Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
About Objective Moral Values -- To say that objective moral values exist is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. For example, Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good. It would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
Nick:
Let me suggest that your understanding of moral objectivism is elementary at best.
Quote:
TexasNick:
Quote:
Objective moral values exist, therefore God exists. If God exists, then there is meaning forl life and a moral sense of duty. The atheist kid in Finland did not think God existed.
Nick:
May I draw your attention to the logical fallacy that you have just committed. It is called a non-sequitur.
(from hyperlink)
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.).
Your conclusions simply don't follow. What precisely is the logical connection between objective morals existing and god existing?
Quote:
TexasNick:
Quote:
An aetheist[atheist?] (J.L. Mackie of Oxford University) said:
""If . . . there are . . . objective values, they make the existence of a God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a God."
Nick:
The paragraph above is confusing.
1) What exactly is an "aetheist?"
2) Please provide a link to the entire quote or at least show us where you got this .
3) So some "aetheist" thinks that the existence of god is more probable given objective morality...big deal.
Quote:
TexasNick:
Quote:
Nonetheless, do you agree that objective moral values exist?
Nick:
I'm going to play the devil's advocate. No, they don't exist. If they do exist then please provide us with a laundry list of objective morals okay?
Quote:
TexasNick:
Quote:
You said NO. Then, why do you condemn the Finland shooting?
Nick:
Perhaps because he or she believes that the shooting was immoral? I think you have an underlying assumption.
1. If morals aren't objective, then morality is meaningless.
It is an unjustified assumption.
Quote:
TexasNick:
Quote:
At this point, it won't matter if one is a saint or a Stalin.
Nick:
You argue via assertion. Prove that "at this point, it wont' matter of one is a saint or a Stalin."
Quote:
TexasNick:
Quote:
Merry Christmas my friends. Have a good Holiday. Talk to you in 2008.
Proof given for the existence of objective moral values seems to be along the lines of "its obvious" or "I would REALLY prefer it if objective moral values existed (and so would you, really, come on, or its ok to rape people)". I am unconvinced, and I challenge you to tell me what an objective value is, because I can't conceive of a consistent account.
I am with Mackie in that objective morals and religion need each other. But I'm an atheist. My disbelief is prior to my rejection of objective values. The problem to my mind is that atheists are often attacked along the lines that any morality we support will be built on sand, or not of "ultimate value", etc. Unfortunately, if theism isn't true, then theistic morality has no greater weight. A theistic view combined with having objective, "stronger", "righter", "ultimate" values may be consistent, but is not self validating.
1. If morals aren't objective, then morality is meaningless.It is an unjustified assumption.
Well you are wrong . . . arbitrary is arbitrary. IF there is no purpose to existence or life (random/accident) . . . then nothing has any moral import whatsoever. If they continue to procreate or"un-create" each other makes no difference . . . if they hurt or help each other makes no difference . . . because there is no reason for them to exist at all. This is what makes atheism immoral . . . all morality is arbitrary and the most powerful decide any moral issues.
Well you are wrong . . . arbitrary is arbitrary. IF there is no purpose to existence or life (random/accident) . . . then nothing has any moral import whatsoever. If they continue to procreate or"un-create" each other makes no difference . . . if they hurt or help each other makes no difference . . . because there is no reason for them to exist at all. This is what makes atheism immoral . . . all morality is arbitrary and the most powerful decide any moral issues.
I think that's taking it a little far, Mystic. On the surface, I will agree with you that morality is arbitrary and that the most powerful tend to decide moral issues - as those who have felt divinely inspired have done for thousands of years.
At the very least, I should say, I think it's fallible to state that Atheism is immoral as though you alone have a monopoly on the moral truth. As far as I'm concerned, all you've done is made an arbitrary opinion.
Granted, I don't think there are any deified moral laws but I still think I'm capable of making a cogent, society functioning decision based on a lot more than the concern of whose laws they are. Furthermore, I think it's also misleading to state it as though the arbitrariness of our laws is dependent on whose in power as if we all lived under the regime of a dictator. As an aside, I often feel the depiction of the Christian God is that of a Celestial Dictator...
Just as you persistently say we should look at things outside of biological evolution to things like spiritual evolution, I will, in that light say that we could say the same thing about the evolution of various justice systems. From Hammurabi's Code to a justice system based on the values of a Republic (such as our country), I think it's fair to say that our laws have evolved and adapted rather well. In this country, at least the idea of it, is that the people as a collective whole are "in power" and therefore the moral societal functionality is dependent on the collective agreement of the people.
This, in my opinion, seems to be a perfect fit to the biological (perhaps anthropological) necessity that our ancient ancestors would have needed to evolve, albeit perhaps more primitively, the necessity for proper societal and group functioning in order to further their survival...
Is it arbitrary? Ultimately, yes. Does it make it immoral? Absolutely not. At least, no more than it makes it moral.
Finally, let me ask you... Do you honestly feel as though an Atheist such as myself who believes that although our laws are indeed ultimately arbitrary, that I am incapable of making a moral decision regardless of whether or not there is a divine edict or set of codified laws?
Finally, let me ask you... Do you honestly feel as though an Atheist such as myself who believes that although our laws are indeed ultimately arbitrary, that I am incapable of making a moral decision regardless of whether or not there is a divine edict or set of codified laws?
I absolutely believe you are capable of making moral choices . . . and I point to your desire to do so as proof to me of an implicit belief in God and a purposeful life about which value judgments have merit. If they were truly arbitrary and meaningless (as a purposeless random accidental existence would mandate) and you in your deepest soul truly believed it . . . it is unlikely you would want to make such distinctions . . . especially if they involved self-sacrifice.
I absolutely believe you are capable of making moral choices . . . and I point to your desire to do so as proof to me of an implicit belief in God and a purposeful life about which value judgments have merit. If they were truly arbitrary and meaningless (as a purposeless random accidental existence would mandate) and you in your deepest soul truly believed it . . . it is unlikely you would want to make such distinctions . . . especially if they involved self-sacrifice.
Mmmm... Ok, I can see where you're coming from although I wouldn't consider it an implicit belief in God. However, I think I do understand what you're saying. I would rather say that the value judgments I make, though on a scale of largess may ultimately be arbitrary and meaningless, they are nonetheless self-assigned and very important value judgments that probably cohabit very well with another person's value judgments deigned from what they consider to be their belief in God.
In other words, I don't think what I do or don't do is in any way reflective of how I feel about whether or not God exists - those value judgments truly seem to exist independent of that. Rarely, if ever, do I make a value judgment (or moral consideration) with the thought that whatever happens as a result has no meaning (good or bad). The consideration is often given as to how I will live with the decision as well as how it may affect others. While I don't feel that there is some sort of divine entity watching over me and monitoring what it is I do or don't do (and I realize that's not what you believe); I also feel that the value judgments I have made for myself in the past, present, and hopefully future are ones that I, as a human being, am capable of living with because they are "moral" and "ethical" considerations I have ultimately assigned for myself.
While I don't feel that there is some sort of divine entity watching over me and monitoring what it is I do or don't do (and I realize that's not what you believe); I also feel that the value judgments I have made for myself in the past, present, and hopefully future are ones that I, as a human being, am capable of living with because they are "moral" and "ethical" considerations I have ultimately assigned for myself.
Bingo. That's really what it is all about, Troop . . . the fact that they align with most such values is merely evidence of an inner guidance, IMO.
Hey folks,
I haven't had a chance to read up on all the threads here, but I recently heard of a story that broke out of Finland a few weeks ago. A guy went on a shooting spree and wiped out quite a bit of people. These were his last notes:
I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!]
Is this the life we would have in this world if there were no objective moral values (ie it is wrong to kill, rape, etc)?
Atrocities are committed by the individual, and do not necessarily represent a particular faith of a person (or the lack thereof). All humans perform immoral acts, and obviously some murder others. To say atheism is to blame for a murder is to say that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. are also to blame for murder, considering all have murderers within them. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in the name of the love of Christ, or the justice of God, or whatever.
Does a Christian that murders represent the message of Jesus or other Christians? No.
Does an atheist that murders represent all atheists? No.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
