you see what happens to families when somebody is murdered. You don't just believe this because thats how you were programmed.

You believe this because subjectively, you empathise with the situation.

But why do I empathize and feel sorry for anyone else but myself under an evolutionary system of morality? Does a fish feel sorry for another fish when it is caught?

 

[BradCube]

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

ta

 

[katie tully]

But why do I empathize and feel sorry for anyone else but myself under an evolutionary system of morality? Does a fish feel sorry for another fish when it is caught?

Not sure about fish, but wolves and meerkats certainly do (feel loss and grief, as far as scientists can tell by their behaviour).

Re: Fish, you'd probably have to ask Kwayera, but I am pretty sure dolphins mourn.

 

[BradCube]

Lets go back to your original example. This man is a Christian, despite having no contact with humanity. Do you believe that this man just ‘knows’ what is good and what is bad, despite never having experienced humanity?

It would be interesting to find out hey? I think he would believe that many things are right and wrong. ie, I think I would know it was wrong to murder or to torture a child. Do you disagree?

 

[katie tully]

It would be interesting to find out hey? I think he would believe that many things are right and wrong. ie, I think I would know it was wrong to murder or to torture a child. Do you disagree?

But does he believe it's right and wrong just because, or does it believe it because as a human he empathises with the pain it would cause.

Or is it because he as a 'conscience'. Unless we're trying to attribute a conscience to objective morality .......

 

[katie tully]

i dont see where the argument is going. reality doesnt need to be pleasing and appealing, it doesnt need divinely inspired moral truths, it doesnt need to make you think its great and all smiles, nor does it need to agree with your beliefs.

you could use the same argument and apply it to evolution. "no evolution devalues the human worthiness"

Motherfucker! Your last 10 posts have been;
'this is pointless'
'circular'
'shut up emy'
'etc'

PUT SOME FOOD ON THE TABLE OR GTFO OUT OF THE KITCHEN.

 

[BradCube]

no, because it is a fish

Well that's kinda the point.

Why when we are both raised via evolutionary processes, should we be any different in this regard? I suppose it will go into the complexities of our self awareness and then we have to stop debating because we all have no clue

 

[katie tully]

Well that's kinda the point.

Why when we are both raised via evolutionary processes, should we be any different in this regard? I suppose it will go into the complexities of our self awareness and then we have to stop debating because we all have no clue

But I just said that regardless of whether fish feel loss, or grief, other animals do. How they exhibit this grief is dependent on the behaviour they exibit.

It's pretty hard to determine whether a fish feels sorry that another fish was caught, and this may have a lot do to with brain development, etc.

But certainly other animals exhibit displays of loss, grief and excitement.

edit: meerkats are a fantastic example of animals that show emotion AND also appear to have a moral code or whatever you want to call it, within their system

 

[katie tully]

Also re: the animal thing again

I can think of atleast 10 animals off the top of my head that have like, a pecking order and rights of passage, etc...