Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (godless, America, church)

[mordant]

I am fascinated by how Vizio and Mircea both believe that an immutable and concrete black and white externally given morality is the only possible one, despite the vast gulf between their religious (un)beliefs. I now wonder whether such notions necessarily arise out of religious ideations or if religious ideations just attract people who are predisposed to such beliefs about morality.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

You have failed pretty miserably then. All that you have shown is that your view of morality is different from everyone else's view. Subjective, concensus based morality has been adequately defended to the satisfaction of all but you.

Actually, I've not really explained "my system of morality" very deeply. I've simply poked holes in the fact that you or anyone else can judge anyone else.

I don't recall any ad hominem attacks, although it is possible something happened in the last 1000 posts. It certainly has not been the main thrust of debate. Many have factually stated that you avoid any substantive discussion. That is a simple fact.

Similarly, I don't recall any straw an arguments from the atheist camp.

Your assertions are not true.

Go back and re-read your post. Instead of actually addressing my questions, you talk about my house and my apparent lack of ability to reason. I will give you credit though, it's not as overt as some have been on this thread.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

This is ridiculous. There are no holes in the idea that morality is subjective - every person's moral values are held by their own mind - it has to be subjective - even the idea (yours) that it is not subjective is subjective - Hello! The response you give is your assertion that it is objective without any demonstration and that if it is subjective then we can not say to anyone that something is right or wrong.

So then, the idea of judging anyone else's actions is completely irrational. After all...if it's subjective to the point that everyone has their own definition, who are you to say what is or isn't moral?

For the sake of argument let's say that no one single person can say that any other person is wrong or right. How does that demonstrate that morality is objective? Answer, it does not! All it says is that morality is subjective and no one can say to anyone else that something is wrong or right.

Now despite this point I and others have given reasons and explanations as to how we can say to someone else that something is wrong or right despite morality being subjective - you just dismiss and ignore them and ask more questions while doing nothing to demonstrate your own bald assertions.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You don't seem to understand that. Morality is either objective, and we can judge morality, or it isn't.

Originally Posted by Vizio

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You don't seem to understand that. Morality is either objective, and we can judge morality, or it isn't.

You don't seem to understand that the two (subjectivity and an ability to arrive at conclusions regarding the effects of human actions on other humans) is not mutually or necessarily exclusive.

Furthermore, let's say you are right - that does not establish objectivity just because no one can not judge an action to be wrong or right. You have done nothing to demonstrate that our moral values are objective - your complaint about our subjectivity does not establish objective morality.

All you have done with that is show that morality is subjective and that no one can judge anyone else. As such you have implicitly lost the argument for objectivity - it

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

You don't seem to understand that the two (subjectivity and an ability to arrive at conclusions regarding the effects of human actions on other humans) is not mutually or necessarily exclusive.

Furthermore, let's say you are right - that does not establish objectivity just because no one can not judge an action to be wrong or right. You have done nothing to demonstrate that our moral values are objective - your complaint about our subjectivity does not establish objective morality.

All you have done with that is show that morality is subjective and that no one can judge anyone else. As such you have implicitly lost the argument for objectivity - it

So.....morality is subjective and no one can judge what is right or wrong......but you think we can judge right or wrong? How's that work?

Originally Posted by mordant

I am fascinated by how Vizio and Mircea both believe that an immutable and concrete black and white externally given morality is the only possible one, despite the vast gulf between their religious (un)beliefs. I now wonder whether such notions necessarily arise out of religious ideations or if religious ideations just attract people who are predisposed to such beliefs about morality.

He might be a Platonist or a Kantian???

Originally Posted by Vizio

So.....morality is subjective and no one can judge what is right or wrong......but you think we can judge right or wrong? How's that work?

No, I said If we cannot judge it still leaves us with subjectivity not objectivity. Yet I do believe we can use methodologies to assess actions and arrive at meaningful conclusions. You have done nothing to demonstrate your view - just complain and frankly misrepresent others views.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

No, I said If we cannot judge it still leaves us with subjectivity not objectivity. Yet I do believe we can use methodologies to assess actions and arrive at meaningful conclusions. You have done nothing to demonstrate your view - just complain and frankly misrepresent others views.

How do you know those methodologies are leading you to the correct conclusion?

Originally Posted by Vizio

How do you know those methodologies are leading you to the correct conclusion?

Now that is the question Vizio - but notice one thing first - let's say there is no ability to arrive at a correct conclusion - that still leaves us with subjectivity - that does not establish objectivity.

Now I have elsewhere shown you some methodologies (some absolute - some not so absolute yet meaningful given the knowledge we come to know about ourselves and the world we live in and not just meaningless or relative). For the former I showed you the logic of certain actions particularly in the Golden Rule. I suggest you go back and read this thread and the ones linked in it for more detailed responses.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Now that is the question Vizio - but notice one thing first - let's say there is no ability to arrive at a correct conclusion - that still leaves us with subjectivity - that does not establish objectivity.

OK? It does, however establish the fact that the OP could not claim to judge God.

Now I have elsewhere shown you some methodologies (some absolute - some not so absolute yet meaningful given the knowledge we come to know about ourselves and the world we live in and just meaningless or relative). For the former I showed you the logic of certain actions particularly in the Golden Rule. I suggest you go back and read this thread and the ones linked in it for more detailed responses.

How do you know those methodologies are correct? You are assuming they are, based on the knowledge you have, but you really don't know, do you?