Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists and the unwinnable argument

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 12:16:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The agument of objective morality is incompatible with atheism despite all evidence showing that it exists.

If atheism is true, we have no inherent purpose of our existence. We're merely an accident of unembodied cosmic fluctuation. Keep in mind that all purposes or intentions can only be assigned by sentient beings. Also keep in mind that morality is purpose-determined behavior. If there's no inherent purpose of our existence, no inherent purpose-determined behavior can either. There is no purpose behind natural processes like natural selection. It's just process with a result. It just so happens to allow ongoing survival and propagation. The same could be said of death. It's a natural process with a result and happens to allow creatures to die off. When atheists cite morality as way to "harmonize" or "ensure survival" they juxtapose a purpose-determined process with purposeless natural processes. Thus, they can't claim that morality serves any objective purpose. Thus, atheists can't claim that objective morality exist.

If atheists argue that all morality is subjective, they have no foundation of what is right and what is wrong. An objective sense of morality is necessary to determine immoral behavior, otherwise all morality is meritless opinion. Is slavery, human sacrifice, raping, murdering, etc. all just a matter of opinion? Are human rights just a matter of opinion? But does the evidence show that all morality is really subjective? Not even one society in the history of humanity has ever tolerated rape or murdering somebody for fun. What about societies that engage in rape or murder and label it something else? The fact remains that a standard exists for these people on what "is too far." Would any society argue that's it's okay to rape a baby? Or kill one for fun? No. Not even among the most backwards societies. Is this an objective opinion of every human that has ever lived that this behavior is wrong? What is an objective opinion anyway? Truth is, we wouldn't need to justify our behavior in any fashion if we all had a subjective sense of what is right and wrong. Societies have engaged in immoral behavior before but still required necessary justifications for engaging in this otherwise immoral behavior. They knew that burning people was alive was wrong, but if they believed the person was a witch they thought it was okay. No necessary justification would even exist if humans could do whatever they please without moral inhibitions. No moral inhibitions would exist if people could do whatever they saw fit.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 12:28:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No offence Ben, but the moral argument is by far and away the least convincing argument I have ever seen for God.

I understand why you might find it otherwise, but remember who you are trying to convince. I find the moral argument at best a circular one.

Going something like this:

1. X is objectively immoral
2. Why is X objectively immoral?
1. It obviously is
2. That's not a reason

You can assert that rape and murder are objectively immoral, but you need to give reasons why I should believe that, because I don't outside of any moral syste,. And there lies the problem with the argument, it has to presuppose God in order to agree something is objectively immoral in the first place (within the argument).
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 12:38:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 12:28:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
No offence Ben, but the moral argument is by far and away the least convincing argument I have ever seen for God.

I understand why you might find it otherwise, but remember who you are trying to convince. I find the moral argument at best a circular one.

Going something like this:

1. X is objectively immoral
2. Why is X objectively immoral?
1. It obviously is
2. That's not a reason

You can assert that rape and murder are objectively immoral, but you need to give reasons why I should believe that, because I don't outside of any moral syste,. And there lies the problem with the argument, it has to presuppose God in order to agree something is objectively immoral in the first place (within the argument).

Actually, if I may interject here...
One does not need to prove the origin of objective morals to prove objective morals. All one has to do is to disprove subjective morals, and by the nature of the dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity, the objective morals will be the only remaining alternative.

Indeed, even the late Christopher Hitchens believed in objective morals, despite being an Atheist. The only difference between him and a Christian was where the objective morals came from.

So, you can conclude that rape is objectively wrong, but that does not mean that you must prove God's existence to do so. All you have to do is that it is not subjectively wrong

I'm not delving into the entire argument, just pointing out a minor flaw in both arguments here.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 12:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 12:38:14 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:28:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
No offence Ben, but the moral argument is by far and away the least convincing argument I have ever seen for God.

I understand why you might find it otherwise, but remember who you are trying to convince. I find the moral argument at best a circular one.

Going something like this:

1. X is objectively immoral
2. Why is X objectively immoral?
1. It obviously is
2. That's not a reason

You can assert that rape and murder are objectively immoral, but you need to give reasons why I should believe that, because I don't outside of any moral syste,. And there lies the problem with the argument, it has to presuppose God in order to agree something is objectively immoral in the first place (within the argument).

Actually, if I may interject here...
One does not need to prove the origin of objective morals to prove objective morals. All one has to do is to disprove subjective morals, and by the nature of the dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity, the objective morals will be the only remaining alternative.

Agreed. Yet I cannot see how one can prove objective morals outside of either just asserting they exist, or giving reasons why something is immoral. You could have an argument like this:

P1) Human moral values are either entirely subjective, or partially objective
P2) not entirely subjective
C) Objective moral values exist

It doesn't matter not many people agree X is immoral, you can never demonstrate it's objective rather than subjective outside of them telling you so (which will usually be because of a preconceived moral system, such as a theological one)

Indeed, even the late Christopher Hitchens believed in objective morals, despite being an Atheist. The only difference between him and a Christian was where the objective morals came from.

So, you can conclude that rape is objectively wrong, but that does not mean that you must prove God's existence to do so. All you have to do is that it is not subjectively wrong

X believes Y is objectively wrong doesn't mean Y is objectively wrong. Belief doesn't get you to that conclusion. To me it seems the very notion of labelling something as moral or immoral is problematic as it means different things to different people. There are secular objective moral systems which would say XYZ is objectively immoral, and there would be other secular or otherwise systems that say those exact same things XYZ are moral.

The argument becomes useless as nobody agrees on what 'moral' is. The terms need to be clearly defined for an argument to be meaningful, and I argue that outside of a system, such as one that presupposes god, that is not possible to do.

I'm not delving into the entire argument, just pointing out a minor flaw in both arguments here.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:01:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The evidence has shown that human societies unanimously hold that rape and murder for fun are wrong. Is this an objective opinion? What do you mean just merely asserted evidence? Did you bother to read my post?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:01:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The evidence has shown that human societies unanimously hold that rape and murder for fun are wrong. Is this an objective opinion? What do you mean just merely asserted evidence? Did you bother to read my post?

How do you get from human societies holding rape and murder to be wrong to 'Murder and rape are objectively wrong'.

I simply don't see how that can be done.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:09:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
An objective is value is one that is constant and not subject to interpretation. An opinion is opposite, it's a dynamic value that's subject to interpretation. If all societies have held positions regarding immorality of rape and murder in given circumstances, why would it be assumed to be anything other than objective?
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 12:16:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The agument of objective morality is incompatible with atheism despite all evidence showing that it exists.

If atheism is true, we have no inherent purpose of our existence. We're merely an accident of unembodied cosmic fluctuation. Keep in mind that all purposes or intentions can only be assigned by sentient beings. Also keep in mind that morality is purpose-determined behavior. If there's no inherent purpose of our existence, no inherent purpose-determined behavior can either. There is no purpose behind natural processes like natural selection. It's just process with a result. It just so happens to allow ongoing survival and propagation. The same could be said of death. It's a natural process with a result and happens to allow creatures to die off. When atheists cite morality as way to "harmonize" or "ensure survival" they juxtapose a purpose-determined process with purposeless natural processes. Thus, they can't claim that morality serves any objective purpose. Thus, atheists can't claim that objective morality exist.

If atheists argue that all morality is subjective, they have no foundation of what is right and what is wrong. An objective sense of morality is necessary to determine immoral behavior, otherwise all morality is meritless opinion. Is slavery, human sacrifice, raping, murdering, etc. all just a matter of opinion? Are human rights just a matter of opinion? But does the evidence show that all morality is really subjective? Not even one society in the history of humanity has ever tolerated rape or murdering somebody for fun. What about societies that engage in rape or murder and label it something else? The fact remains that a standard exists for these people on what "is too far." Would any society argue that's it's okay to rape a baby? Or kill one for fun? No. Not even among the most backwards societies. Is this an objective opinion of every human that has ever lived that this behavior is wrong? What is an objective opinion anyway? Truth is, we wouldn't need to justify our behavior in any fashion if we all had a subjective sense of what is right and wrong. Societies have engaged in immoral behavior before but still required necessary justifications for engaging in this otherwise immoral behavior. They knew that burning people was alive was wrong, but if they believed the person was a witch they thought it was okay. No necessary justification would even exist if humans could do whatever they please without moral inhibitions. No moral inhibitions would exist if people could do whatever they saw fit.

first of all if objective morality exists nobody sees it. our conscience consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth and i highly doubt that god would make objective morality and make it too complicated or whatever for most to understand. but my morality is based on questions like what are we? what are we in relation to each other? and why are we here? what should the top priorities of a morality be? your saying we cant do this logically if we dont believe in a god? treat others as you would want to be treated is objective in ways. there are simple moral rules and complicated ones that most people will never understand. so what do there leaders do? they come up with religion. if we knew right from wrong like religious people say we wouldnt need religion. people would still fear the possibility that there is a god and they would do whats right. i would think if god existed we would know right from wrong and morality would be objective but it cant be objective if everybody has a different opinion of whats right and wrong. do you think only america is in the right? because everyone else disagrees with us. facts dont contradict facts so if slavery is in fact wrong then earlier christians were in the wrong. they say they speak to god but obviously god doesnt speak to them because "god" tells everyone contradictory things. and im not reading the rest of this crap. its so funny to hear people who believe in talking snakes and dirt spontaniously turning into humans and that a god who punishes everybody for the sins of a few is perfect talk about what is rational and what isnt because obviously you dont have a fuc*ing clue. im an agnostic/ atheist and i am much more morally attuned than a christian. a christian would say that a man who has 14 kids with one woman after marrying her who takes so little care of his kid that most of them die from preventable causes is good while a person who cures cancer but sleeps with multiple women wearing protection and only has 2 kids is bad. this is a good example that shows that the christian religion is far outdated. it doesnt agree with our morality. soon we will have a new religion with new gods because as people change their gods change.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:37:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:09:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An objective is value is one that is constant and not subject to interpretation. An opinion is opposite, it's a dynamic value that's subject to interpretation. If all societies have held positions regarding immorality of rape and murder in given circumstances, why would it be assumed to be anything other than objective?

Because that only proves what you said at face value, that societies hold similar positions on certain issues.

Bombs all tend to explode, but the 'explosiveness' isn't an objective fact of a bomb, there is no 'explosiveness' entity that exists, only a tendency for bombs to converge on the same explosive outcome.

The bomb's explosion entity doesn't guide the bomb to explode any more than objective morals guide society to hold those morals wrong. The causal relation simply cannot be demonstrated.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:28:35 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:16:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The agument of objective morality is incompatible with atheism despite all evidence showing that it exists.

If atheism is true, we have no inherent purpose of our existence. We're merely an accident of unembodied cosmic fluctuation. Keep in mind that all purposes or intentions can only be assigned by sentient beings. Also keep in mind that morality is purpose-determined behavior. If there's no inherent purpose of our existence, no inherent purpose-determined behavior can either. There is no purpose behind natural processes like natural selection. It's just process with a result. It just so happens to allow ongoing survival and propagation. The same could be said of death. It's a natural process with a result and happens to allow creatures to die off. When atheists cite morality as way to "harmonize" or "ensure survival" they juxtapose a purpose-determined process with purposeless natural processes. Thus, they can't claim that morality serves any objective purpose. Thus, atheists can't claim that objective morality exist.

If atheists argue that all morality is subjective, they have no foundation of what is right and what is wrong. An objective sense of morality is necessary to determine immoral behavior, otherwise all morality is meritless opinion. Is slavery, human sacrifice, raping, murdering, etc. all just a matter of opinion? Are human rights just a matter of opinion? But does the evidence show that all morality is really subjective? Not even one society in the history of humanity has ever tolerated rape or murdering somebody for fun. What about societies that engage in rape or murder and label it something else? The fact remains that a standard exists for these people on what "is too far." Would any society argue that's it's okay to rape a baby? Or kill one for fun? No. Not even among the most backwards societies. Is this an objective opinion of every human that has ever lived that this behavior is wrong? What is an objective opinion anyway? Truth is, we wouldn't need to justify our behavior in any fashion if we all had a subjective sense of what is right and wrong. Societies have engaged in immoral behavior before but still required necessary justifications for engaging in this otherwise immoral behavior. They knew that burning people was alive was wrong, but if they believed the person was a witch they thought it was okay. No necessary justification would even exist if humans could do whatever they please without moral inhibitions. No moral inhibitions would exist if people could do whatever they saw fit.

first of all if objective morality exists nobody sees it. our conscience consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth and i highly doubt that god would make objective morality and make it too complicated or whatever for most to understand. but my morality is based on questions like what are we? what are we in relation to each other? and why are we here? what should the top priorities of a morality be? your saying we cant do this logically if we dont believe in a god? treat others as you would want to be treated is objective in ways. there are simple moral rules and complicated ones that most people will never understand. so what do there leaders do? they come up with religion. if we knew right from wrong like religious people say we wouldnt need religion. people would still fear the possibility that there is a god and they would do whats right. i would think if god existed we would know right from wrong and morality would be objective but it cant be objective if everybody has a different opinion of whats right and wrong. do you think only america is in the right? because everyone else disagrees with us. facts dont contradict facts so if slavery is in fact wrong then earlier christians were in the wrong. they say they speak to god but obviously god doesnt speak to them because "god" tells everyone contradictory things. and im not reading the rest of this crap. its so funny to hear people who believe in talking snakes and dirt spontaniously turning into humans and that a god who punishes everybody for the sins of a few is perfect talk about what is rational and what isnt because obviously you dont have a fuc*ing clue. im an agnostic/ atheist and i am much more morally attuned than a christian. a christian would say that a man who has 14 kids with one woman after marrying her who takes so little care of his kid that most of them die from preventable causes is good while a person who cures cancer but sleeps with multiple women wearing protection and only has 2 kids is bad. this is a good example that shows that the christian religion is far outdated. it doesnt agree with our morality. soon we will have a new religion with new gods because as people change their gods change.

Basically you are arguing that objective morality can't exist because people have differing ideas on what constitutes as "moral" or "immoral" behavior. But having nuanced or varying degrees on what constitutes as moral or immoral behavior does not show that objective morality doesn't exist. Remember that if objective morality doesn't exist, that means that ALL morality is subjective. The dichotomy is that if there is even one situation of moral objectivity, morality is objective given this situation. There are situations regarding rape and murder where it is always wrong regardless of culture or time period. If a value is constant and unchanging, it isn't subjective. Thus, all morality isn't subjective. If something is not subjective, it is objective.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:43:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:37:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:09:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An objective is value is one that is constant and not subject to interpretation. An opinion is opposite, it's a dynamic value that's subject to interpretation. If all societies have held positions regarding immorality of rape and murder in given circumstances, why would it be assumed to be anything other than objective?

Because that only proves what you said at face value, that societies hold similar positions on certain issues.

Bombs all tend to explode, but the 'explosiveness' isn't an objective fact of a bomb, there is no 'explosiveness' entity that exists, only a tendency for bombs to converge on the same explosive outcome.

The bomb's explosion entity doesn't guide the bomb to explode any more than objective morals guide society to hold those morals wrong. The causal relation simply cannot be demonstrated.

If all bombs explode, it is an objective fact that all bombs explode. Just like all people behaving that it is immoral to rape and murder in given circumstances, it is an objective fact that it is immoral in these given circumstances. Proving that an entity is necessary for this objectivity is another piece of the argument I had addressed in the first post.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 2:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:01:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The evidence has shown that human societies unanimously hold that rape and murder for fun are wrong. Is this an objective opinion? What do you mean just merely asserted evidence? Did you bother to read my post?

Yea sorry but this universal truth of yours is BS.

The Bible endorses rape, "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Ancient Sparta endorsed a lot of things we consider immoral:

Infanticide: "In the event that the baby did not pass the test, he was left at a place called the apothetae near Mt. Taygetus for several days in a test to die of exposure or survive the ordeal."

Thievery: "Boys were intentionally underfed to encourage them to master the skills necessary to become successful at stealing their food."

Pedophilia: "At around age 12 the boys would enter into an institutionalized relationship with a young adult male Spartan. Plutarch described this form of Spartan pederasty wherein somewhat older warriors would engage promising youths in a long-lasting relationship with a pedagogic motive."

Murder for Fun: "At the stage of paidiskoi, around the age of 18, the students became reserve members of the Spartan army. Also, some youths were allowed to become part of the Crypteia, a type of 'Secret Police', where the members were instructed to spy on the Helot [slave] population and even kill Helot slaves who were out at night or spoke seditiously, to help keep the population submissive. The state supported this by formally declaring war on the Helots every autumn, so that killing a Helot was not regarded as a crime, but a valuable deed for the good of the state."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh I know what you're thinking, "Ancient Sparta was immoral! No wonder the Christian God wiped them out!" yea, would you like to know who was responsible for permanently crippling Sparta? A bunch of homos! http://en.wikipedia.org...

As we know today as it was thousands of years ago homosexuals are minions of the Devil. So when the gays helped defeat the Spartans it was God defeating ... wait I mean it was Satan defeating ... Satan? No that doesn't make sense ... unless it was God making these evil persons kill each other ... but why would God make these cultures evil then set them to destroy each other? OMG it must have been Satan's plan! The movie 300 glorified the Spartan way of life infecting American youth with such evil notions! Clever move Satan, clever move.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 2:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 2:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:01:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The evidence has shown that human societies unanimously hold that rape and murder for fun are wrong. Is this an objective opinion? What do you mean just merely asserted evidence? Did you bother to read my post?

Yea sorry but this universal truth of yours is BS.

The Bible endorses rape, "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

How is "paying her father" for "violating her" an endorsement of rape? And where did I mention a biblical God in any of this anyway?

Ancient Sparta endorsed a lot of things we consider immoral:

Infanticide: "In the event that the baby did not pass the test, he was left at a place called the apothetae near Mt. Taygetus for several days in a test to die of exposure or survive the ordeal."

Thievery: "Boys were intentionally underfed to encourage them to master the skills necessary to become successful at stealing their food."

Pedophilia: "At around age 12 the boys would enter into an institutionalized relationship with a young adult male Spartan. Plutarch described this form of Spartan pederasty wherein somewhat older warriors would engage promising youths in a long-lasting relationship with a pedagogic motive."

Again, none of this disproves the existence of objective morality. People have always held beliefs regarding the immorality of issues of murder or rape in certain circumstances. It's the fact that there exists a baseline standard, a standard of necessary justification for all societies engaging in otherwise immoral acts, where it regresses to a point in which all societies agree that it would be immoral. Killing or raping babies for example.

Murder for Fun: "At the stage of paidiskoi, around the age of 18, the students became reserve members of the Spartan army. Also, some youths were allowed to become part of the Crypteia, a type of 'Secret Police', where the members were instructed to spy on the Helot [slave] population and even kill Helot slaves who were out at night or spoke seditiously, to help keep the population submissive. The state supported this by formally declaring war on the Helots every autumn, so that killing a Helot was not regarded as a crime, but a valuable deed for the good of the state."

This isn't an example of murder for fun. It's an example of murder for the purpose of maintaining dominance and forcing submission over slaves who violated their supposed rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh I know what you're thinking, "Ancient Sparta was immoral! No wonder the Christian God wiped them out!" yea, would you like to know who was responsible for permanently crippling Sparta? A bunch of homos! http://en.wikipedia.org...

As we know today as it was thousands of years ago homosexuals are minions of the Devil. So when the gays helped defeat the Spartans it was God defeating ... wait I mean it was Satan defeating ... Satan? No that doesn't make sense ... unless it was God making these evil persons kill each other ... but why would God make these cultures evil then set them to destroy each other? OMG it must have been Satan's plan! The movie 300 glorified the Spartan way of life infecting American youth with such evil notions! Clever move Satan, clever move.

Given that we are free to listen or disobey our moral compass for any reason, I don't see the point in assuming God must be responsible for human actions of evil.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 2:35:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

How is "paying her father" for "violating her" an endorsement of rape? And where did I mention a biblical God in any of this anyway?

You honestly don't understand? You think it's OK to rape women so long as you pay her father money? You think it's OK to force a woman to marry her rapist just because he paid for her? Are you serious? God's not saying DON'T RAPE CAUSE IT'S IMMORAL he's saying IF YOU'RE GONNA RAPE PAY THE FATHER OFF AND IT'S OK.

In your first post you assert that no society has ever endorsed things like rape and killing for fun. The bible was held by society as a moral code, thus if a society endorses the bible they endorse it's words (which endorses rape).

Again, none of this disproves the existence of objective morality. People have always held beliefs regarding the immorality of issues of murder or rape in certain circumstances. It's the fact that there exists a baseline standard, a standard of necessary justification for all societies engaging in otherwise immoral acts, where it regresses to a point in which all societies agree that it would be immoral. Killing or raping babies for example.

How can you claim a baseline standard if that standard is constantly violated? I think you confuse your moral compass with a global moral standard. The example of Sparta shows the not every culture holds the same standards of morality. They didn't consider their acts immoral in need of justification, they simply did it for the benefits that came along with it. Your regression comment makes no sense given that even today cultures kill off babies (China's one child policy). Hell even Bible thumpers argue that the US engages in infanticide via abortions. Babies have been killed throughout history, from Ancient Sparta culling the weak, Ancient Egypt killing Hebrew babies to today's examples.

Murder for Fun: "At the stage of paidiskoi, around the age of 18, the students became reserve members of the Spartan army. Also, some youths were allowed to become part of the Crypteia, a type of 'Secret Police', where the members were instructed to spy on the Helot [slave] population and even kill Helot slaves who were out at night or spoke seditiously, to help keep the population submissive. The state supported this by formally declaring war on the Helots every autumn, so that killing a Helot was not regarded as a crime, but a valuable deed for the good of the state."

This isn't an example of murder for fun. It's an example of murder for the purpose of maintaining dominance and forcing submission over slaves who violated their supposed rules.

You don't think the Spartans enjoyed killing? They just begrudgingly killed slaves for the crime of being out at night and existing in autumn? Do you have no comprehension of reality?

Given that we are free to listen or disobey our moral compass for any reason, I don't see the point in assuming God must be responsible for human actions of evil.

But God created evil, when it happens it is by His design. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 3:06:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/22/2014 2:35:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

How is "paying her father" for "violating her" an endorsement of rape? And where did I mention a biblical God in any of this anyway?

You honestly don't understand? You think it's OK to rape women so long as you pay her father money? You think it's OK to force a woman to marry her rapist just because he paid for her? Are you serious? God's not saying DON'T RAPE CAUSE IT'S IMMORAL he's saying IF YOU'RE GONNA RAPE PAY THE FATHER OFF AND IT'S OK.

In your first post you assert that no society has ever endorsed things like rape and killing for fun. The bible was held by society as a moral code, thus if a society endorses the bible they endorse it's words (which endorses rape).

The quote you sourced doesn't endorse rape. That was recompense and punishment for rape as an unjustifiable action -hence the term "violated". I don't see any declaration of approval of support for rape in that circumstance.

Again, none of this disproves the existence of objective morality. People have always held beliefs regarding the immorality of issues of murder or rape in certain circumstances. It's the fact that there exists a baseline standard, a standard of necessary justification for all societies engaging in otherwise immoral acts, where it regresses to a point in which all societies agree that it would be immoral. Killing or raping babies for example.

How can you claim a baseline standard if that standard is constantly violated? I think you confuse your moral compass with a global moral standard. The example of Sparta shows the not every culture holds the same standards of morality. They didn't consider their acts immoral in need of justification, they simply did it for the benefits that came along with it. Your regression comment makes no sense given that even today cultures kill off babies (China's one child policy). Hell even Bible thumpers argue that the US engages in infanticide via abortions. Babies have been killed throughout history, from Ancient Sparta culling the weak, Ancient Egypt killing Hebrew babies to today's examples.

China's policies, or mothers aborting their own unborn children don't do it for fun. The moral standard that killing innocent babies for fun is immoral has held true regardless of time period or circumstance in any human society.

Murder for Fun: "At the stage of paidiskoi, around the age of 18, the students became reserve members of the Spartan army. Also, some youths were allowed to become part of the Crypteia, a type of 'Secret Police', where the members were instructed to spy on the Helot [slave] population and even kill Helot slaves who were out at night or spoke seditiously, to help keep the population submissive. The state supported this by formally declaring war on the Helots every autumn, so that killing a Helot was not regarded as a crime, but a valuable deed for the good of the state."

This isn't an example of murder for fun. It's an example of murder for the purpose of maintaining dominance and forcing submission over slaves who violated their supposed rules.

You don't think the Spartans enjoyed killing? They just begrudgingly killed slaves for the crime of being out at night and existing in autumn? Do you have no comprehension of reality?

In your own sourced paragraph it said "...to help keep the population submissive." It was an act of maintaining power. It wasn't done for fun.

Given that we are free to listen or disobey our moral compass for any reason, I don't see the point in assuming God must be responsible for human actions of evil.

But God created evil, when it happens it is by His design. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

If you notice the preceding contextual opposite, light vs. darkness, you'll notice that evil in this case is opposite of peace. It's better translated as "calamity".
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:42:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 4:07:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

The quote you sourced doesn't endorse rape. That was recompense and punishment for rape as an unjustifiable action -hence the term "violated". I don't see any declaration of approval of support for rape in that circumstance.

The quote, you ignorant cad, directly refers to rape. "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

God does not punish the man nor bring justice to the woman. How is the woman compensated? Does marriage and a fine equate to justice? No it doesn't; but neither you nor God seems to understand that. He endorses rape by mandating the rapist be given a wife. The victim on the other hand must marry her rapist. Please try as you might to justify forcing a woman to marry her rapist, you're just making excuses for immorality (how ironic).

China's policies, or mothers aborting their own unborn children don't do it for fun. The moral standard that killing innocent babies for fun is immoral has held true regardless of time period or circumstance in any human society.

You seem bent on the "fun" aspect. This is irrelevant, an immoral act whether done for fun, profit, or power is still immoral. Any form of endorsement is still immoral, yet you think that it's ok simply because it's not done for fun.

You don't think the Spartans enjoyed killing? They just begrudgingly killed slaves for the crime of being out at night and existing in autumn? Do you have no comprehension of reality?

In your own sourced paragraph it said "...to help keep the population submissive." It was an act of maintaining power. It wasn't done for fun.

Thanks for avoiding the question. Just because they did it to maintain power doesn't mean they didn't enjoy maintaining their power.

But God created evil, when it happens it is by His design. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

If you notice the preceding contextual opposite, light vs. darkness, you'll notice that evil in this case is opposite of peace. It's better translated as "calamity".

Calamity? That's your excuse? The strife of man (created by God) is ok because it's "calamity" instead of "evil"?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 5:12:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 4:42:02 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:07:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

The quote you sourced doesn't endorse rape. That was recompense and punishment for rape as an unjustifiable action -hence the term "violated". I don't see any declaration of approval of support for rape in that circumstance.

The quote, you ignorant cad, directly refers to rape. "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So please underline the support or endorsement of rape within this passage. You're reading an ancient punishment system for an immoral crime. It says absolutely nothing about endorsing rape or finding rape acceptable. It'd be like saying our justice system endorses or finds rape acceptable in exchange for 10 years of your life in prison. The punishment isn't even the issue- it's the fact that it's deemed unjustified hence "violated" just as any term used for breaking the law would be a violation.

God does not punish the man nor bring justice to the woman. How is the woman compensated? Does marriage and a fine equate to justice? No it doesn't; but neither you nor God seems to understand that. He endorses rape by mandating the rapist be given a wife. The victim on the other hand must marry her rapist. Please try as you might to justify forcing a woman to marry her rapist, you're just making excuses for immorality (how ironic).

China's policies, or mothers aborting their own unborn children don't do it for fun. The moral standard that killing innocent babies for fun is immoral has held true regardless of time period or circumstance in any human society.

You seem bent on the "fun" aspect. This is irrelevant, an immoral act whether done for fun, profit, or power is still immoral. Any form of endorsement is still immoral, yet you think that it's ok simply because it's not done for fun.

It is still immoral regardless but people need a necessary justification to engage in what they see as an otherwise immoral act. If they don't have this necessary justification, like China justifying it through overpopulation, or a mother justifying aborting an unborn child as not a human being or whatever, it's still not done just for the sake of doing it without necessary justification.

You don't think the Spartans enjoyed killing? They just begrudgingly killed slaves for the crime of being out at night and existing in autumn? Do you have no comprehension of reality?

In your own sourced paragraph it said "...to help keep the population submissive." It was an act of maintaining power. It wasn't done for fun.

Thanks for avoiding the question. Just because they did it to maintain power doesn't mean they didn't enjoy maintaining their power.

If they had fun while murdering to maintain power is irrelevant and the assertion that they thought it was fun is unsupported anyway. The fact remains that no society murders another human being without necessary justification.

But God created evil, when it happens it is by His design. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

If you notice the preceding contextual opposite, light vs. darkness, you'll notice that evil in this case is opposite of peace. It's better translated as "calamity".

Calamity? That's your excuse? The strife of man (created by God) is ok because it's "calamity" instead of "evil"?

If more good comes of experiencing the struggle than if the person had never experienced that struggle then yes. You're also reading "evil" in the literal sense of the English meaning pertaining to moral behavior. The Hebrew word " ra' " covers many meanings depending on context. Given the preceding passage it means calamity.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 6:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 5:12:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

So please underline the support or endorsement of rape within this passage. You're reading an ancient punishment system for an immoral crime. It says absolutely nothing about endorsing rape or finding rape acceptable. It'd be like saying our justice system endorses or finds rape acceptable in exchange for 10 years of your life in prison. The punishment isn't even the issue- it's the fact that it's deemed unjustified hence "violated" just as any term used for breaking the law would be a violation.

It's not just any ancient punishment, IT'S GOD'S PUNISHMENT. By this standard our system is too harsh. We should follow the Bible and force women to marry their rapists. And what a punishment it is! Not only do you get to rape women you get to marry them and continue raping them! Wow what a just God.

You seem confused on how this isn't an endorsement of rape. Although the Bible doesn't say "go fourth and rape." You know, except when Gods tell people rape https://www.biblegateway.com.... The Bible doesn't offer a legitimate punishment for rape. It's like how our government endorses corrupt Wall Street activity by not adequately punishing those responsible for our economic crash. If those who commit crimes are not punished then there is no reason for others not to commit the same crime.

If they had fun while murdering to maintain power is irrelevant and the assertion that they thought it was fun is unsupported anyway. The fact remains that no society murders another human being without necessary justification.

This is a moot point. No human does ANYTHING w/o justification. You now say fun is irrelevant yet it was your original premise. As for your thinking Spartans didn't enjoy killing their slaves, this is a clear case of your inability to think critically. Sparta was a warrior culture, they celebrated those who had the ability to kill. They routinely killed their slaves to maintain power. To think that members of a warrior culture would not enjoy killing is nonsense.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:13:56 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/22/2014 5:12:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

So please underline the support or endorsement of rape within this passage. You're reading an ancient punishment system for an immoral crime. It says absolutely nothing about endorsing rape or finding rape acceptable. It'd be like saying our justice system endorses or finds rape acceptable in exchange for 10 years of your life in prison. The punishment isn't even the issue- it's the fact that it's deemed unjustified hence "violated" just as any term used for breaking the law would be a violation.

It's not just any ancient punishment, IT'S GOD'S PUNISHMENT. By this standard our system is too harsh. We should follow the Bible and force women to marry their rapists. And what a punishment it is! Not only do you get to rape women you get to marry them and continue raping them! Wow what a just God.

You're not userstanding that the method of punishment for an immoral crime is irrelevant. It's the fact that recognizing rape is immoral that is the relevant point. Obviously, referred to rape as "violating" a woman while imposing demands and recompense of the rapist is not "endorsing" rape the same way our justice system doesn't endorse rape. Secondly, the moment you mentioned biblical passages I said I wasn't arguing for the Judeo-Christian God in the first place.

You seem confused on how this isn't an endorsement of rape. Although the Bible doesn't say "go fourth and rape." You know, except when Gods tell people rape https://www.biblegateway.com.... The Bible doesn't offer a legitimate punishment for rape. It's like how our government endorses corrupt Wall Street activity by not adequately punishing those responsible for our economic crash. If those who commit crimes are not punished then there is no reason for others not to commit the same crime.

A "legitimate punishment" isn't an argument concerning objective morality. Objective morality is the notion that all humans have the same innate moral sense of what is right and wrong in certain circumstances. Again, I'm not arguing that the bible is the doctrine that governs objective morality, never was, I've been arguing that humans have an innate sense of objective morality in certain circumstances. My rebuttal to your initial point was to point out that that passage was a method of punishment not an endorsement.

If they had fun while murdering to maintain power is irrelevant and the assertion that they thought it was fun is unsupported anyway. The fact remains that no society murders another human being without necessary justification.

This is a moot point. No human does ANYTHING w/o justification. You now say fun is irrelevant yet it was your original premise. As for your thinking Spartans didn't enjoy killing their slaves, this is a clear case of your inability to think critically. Sparta was a warrior culture, they celebrated those who had the ability to kill. They routinely killed their slaves to maintain power. To think that members of a warrior culture would not enjoy killing is nonsense.

I can play basketball, go bowling, play video games, play hockey or do any recreational thing I please merely for fun. What would stop any society from murdering or raping for fun if moral inhibitions are all relative? I was saying that by having fun while killing salves to keep them in submission is irrelevant because the purpose of killing them is to keep them in submission and not for the sake of killing them merely for fun. On top of that, nowhere in the passage did it say they had fun killing them anyway. Even if they did, it still doesn't show that was the purpose of killing them.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 9:00:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:09:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An objective is value is one that is constant and not subject to interpretation. An opinion is opposite, it's a dynamic value that's subject to interpretation. If all societies have held positions regarding immorality of rape and murder in given circumstances, why would it be assumed to be anything other than objective?

If a value is not subject to interpretation then whether it is or is not, is independent of what the human mind thinks of it.

So how does telling me what human minds think of rape help your argument that rape is wrong independent of what the human mind thinks about it?
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 11:36:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 12:16:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The agument of objective morality is incompatible with atheism despite all evidence showing that it exists.

If atheism is true, we have no inherent purpose of our existence. We're merely an accident of unembodied cosmic fluctuation. Keep in mind that all purposes or intentions can only be assigned by sentient beings. Also keep in mind that morality is purpose-determined behavior. If there's no inherent purpose of our existence, no inherent purpose-determined behavior can either. There is no purpose behind natural processes like natural selection. It's just process with a result. It just so happens to allow ongoing survival and propagation. The same could be said of death. It's a natural process with a result and happens to allow creatures to die off. When atheists cite morality as way to "harmonize" or "ensure survival" they juxtapose a purpose-determined process with purposeless natural processes. Thus, they can't claim that morality serves any objective purpose. Thus, atheists can't claim that objective morality exist.

If atheists argue that all morality is subjective, they have no foundation of what is right and what is wrong. An objective sense of morality is necessary to determine immoral behavior, otherwise all morality is meritless opinion. Is slavery, human sacrifice, raping, murdering, etc. all just a matter of opinion? Are human rights just a matter of opinion? But does the evidence show that all morality is really subjective? Not even one society in the history of humanity has ever tolerated rape or murdering somebody for fun. What about societies that engage in rape or murder and label it something else? The fact remains that a standard exists for these people on what "is too far." Would any society argue that's it's okay to rape a baby? Or kill one for fun? No. Not even among the most backwards societies. Is this an objective opinion of every human that has ever lived that this behavior is wrong? What is an objective opinion anyway? Truth is, we wouldn't need to justify our behavior in any fashion if we all had a subjective sense of what is right and wrong. Societies have engaged in immoral behavior before but still required necessary justifications for engaging in this otherwise immoral behavior. They knew that burning people was alive was wrong, but if they believed the person was a witch they thought it was okay. No necessary justification would even exist if humans could do whatever they please without moral inhibitions. No moral inhibitions would exist if people could do whatever they saw fit.

I don't feel like writing up a response to this (or the remarks you made on the other thread) right now. However, I'm open for a debate on whether objective morality and atheism are compatible (maybe in about 2 weeks).
Sagey
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 11:48:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Animals murder other animals, sometimes just for amusement.
Sometimes just to train the young animals to hunt.
Sometimes because the other ape annoyed a big ape, it gets murdered.
Without a human mind to perceive that such murder is objectively wrong it is not objectively wrong.
Thus the objectivity is in human perception of objectivity.
This means that objectivity is an individual perception and it is entirely Subjective.

Objectivity is an Illusion of our perception.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 12:03:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:01:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The evidence has shown that human societies unanimously hold that rape and murder for fun are wrong. Is this an objective opinion? What do you mean just merely asserted evidence? Did you bother to read my post?

Rubbish, rape is and always has been a weapon of war.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 12:08:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 2:36:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Killing babies for fun to put it more accurately.

Like yahweh ordered. Who supplied these "objective " morals?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 9:56:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 9:00:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:09:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An objective is value is one that is constant and not subject to interpretation. An opinion is opposite, it's a dynamic value that's subject to interpretation. If all societies have held positions regarding immorality of rape and murder in given circumstances, why would it be assumed to be anything other than objective?

If a value is not subject to interpretation then whether it is or is not, is independent of what the human mind thinks of it.

So how does telling me what human minds think of rape help your argument that rape is wrong independent of what the human mind thinks about it?

Because it wouldn't be a coherent argument without a human mind in the first place. It's analogous to an argument saying a sense of consciousness is objective to all human beings capable of consciousness. Objective morality only refers to a concept of consciousness which only entailed by conscious beings. So yes, it is a moral fact regardless of what the human mind thinks about it but it's a concept of human consciousness it's irrelevant in the first place.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:04:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 12:03:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:01:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The evidence has shown that human societies unanimously hold that rape and murder for fun are wrong. Is this an objective opinion? What do you mean just merely asserted evidence? Did you bother to read my post?

Rubbish, rape is and always has been a weapon of war.

How is that relevant?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:05:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 12:08:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/22/2014 2:36:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Killing babies for fun to put it more accurately.

Like yahweh ordered. Who supplied these "objective " morals?

If you'd read the arguments I'm not claiming the bible is the source of objective morality.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:14:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 10:05:19 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2014 12:08:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/22/2014 2:36:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Killing babies for fun to put it more accurately.

Like yahweh ordered. Who supplied these "objective " morals?

If you'd read the arguments I'm not claiming the bible is the source of objective morality.

I've read and what I see is you CLAIMING objective morality. You have never as far as I can see, told us from whence they came.

If morality is objective, wrong under all circumstances then why would the creator of the universe order it?
Why would governments order it? Why would your population support it?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:15:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 9:56:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/22/2014 9:00:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:09:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An objective is value is one that is constant and not subject to interpretation. An opinion is opposite, it's a dynamic value that's subject to interpretation. If all societies have held positions regarding immorality of rape and murder in given circumstances, why would it be assumed to be anything other than objective?

If a value is not subject to interpretation then whether it is or is not, is independent of what the human mind thinks of it.

So how does telling me what human minds think of rape help your argument that rape is wrong independent of what the human mind thinks about it?

Because it wouldn't be a coherent argument without a human mind in the first place. It's analogous to an argument saying a sense of consciousness is objective to all human beings capable of consciousness. Objective morality only refers to a concept of consciousness which only entailed by conscious beings. So yes, it is a moral fact regardless of what the human mind thinks about it but it's a concept of human consciousness it's irrelevant in the first place.

You are talking about two different things. You need a human mind to interpret whether something is true. That has nothing to do with whether it is objectively true.

Do you agree with my definition that to be objectively true is to be true independent of what human minds think? I assume you do.

Following from that definition, a rock is a rock regardless of what you think. The rock does not depend on your thoughts in order to exist as what it is. Even if every human being alive thought the rock was something else, it's still a rock. You are claiming that morality is what it is in the same sense. That means that for rape for example to be wrong, it is wrong regardless of what any of us think about it. Whether that is in fact the case is a debate onto itself, but you cannot show me what other people think as an argument to make that case. The conclusion does not follow.