So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[carpedm9587]

How can a fact be a mere technique? There are no morally correct or wrong answers in your world, nor can there be.

Wrong. There are morally correct/wrong answers. There are no absolutely/objectively wrong answers, but we know that because morality is subjective/relative - so the "wrong answers" as subjective/relative.

And what does your opinion have to do with the fact of creation?

What does your belief have to do with the fact of non-god-created evolution?

I'm not sure what you mean by useful? Useful to whom for what? Unrepentant sinners are blind to the reality of God. And the fact that you reject that reality only confirms my worldview.

I suspect you know what I mean by useful. Religious adherents are blind to the reality of a god-free universe. And the fact that you reject that reality only confirms my worldview.

No, you have not made an argument, that is just false. You offered an opinion. Make a deductive case for why you are correct and the child molester is wrong.

Since you are asking for an absolute/objective conclusion in the context of a subjective/relative reality - your question has no meaning. I would have thought, by now, you would have seen that.

Then again, make a deductive case for why you are correct and the child molester is wrong.

Same response.

[seer]

Wrong. There are morally correct/wrong answers. There are no absolutely/objectively wrong answers, but we know that because morality is subjective/relative - so the "wrong answers" as subjective/relative.

What? That makes no sense. And remember you already agree that you can not prove that morality is relative, so is this just another one of your assertions?

I suspect you know what I mean by useful. Religious adherents are blind to the reality of a god-free universe. And the fact that you reject that reality only confirms my worldview.

I am perfectly willing to accept your blindness, as you are mine. Except your worldview does not require an inherent blindness, where my does. So you are just piggy backing off my beliefs.

Since you are asking for an absolute/objective conclusion in the context of a subjective/relative reality - your question has no meaning. I would have thought, by now, you would have seen that.

No Carp, you claimed that you made a logical case for deciding between differing moral opinions (which was my question) - logically why is one opinion is correct and the other wrong. All you did was show why you have a personal preference for pizza. But that was not the question.

[carpedm9587]

What?

What I said...

That makes no sense.

That it makes no sense to you has been evident for some time now, Seer.

Correct statement: Pizza is good! Type: relative, subjective (presumably the individual is the speaker)
Incorrect statement: Pizza is good! Type: absolute, objective (there is no way to establish this because "good" is a subjective assessment - a thing is good to/for someone or something).
Correct statement: Raping children is morally wrong. Type: relative, subjective (the statement is correct iff it aligns with the speaker's actual moral framework)
Incorrect statement: Raping children is morally wrong. Type: absolute, objective (there is no way to establish "wrong" without reference to a moral framework)

And remember you already agree that you can not prove that morality is relative, so is this just another one of your assertions?

That depends on what you mean by "prove." If you are looking for a logical, mathematical, or deductive proof, neither of us can "prove" or disprove the nature of morality. I accept it as true because it fits the observable facts. You have no such appeal.

I am perfectly willing to accept your blindness, as you are mine. Except your worldview does not require an inherent blindness, where my does. So you are just piggy backing off my beliefs.

I have no idea what any of this means. My post was merely to underscore the futility of your arguments and the pointlessness of these types of statement. Anyone can make them on either side, and they achieve nothing (except perhaps to reinforce your sense of superiority?) They're just assertions, made out of your worldview, which is, IMO, indefensible. The fact that it is indefensible (if you truly examine it) is why I no longer hold it.

No Carp, you claimed that you made a logical case for deciding between differing moral opinions (which was my question) - logically why is one opinion is correct and the other wrong.

Person A holds Moral Position 1
Person B holds Moral Position Not 1

To person A, Moral position 1 will be correct if it achieves what moral frameworks set out to achieve: protecting/enhancing what person A values.
To Person B, Moral position 1 will be incorrect if it does not achieve what moral frameworks set out to achieve: protecting/enhancing what person B values.

The reverse is true for Person B's moral position. If the two people value identically, there should be a rational argument from those values to the moral position. If they do not, then no such argument will exist. Their moral frameworks will only align when they 1) value the same things proportionately, and 2) reason from this valuing to action logically.

But you're not asking the question from this fairly simple relative/subjective framework. You're asking it from an absolute/objective framework. You want to know how to determine which of Person A or Person B is absolutely/objectively correct. There is no such answer because morality is neither absolute nor objective. So your question is meaningless because you want an absolute/objective response to a relative/subjective question.

All you did was show why you have a personal preference for pizza. But that was not the question.

As we have noted before, ALL morality is going to be rooted in a form of personal preference, because it is rooted in what we value. We usually reserve the word "morality" for actions related to what we most value, and not incidentals like "pizza." Of course, you continually fall back on this reality in your "Technique #2 (e.g., equate valuing life with valuing pizza). There is no response to #2. It is theoretically possible for someone to value pizza more than life. If they do, then their moral code will favor actions that protect/enhance/secure pizza. They will be considered significantly aberrant by pretty much all of humanity, and likely isolated or excluded. That's how morality works. If they actually DO value pizza more than life, their moral framework will follow accordingly. I am mor eimpressed by the fact that it has never happened (as far as I know). You are more impressed by the fact that it could.

I tend to focus on what is and how things work. Extreme cases are seldom all that informative with respect to human behavior.

[seer]

Person A holds Moral Position 1
Person B holds Moral Position Not 1

To person A, Moral position 1 will be correct if it achieves what moral frameworks set out to achieve: protecting/enhancing what person A values.
To Person B, Moral position 1 will be incorrect if it does not achieve what moral frameworks set out to achieve: protecting/enhancing what person B values.

The reverse is true for Person B's moral position. If the two people value identically, there should be a rational argument from those values to the moral position. If they do not, then no such argument will exist. Their moral frameworks will only align when they 1) value the same things proportionately, and 2) reason from this valuing to action logically.

But you're not asking the question from this fairly simple relative/subjective framework. You're asking it from an absolute/objective framework. You want to know how to determine which of Person A or Person B is absolutely/objectively correct. There is no such answer because morality is neither absolute nor objective. So your question is meaningless because you want an absolute/objective response to a relative/subjective question.

But again that is not what I was asking. I said there was no correct answers when deciding between differing moral opinions, I said:

Except in your world someone who believes that child rape is acceptable is not wrong, he may be wrong to you, but that opinion has no logical weight.


Then you went on to tell me why you prefer pizza! How on earth does that tell us, logically, why your opinion is right and the child molesters wrong?

[carpedm9587]

But again that is not what I was asking. I said there was no correct answers when deciding between differing moral opinions,

But there ARE correct answers. Just not absolutely/objectively correct answers. Likewise, relatively/subjectively correct answers are not possible in an absolute/objective framework.

I said:

Except in your world someone who believes that child rape is acceptable is not wrong, he may be wrong to you, but that opinion has no logical weight.

The opinion has relative/subjective logical weight - not absolute/objective logical weight. Since you only accept the latter as "real" (an inconsistent position, I might add), you essentially do not recognize the existence of the former. It "doesn't matter."

Then you went on to tell me why you prefer pizza! How on earth does that tell us, logically, why your opinion is right and the child molesters wrong?

My position is right relatively and subjectively - because it protects things I value (life, liberty). I have, in other posts, traced the logical path from valuing life and liberty to why that leads to child molestation being wrong. Anyone who values life/liberty can follow that path and come to the same conclusion. If they value something else more than life/liberty, they can possibly come to a different conclusion within their own moral framework. That reality is what makes morality relative/subjective.

[seer]

My position is right relatively and subjectively - because it protects things I value (life, liberty). I have, in other posts, traced the logical path from valuing life and liberty to why that leads to child molestation being wrong. Anyone who values life/liberty can follow that path and come to the same conclusion. If they value something else more than life/liberty, they can possibly come to a different conclusion within their own moral framework. That reality is what makes morality relative/subjective.

Then there is no deductive way to demonstrate that one is right and the other wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Then there is no deductive way to demonstrate that one is right and the other wrong.

Then there is no deductive way to demonstrate that one is absolutely/objectively right and the other absolutely/objectively wrong. This is true.

But then we know already that - because relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. You've returned to Technique #1 again.

I don't think you have any clue that this is your ONLY argument - and it's not an argument at all. Something is preventing you from seeing it. Not sure anything else I can say is going to help.

[seer]

Then there is no deductive way to demonstrate that one is absolutely/objectively right and the other absolutely/objectively wrong. This is true.

Then why did you balk when I suggested that?

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you balk when I suggested that?

I didn't. I balked at the statement "Then there is no deductive way to demonstrate that one is right and the other wrong."

That statement is an example of one of your "over-broad" statements. There is an implied "absolute/objective" there which is not stated, leaving the impression that there is no sense in which the statement can be right or wrong. THAT is untrue. It can be relatively/subjectively right/wrong. That it cannot be absolutely/objectively right/wrong is already noted in the definition of the terms "relative" and "subjective." You regularly fail to recognize that distinction, and speak as if the only "truth" is absolute/objective "truth." You do the same thing with "purpose" and "meaning."

[Tassman]

Then there is no deductive way to demonstrate that one is right and the other wrong.

You are assuming, without good reason, that absolute "right" and absolute "wrong" exist, there is no way to show this to be true. Even if you posit a deity as the source of such objective values, there is no way to show that such an entity exists. Your entire argument rests upon a foundation of ‘wish fulfilment’.

[JimL]

You are assuming, without good reason, that absolute "right" and absolute "wrong" exist, there is no way to show this to be true. Even if you posit a deity as the source of such objective values, there is no way to show that such an entity exists. Your entire argument rests upon a foundation of ‘wish fulfilment’.

I think the thing that seer and other believers here also have difficulty grasping is that defining right and wrong behaviors as objective absolutes, simply because someone/god says so doesn't make sense. Simply because someone/god says so, with no underlying reason for why they say so is just arbitrary nonsense. If that were true, then all of that which we define as immoral could just as well be reversed. Murder, theft, rape, etc etc could just as well be objective absolute goods simply because god says so. Morals aren't arbitrary, whether sound or not, they are based on reason, and that would apply to god as well which in turn would mean that morals are not dependent upon a god.

[seer]

I think the thing that seer and other believers here also have difficulty grasping is that defining right and wrong behaviors as objective absolutes, simply because someone/god says so doesn't make sense. Simply because someone/god says so, with no underlying reason for why they say so is just arbitrary nonsense. If that were true, then all of that which we define as immoral could just as well be reversed. Murder, theft, rape, etc etc could just as well be objective absolute goods simply because god says so. Morals aren't arbitrary, whether sound or not, they are based on reason, and that would apply to god as well which in turn would mean that morals are not dependent upon a god.

That is a lie Jim and you know it. As I have shown all you have is "say so" and God does have reasons. God can not violate His immutable moral nature, and His nature is just, loving, truthful, forgiving, etc... So His commands are not arbitrary, He seeks justice and goodness for humanity, brotherhood and peace. Those are His reasons.

[JimL]

That is a lie Jim and you know it. As I have shown all you have is "say so" and God does have reasons. God can not violate His immutable moral nature, and His nature is just, loving, truthful, forgiving, etc... So His commands are not arbitrary, He seeks justice and goodness for humanity, brotherhood and peace. Those are His reasons.

Make up your mind seer. Morals are either dependent upon sound reason, or they are dependent on "god says so." If you are going to argue that god has reason which is based on his nature such as justice, love, and truth then you need to explain why justice is moral, why love is moral, or why truthfulness is moral. Your answer to this is of course the same answer, i.e because "god says so." Your's is just a circular argument, it goe's round and round and round again.

[seer]

Make up your mind seer. Morals are either dependent upon sound reason, or they are dependent on "god says so."

They are grounded on God's good reasons and His Moral nature. They are not mutually exclusive. And Jim we have been through this before, so stop posting falsehoods.

If you are going to argue that god has reason which is based on his nature such as justice, love, and truth then you need to explain why justice is moral, why love is moral, or why truthfulness is moral. Your answer to this is of course the same answer, i.e because "god says so." Your's is just a circular argument, it goe's round and round and round again.

Tell me Jim, why is justice, love, truthfulness, etc... moral Jim? Besides your (our) say so?

[Tassman]

That is a lie Jim and you know it. As I have shown all you have is "say so" and God does have reasons.

So do YOU only have “say so” concerning what YOU say God says. Christians often disagree about what God means. Some are adamant that God means one thing and others that God means the opposite, e.g. homosexuality. You have no doubt that God is against it whereas other Christians take the reverse view. There can be no way to resolve moral issues when some Christians hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive to the absolute beliefs of other Christians.

God can not violate His immutable moral nature, and His nature is just, loving, truthful, forgiving, etc... So His commands are not arbitrary, He seeks justice and goodness for humanity, brotherhood and peace. Those are His reasons.

God’s commands (in the unlikely event he even exists) are interpreted in the light of YOUR understanding of “justice and goodness”. Different people have differing views, most think that their views are ‘right’ and those who oppose them are ‘wrong’, e.g. over the issue of abortion.