Do You Believe In God?

[Haloman800]

"no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed..."

If morality is subjective, tell me when molesting children is morally acceptable.

Also, Kant's Categorical Imperative is a better reason to have faith in objective morality than any religion in my opinion: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Immanuel Kant)."

Except when a criminal asks you where their next victim is hiding. Do you lie to them, and violate the CI, or do you tell the truth, and aid in the murder of an innocent?

Those acts you mention are outlawed by every major governmental entity in the world, including those which have no religious foundation or influence.

Argument ad populum.

Is God really the only thing stopping you from doing those things?

If that's a rhetorical question, then it is a strawman.

Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

That's the thing. A moral code has never required authority. Morality is also intensely personal

So, according to you, another individual's personal belief that child molestation is morally acceptable is just as valid as your subjective belief that it is wrong?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-reasons-ancient-rome-was-a-perverts-paradise.php

Good thing Christianity stopped that, eh?

 

[CraddaPoosta]

If morality is subjective, tell me when molesting children is morally acceptable.


Except when a criminal asks you where their next victim is hiding. Do you lie to them, and violate the CI, or do you tell the truth, and aid in the murder of an innocent?


Argument ad populum.


If that's a rhetorical question, then it is a strawman.

Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-reasons-ancient-rome-was-a-perverts-paradise.php

Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


So, according to you, another individual's personal belief that child molestation is morally acceptable is just as valid as your subjective belief that it is wrong?

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a socially-shared practice of beliefs. There is no atheist code. Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. We aren't bound to your rules. Doesn't mean we don't have our own moral codes. They're YOUR rules that say that a woman should remain silent, and that it's okay to beat your wife. YOUR rules dictate that it's okay to rape a woman as long as you pay her bride price and marry her. YOUR philosophy says it's okay to purchase slaves if you buy them from neighboring nations.

Child molestation isn't even the chief concern when it comes to the horrific and awful things your Bible says are okay. Incest wasn't enough for you?

Christianity stopped child molestation? LMFAO. Tell that to the millions of victims of the Catholic Church.

Guess what religion the majority of sex offenders in the United States of America are. I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

If you guessed CHRISTIAN, you're a winner.

 

[cdoty]

However where words might not change you do have languages that change...

Not only does language change, but concepts change. The bible uses a 1000 years to represent a very long period of time. In today's terms, 1000 years is better understood.

This can also be seen in stuff like Nostradamus' predictions, which are written in terms familiar at the time, and not in modern times. There are no rockets, they're flaming birds, or no tanks, they're fire breathing horses.

 

[Haloman800]

Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. We aren't bound to your rules. Doesn't mean we don't have our own moral codes.

And what makes your moral codes more valid than atheists who think it's okay to murder 100 million people?

You know murder is wrong. You know child molestation is wrong. But you can't admit it because it proves my point; that morality is objective and independent of human opinion.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

And what makes your moral codes more valid than atheists who think it's okay to murder 100 million people?

You know murder is wrong. You know child molestation is wrong. But you can't admit it because it proves my point; that morality is objective and independent of human opinion.

I have no more association with murderous atheists than I do with an oak tree or a jellyfish. Unlike organized religions, atheism is STILL not a religion, which is a commonly-held collection of practices and beliefs.

Here's a quick lesson for you. What does the prefix 'a-' signify?

The answer is negation. The lack of something. If you are a theist, you believe in a deity. If you are an atheist, you lack belief in a deity.

Trying to say that atheists can be grouped together like Christians is like saying that that passive non-resistance is a fighting style, or that clear is a color. Sigh.

Murder and child molestation are not universally wrong. That's what you refuse to accept. You are describing modern-day standards of morality, not proving that good and evil are universal. I have SHOWN you how history proves that child molestation has been perfectly kosher, and the Bible demonstrates millions of murders.

In modern-day society, sexual abuse and murder are defined as wrong, but that still doesn't mean that those concepts are universally held. You don't understand the very argument you're continually and chronically failing to present.

 

[grossaffe]

The Biblical description of God could be false, that doesn't disprove God's existence. Once again you are attacking religion and thinking it disproves God.

No, I am not attacking religion nor am I attempting to disprove god. Attempting to disprove the super natural is a fruitless endeavour. I am however, attacking your logic that you seem to think proves a god.

No, it's quite on topic. Refusing to answer doesn't disprove my argument. Stating my argument is false doesn't make it so.

That argument is logically unsound. The answer to the question has no bearing on whether or not morality is objective.

 

[Father Crilly]

You know murder is wrong. You know child molestation is wrong. But you can't admit it because it proves my point; that morality is objective and independent of human opinion.

To a human, those things are wrong. To a non-human, it's called nature.

Also, why are you fixated on child molestation? Is it OK to molest adults or something?

 

[cdoty]

I firmly believe in ghosts. When you experience it, you believe it. That slightly adds to my belief that there may be a god.
I'll admit it, I have no idea if God exists, I even have doubts some times. But ghosts - they're real.

The existence of ghosts doesn't necessarily prove there is a god in any way. If there are ghosts, it probably means death isn't what we think it is.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

To a human, those things are wrong. To a non-human, it's called nature.

Also, why are you fixated on child molestation? Is it OK to molest adults or something?

Shock factor. That's the ONLY reason that keeps getting trotted out. It's a weak diversion tactic. Affirming the Consequent with a sprinkle of Slippery Slope. It's a Logical Fallacy Sammich.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

About the discussion regarding morality:

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

If it can be derived from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, it means it depends on the human group you're analysing therefore it's not universal.

 

[Father Crilly]

The existence of ghosts doesn't necessarily prove there is a god in any way. If there are ghosts, it probably means death isn't what we think it is.

It doesn't prove it, but if a ghost (a spiritual being) can exist, then it might support the possible existence of God.

 

[m_babble]

Nah.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

It doesn't prove it, but if a ghost (a spiritual being) can exist, then it might support the possible existence of God.

That's not entirely true. If a spiritual being could be proven to exist, it wouldn't open up any more possibility, probability or potentiality for other spiritual beings or unproven concepts to also exist. Only that spiritual being.

That's kind of like saying that if we could find even one Dragon Ball here on Earth, that it would support the possible existence of Shen Ron. All that would do is prove that we found a Dragon Ball. In no way is this intended to be said in a harsh tone.

 

[Relys]

If morality is subjective, tell me when molesting children is morally acceptable.

It's unethical and illegal. It harms another individual. When I see another individual harmed I feel empathy towards that person as if I were them. Do you?

Except when a criminal asks you where their next victim is hiding. Do you lie to them, and violate the CI, or do you tell the truth, and aid in the murder of an innocent?

All views of objective morality have this same problem. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16) and "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). I never said that Kant's imperative was correct, just that I thought it was a better alternative to religion in the inherently flawed concept of objective morality.

Argument ad populum.

That's incorrect. If I had just said "those acts you mention are outlawed by every major governmental entity in the world" then it would be an ad populum. However, I stated that this includes governments which have no religious foundation or influence. How do you explain them coming to the same conclusion without objective morality?

If that's a rhetorical question, then it is a strawman.

Which is exactly what your entire argument about rape is. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.

Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. This does not mean that all atheists are psychopaths incapable of emotional response. Most of the population are capable of feeling empathy as a triggered chemical and psychological response. This phenomenon transcends religion.

 

[cdoty]

Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.

Is it also fair to say that without god humans would not have no knowledge of objective morality? If it is not, then 'independent of human opinion and consciousness.' is false.
And, without objective morality can a human actually do something wrong? If they cannot, they are the same as a lion. At that point, god is the source of good and evil.

I think Genesis tells this exact story. What is the purpose of the tree of knowledge? If Adam or Eve had eaten the apple without satan's encouragement, would they still have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden? If the answer is yes, the tree is the source of evil, therefore god brought evil into the world. If the answer is no, god lied and the apple isn't the original sin. In the case is there an original sin? They were not told to avoid satan or his advice.

 

[Father Crilly]

That's not entirely true. If a spiritual being could be proven to exist, it wouldn't open up any more possibility, probability or potentiality for other spiritual beings or unproven concepts to also exist. Only that spiritual being.

That's kind of like saying that if we could find even one Dragon Ball here on Earth, that it would support the possible existence of Shen Ron. All that would do is prove that we found a Dragon Ball. In no way is this intended to be said in a harsh tone.

OK, it wouldn't really support the existence of God. But let's just say that ghosts are scientifically proven to exist. If someone then asked would an eternal spiritual being like God be possible, I'd say "maybe".

As I said, I firmly believe in ghosts. I have reasons to believe. I have had experiences and so have friends and family of mine. My belief in ghosts has opened my mind up to the supernatural world a bit more. It's just my opinion, it's not evidence.

 

[Haloman800]

I am however, attacking your logic that you seem to think proves a god.

What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.

The answer to the question has no bearing on whether or not morality is objective.

If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.

About the discussion regarding morality:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
If it can be derived from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, it means it depends on the human group you're analysing therefore it's not universal.

Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Is it also fair to say that without god humans would not have no knowledge of objective morality?

?

 

[Father Crilly]

If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.

Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.

Let's get one thing straight. We are animals.

Animals rape each other and murder each other (for various reasons).

Humans live together and so had to come up with laws to protect lives so that we could all survive. Laws led to morals. When murder became illegal, it became immoral.

Morals are the creation of human society and culture.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.


If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.

Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.

So, if there is no universal standard, then good and evil ARE social constructs, created and controlled by the society that sets the definition for right and wrong. I am glad you agree.

Molestering children has not always been wrong. That's what you refuse to address. You have had evidence presented to you to substantiate that claim. You can no longer keep busting out CHILD MOLESTATION to try to shock people into agreeing with you.

You're literally trying to trap people in a simple A/B logical quandary where if they do not agree with you, they are in direct support of pedophilia. What a weak, weak attempt to play on people's emotions and evoke a protective, righteously indignant response.

Several people now have told you why you cannot use this argument, and why it is so weak, and such a non sequitur. Yet you are still clutching it in your Kung Fu Grip.

Do you even logic, bruh?

 

[cdoty]

What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.


If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.

Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.


?

any.. no... it's all the same..

Does objective morality really exist? Is it a construct we've invented?

Is stealing a loaf of bread always wrong?
What about killing someone? What if they've asked to die?
What about robbery? Does it matter if they're a rich king or dictator starving their people?
Would it be OK for a woman to have sex with her husband before he is taken off life support? That would be rape, since the husband couldn't consent.
What if you've auctioned off your virginity, does the winner have the right to take it regardless? If not, why not? If I buy a car, I have all rights to the car, as long as I've paid for it. Are you guaranteed the right to take the car back after you've sold it?

If it's universal, shouldn't it apply in all cases?