Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If you believe in objective truth, you...

MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you believe in objective truth, you have to believe in a supreme being of some kind. If you subscribe to the believe that there is a source of this objective truth, what else can it be other than a supreme being?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:27:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:03:24 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
If you believe in objective truth, you have to believe in a supreme being of some kind. If you subscribe to the believe that there is a source of this objective truth, what else can it be other than a supreme being?

Why is a Supreme being necessary to say "'A or not A' is true" or "'1+1=2' is true?"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:39:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I remember watching a lecture which basically stated that objective morality can actually be derived from the evolution of organisms, which breeds a sort of morality into them. Since all organisms' sole purpose is to spread their genes, a morality based on evolutionary beneficial behaviours ought to evolve since without it, there can be no stability in the animal kingdom.

Then again, I seriously doubt this morality entails "Do not kill anybody," but more likely "Refrain from killing your own species as much as possible."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:41:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Even if God says you "ought to do blank", you only have an obligation to do it insofar as you fear the consequences. This is still subjective morality.

If you don't fear hell, then you have no reason whatsoever to follow God's laws. But in any case, this conversation is irrelevant. Morality is not objective (and thus doesn't need any ultimate origin).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:55:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even if God says you "ought to do blank", you only have an obligation to do it insofar as you fear the consequences. This is still subjective morality.

How is it subjective morality if you do something you know is wrong, despite the consequences that you fear as a result of it being against your objective moral code?

If you don't fear hell, then you have no reason whatsoever to follow God's laws. But in any case, this conversation is irrelevant. Morality is not objective (and thus doesn't need any ultimate origin).

The point I was making was that you have to believe that there is an ultimate origin to morality if you do believe in objective morality. Knowingly breaking an objective moral code is not the same thing as forsaking it, because you can still feel that you did something morally wrong by breaking that moral code.

If you believe in subjective morality then you have to believe that morality is based in something earthly, and that right and wrong varies between cultures. If you believe in objective morality then you have to believe that there are universal rights and wrongs, and that certain cultures are to be judged as evil and certain cultures are to be judged as good according to that universal code.

At this point you'd have a disagreement in what those universal rights and wrongs are, and the only way that you can logically justify an objective moral code is if it has an ultimate origin in a supreme being.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 11:18:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it objectively true that there are no objective truths?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 11:50:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What atheistic arguments assume a belief in objective morality?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 12:03:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:03:24 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
If you believe in objective truth, you have to believe in a supreme being of some kind.

Nonsense.

If you subscribe to the believe that there is a source of this objective truth, what else can it be other than a supreme being?

Atheists can defend objective truth at least as well as theists.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 6:27:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists

On what grounds?
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 6:34:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:27:30 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:03:24 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
If you believe in objective truth, you have to believe in a supreme being of some kind. If you subscribe to the believe that there is a source of this objective truth, what else can it be other than a supreme being?

Why is a Supreme being necessary to say "'A or not A' is true" or "'1+1=2' is true?"

Who believes in fairytales?
Me: I look at Biblical writings along with many others that suggest...GOD. With that Im in the logical sense going by what we see- Nothing from thin air appears.
You: Things just appear and happen from nothing and not only that it also comes together in mathematical persesion.
TheAsylum
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:19:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:27:43 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists

On what grounds?

I don't yet know what grounds you're offering.

All I know is that, whatever grounds a theist fielded, I have always been able to do as well or better for the non-theists.

All you've done so far is make a bald undefended claim, so I've done the same.

See, as good or better than you did.

Defend or justify theistic morality however you see fit, and I'll be happy to show you an equally good justification of atheistic morality.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists


No, you can't.

Atheists shouldn't even use the words 'objective' and 'morality' in the same sentence.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:31:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:27:43 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists

On what grounds?

Universality in the case of Immanual Kant's categorical imperative. Any action by a rational agent is immoral if it could not logically be ruled as a universal law. This is why murder, theft, abortion, lying, and defecating into the mouths of everyone you meet are immoral.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:03:24 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
If you believe in objective truth, you have to believe in a supreme being of some kind. If you subscribe to the believe that there is a source of this objective truth, what else can it be other than a supreme being?

In philosophy there are necessary and contingent truths. Contingent truths are things that rely on others to exist. Necessary truths are those that are there logically, do not require other things to exist, and exist in all possible worlds. For example, 1+1=2 is true in all possible worlds.

So it is possible that objective morality is also a necessary fact like mathematics.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:41:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Even if God says you "ought to do blank", you only have an obligation to do it insofar as you fear the consequences. This is still subjective morality.

If you don't fear hell, then you have no reason whatsoever to follow God's laws. But in any case, this conversation is irrelevant. Morality is not objective (and thus doesn't need any ultimate origin).

An omnipotent God could make objective morality if he wanted to. Wouldn't you agree?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:42:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 11:50:24 PM, Maikuru wrote:
What atheistic arguments assume a belief in objective morality?

There's a boat-load. Utilitarianism, Hedonism, Kantian, Well-being theory, Collectivism, Natural rights morality and many more. Though as a disclaimer not all of the theories listed bellow are believed objective by many and not all those who derived the theories were atheist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:43:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:42:16 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/16/2012 11:50:24 PM, Maikuru wrote:
What atheistic arguments assume a belief in objective morality?

There's a boat-load. Utilitarianism, Hedonism, Kantian, Well-being theory, Collectivism, Natural rights morality and many more. Though as a disclaimer not all of the theories listed are believed objective by many and not all those who derived the theories were atheist.

Fixed
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:34:55 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:41:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Even if God says you "ought to do blank", you only have an obligation to do it insofar as you fear the consequences. This is still subjective morality.

If you don't fear hell, then you have no reason whatsoever to follow God's laws. But in any case, this conversation is irrelevant. Morality is not objective (and thus doesn't need any ultimate origin).

An omnipotent God could make objective morality if he wanted to. Wouldn't you agree?

not really because objective morality and omnipotence are both logical absurdities. God would be above logic to hold either concept. And if God is above logic, then he can exist and not exist at the same time, making it also irrational to believe or not believe in him.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:17:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:22:32 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists


No, you can't.

Prove it. Offer me a religious defense of objective moral values that I can't match with a non-religious defense.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:31:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 4:17:10 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:22:32 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists


No, you can't.

Prove it. Offer me a religious defense of objective moral values that I can't match with a non-religious defense.


You made the assertion. You prove it.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:34:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The funny thing is that if God is a disembodied mind, and morality is grounded in him, then it is subjective by definition:

"Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation."

I've never met a theist who was able to convince me that objective morality can be grounded in God. Even theistic philosopher Richard Swinburne agrees that objective truths, if objective, would be objective truths whether or not a God existed.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 4:34:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The funny thing is that if God is a disembodied mind, and morality is grounded in him, then it is subjective by definition:

"Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation."

I've never met a theist who was able to convince me that objective morality can be grounded in God. Even theistic philosopher Richard Swinburne agrees that objective truths, if objective, would be objective truths whether or not a God existed.

For the sake of objective morality, I genuinely consider this healthy thinking.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 5:09:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:03:24 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
If you believe in objective truth, you have to believe in a supreme being of some kind. If you subscribe to the believe that there is a source of this objective truth, what else can it be other than a supreme being?
No. In order to believe in OBJECTIVE truth then you must also accept that there is a SUBJECTIVE truth...otherwise there would just be truth.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 4:31:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 4:17:10 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:22:32 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:04:15 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:35:31 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I meant objective morality specifically; don't know why I said truth.

Atheists can defend objective morality at least as well as theists


No, you can't.

Prove it. Offer me a religious defense of objective moral values that I can't match with a non-religious defense.


You made the assertion. You prove it.

My assertion is that I can defend morality as well as a theist. So far, the theists have not defended morality.

Upshot: I have defended morality as well as a theist.

Victory!