Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Atheists pursue inherently ironic ideals

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 3:32:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

As I said, already refuted a thousand times. Will one thousand and one times make any difference? You pay no heed, so what's the point?

Cue "no society kills babies for fun" in 3, 2, 1 ...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 3:34:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:32:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

As I said, already refuted a thousand times. Will one thousand and one times make any difference? You pay no heed, so what's the point?

Cue "no society kills babies for fun" in 3, 2, 1 ...

No substantive reply.

Well if you disagree with what I've written here, essentially you're rendering your worldview as logically invalid.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 4:20:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

So God is non-cognitive, and hence meaningless.

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Meh, why not, I'll give you this point. Note that adding God to the picture doesn't improve things, as they just become subjective dependant on God,

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

Even assuming God exists, then objective moral standards don't 'exist'. What one can say though, is that the actions that are depicted within the bible are completely unrepresentivive of values that we hold today. So you hold onto concepts that are far outdated, and values that are on an meritless foundation.

My values are subjective, but also not contingent on something who most likely doesn't exist. Yours are based on something which most likely doesn't exist. Hence my values make significantly more logical sense than yours, even if they are subjective.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

Objective ideals are non-cognitive I hold, and that applies to both theistic positions and atheistic ones.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 4:55:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

No Ben, it isn't true and you already know why. I've explained what morality is and why it's immoral to engage in behaviors which degrade social function. You and I have gone over this at least a dozen times. And yet, here you are spouting the same old refuted claims and pretending like you don't remember any of the many times they've been refuted.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:13:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 4:20:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

So God is non-cognitive, and hence meaningless.

Can you further explain what you mean by that? If God is a being, he possesses intentionality. Having an objective source of intentionality (God) is the only way to ground objective idealistic standards.


Meh, why not, I'll give you this point. Note that adding God to the picture doesn't improve things, as they just become subjective dependant on God,

But is God a subjective being? Further, even considering that God makes his decisions subjectively, would this mean that our objective standards (inherent idealistic truths) are no longer objective because God didn't derive our objective standards objectively? It would be irrelevant if God is the only source of all objective truths that describe our reality.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

Even assuming God exists, then objective moral standards don't 'exist'. What one can say though, is that the actions that are depicted within the bible are completely unrepresentivive of values that we hold today. So you hold onto concepts that are far outdated, and values that are on an meritless foundation.

Objective moral standards are inherently true as an aspect of reality. Something that exists is present in reality. Reality itself is our conscious perception it. If it's an innate fact of consciousness that certain rights are wrongs are perceived, this perception actually exists and is just as real as the rest of reality. I myself am a theist with no religious affiliation so I don't hold onto concepts written in the Bible. Having outdated idealistic values are completely irrelevant anyway if all idealistic values are only valued based on meritless opinion. Whatever society accepts as idealistically valuable is only based on current collective meritless opinions. If it's logical that we should change our ideals to match society you're telling me that I "ought" to idealize "X" reasons by conforming but those reasons wouldn't exist as any objective truth anyway so the point is moot.

My values are subjective, but also not contingent on something who most likely doesn't exist. Yours are based on something which most likely doesn't exist. Hence my values make significantly more logical sense than yours, even if they are subjective.

But logic itself is only logical if grounded in absolute truth. If all values aren't grounded in absolute truth, it's illogical to assert that it's more logical to believe in something not grounded in any absolute truth as being more logical than something else not grounded in any absolute truth.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

Objective ideals are non-cognitive I hold, and that applies to both theistic positions and atheistic ones.

Objective ideals wouldn't exist even if God exists?

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:14:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 4:55:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

No Ben, it isn't true and you already know why. I've explained what morality is and why it's immoral to engage in behaviors which degrade social function. You and I have gone over this at least a dozen times. And yet, here you are spouting the same old refuted claims and pretending like you don't remember any of the many times they've been refuted.

Just a quick question and I'll let you go on your merry way. Immoral subjectively or objectively?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:33:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 5:13:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:20:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

So God is non-cognitive, and hence meaningless.

Can you further explain what you mean by that? If God is a being, he possesses intentionality.

Then you have defined supreme being to include intentionality. There is nothing wrong with that, just means that you also define 'supreme' to imply it.

Having an objective source of intentionality (God) is the only way to ground objective idealistic standards.

Nah.


Meh, why not, I'll give you this point. Note that adding God to the picture doesn't improve things, as they just become subjective dependant on God,

But is God a subjective being?

About as subjective as I am.

Further, even considering that God makes his decisions subjectively, would this mean that our objective standards (inherent idealistic truths) are no longer objective because God didn't derive our objective standards objectively?

This makes no sense.

It would be irrelevant if God is the only source of all objective truths that describe our reality.

Even if you defined God as the source of all truth (which seems to be what you imply), then I would argue that god would be unable to make objective moral statements, because they would be meaningless or non-cognitive. He would no more be able to say 'murder is objectively wrong' than he would be able to say 'ice cream is objectively delicious'.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

Even assuming God exists, then objective moral standards don't 'exist'. What one can say though, is that the actions that are depicted within the bible are completely unrepresentivive of values that we hold today. So you hold onto concepts that are far outdated, and values that are on an meritless foundation.

Objective moral standards are inherently true as an aspect of reality.

Yeah.... no.

Something that exists is present in reality. Reality itself is our conscious perception it.

I don't agree with that definition. Reality is itself by definition objective, and it doesn't depend upon our or God's perception of it. A tree is still a tree even if I hallucinate it not existing.

If it's an innate fact of consciousness that certain rights are wrongs are perceived, this perception actually exists and is just as real as the rest of reality.

God luck proving the mind 'perceives' rights and wrongs as opposes to just imagining them. Given that there is a broad spectrum of what people 'perceive' to be right and wrong within the present day, and the fact that what people 'perceive' to be right and wrong has changed over time, it is a lot simpler to just assume that right and wrong and just mental constructs, raher than tangable things.

Our 'perception' of objects, distance, sound, smell, etc never changed much or at all over time, so the case that morals are in a similar category is dubious at best.

I myself am a theist with no religious affiliation so I don't hold onto concepts written in the Bible. Having outdated idealistic values are completely irrelevant anyway if all idealistic values are only valued based on meritless opinion.

Subjective does not equal meritless.

Whatever society accepts as idealistically valuable is only based on current collective meritless opinions.

Sure, have got a problem with that>

If it's logical that we should change our ideals to match society you're telling me that I "ought" to idealize "X" reasons by conforming but those reasons wouldn't exist as any objective truth anyway so the point is moot

No, I never made that claim. I would argue that society should be dependant or contengent on what the values of the minds that constitute it, since that would then represent values which the people within that society actually hold.

My values are subjective, but also not contingent on something who most likely doesn't exist. Yours are based on something which most likely doesn't exist. Hence my values make significantly more logical sense than yours, even if they are subjective.

But logic itself is only logical if grounded in absolute truth.

Um, no.

If all values aren't grounded in absolute truth, it's illogical to assert that it's more logical to believe in something not grounded in any absolute truth as being more logical than something else not grounded in any absolute truth.

The fact I exist, is an absolute truth. The fact I have values, is arguably an absolute truth. Therefore the fact I hold values, is an absolute truth.

Unless you are going to deny my existance.

Now when I apply than to the theist, who derives their values from something that probably doesn't exist... is just going to assert arbitrary values which have nothing to do with their actual values.


If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

Objective ideals are non-cognitive I hold, and that applies to both theistic positions and atheistic ones.

Objective ideals wouldn't exist even if God exists?

Yes. Because they would be meaningless.

To state 'You ought not to kill' as a blanket statement is meaningless, as it gives no reason why it has any truth condition attached to it. If a statement 'You ought not to kill' has no inherent truth value, then it is a meaningless statement.

Subjective morality IS meaningful because it's truth condition is a conditional:

"You ought not to kill, if you value not going to jail"

As an example.


The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:48:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.
Atheists reject the man made claim that gods exist.
"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."
Gods are defined by those who create them and/or worship them.
God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.
These are claims made by men who also claim the existence of gods.
I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.
And if objective moral standards do exist then the god of the bible is guilty of violating everyone of them.
If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.
Did you get this from Dr Seuss? What is it meant to mean?
The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.
Nup. Dr Seuss actually makes sense.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:56:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 5:14:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:55:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

No Ben, it isn't true and you already know why. I've explained what morality is and why it's immoral to engage in behaviors which degrade social function. You and I have gone over this at least a dozen times. And yet, here you are spouting the same old refuted claims and pretending like you don't remember any of the many times they've been refuted.

Just a quick question and I'll let you go on your merry way. Immoral subjectively or objectively?

And here you go again, pretending like we haven't hashed this out a half dozen times. Morality is subjective BUT... it must still serve to benefit social harmony (that's what "moral" means). It so happens that no society has found slavery to be moral (hence it is illegal in every country in the world). But there are behaviors which benefit the harmony of one society, and might not benefit the harmony of other societies. So it's SUBJECTIVE, but must still serve the purpose which makes it "moral".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 6:56:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Most atheists that I know are from a Christian background. This is why much of their evidence against the existence of God is so easily supported by the outlandish claims in the Bible and Qur'an. Genocide, incest, dishonesty, a vengeful and jealous God (oxymoron), etc. This is the God of Abraham, not to be confused with anything else.

This thread is about contrasting subjective and objective morality. I cannot agree with the irony or that objective ideals are impossible to obtain. The idea of irony is subjective.

If you completely remove yourself from all attachment to the idea of a God, and assuming you have no presentiment concerning what punishments might befall you for such a claim, and reject all residual feelings and thoughts concerning morality, you can indeed come close to an objective ideal. It is at that point when all subjective moral judgement ceases to exist and in the absence of such, reach a state of objective thought. It manifests tolerance, acceptance, understanding, apathy, calm, and moral awareness. And with it comes the understanding that what is wrong with us are our subjective thoughts and ideals. Without the subjective ideal there is no such thing as immoral. It just wouldn't even manifest itself.

This is probably where you'll stop reading. Bible stories (especially the old testament) do not fit into objective morality or ideals. They simply don't. I'm sorry, but the Bible is fallible. As much as I once wanted it to be something that could save me from the difficulties of this life, it cannot. It is flawed and fails the test. Perhaps it's incomplete or perverted by subjective interpretation.

Where is God in this? Objective morality says that God and Life are what we make them. Objective morality says that it's okay to believe and it's okay not to believe. And that all this bickering is for nothing, because it makes no difference and means absolutely nothing. It says that neither theist or atheists are right, because neither can be wrong.

That's what I have to say about it.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:34:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

Well, it's merits lie in my natural spontaneous emotion and my considered perspective of the world. :P
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:36:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

Either that is an attempt to mislead because you failed to provide the context of that statement or you have simply placed the cart before the horse, and then forgot the horse entirely.

Here's how it works:

Theists make claims that their particular god exists. Those who have been labeled "atheists" are the ones who don't accept the claims made by theists.

As you can see, it's not about rejecting any gods, because no gods have ever been shown for us to reject. It is the claims made by theists that are rejected.

Now that that has been clarified, feel free to continue offering those ironic ideals atheists pursue.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity

Whoa, hold the phone!

You just made a claim beyond that of a defined concept by stating God is a conscious entity. That is a claim that cannot be accepted simply because you say so. You need to provide evidence to support your claim or it will be rejected as false.

That's how the burden of proof works. You make the positive claim, you must provide the hard evidence.

Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

That premise offers no other alternatives or solutions, hence the conclusion is not valid. There may be other grounds for knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc. that you simply have not provided.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Obviously, it has nothing to do with claiming higher IQ scores, that is absurd.

You offer no alternatives or solutions, you simply see it all in black and white, it is either God done it, or it simply could not have occurred. That is the epitome of a closed mind.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 10:37:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As an atheist, objective morality does exist. The thing is though it isn't because god says so and we know this, it is to reduce harm and benefit society. Certain actions benefit society and certain actions don't. We all know this.

Lets look at an example christians, do you tell a child to get out of the street when a car is coming because a god told you too or because the child could die and it would cause harm. I go with the later, and we both know this.

Another way to look at this is if god asked you to kill your child would it be moral to kill your child? The answer is no because it doesn't benefit society. Can you please stop with this morality argument it is old and very weak.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:55:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

So God is non-cognitive, and hence meaningless.

Can you further explain what you mean by that? If God is a being, he possesses intentionality.

Then you have defined supreme being to include intentionality. There is nothing wrong with that, just means that you also define 'supreme' to imply it.

Having an objective source of intentionality (God) is the only way to ground objective idealistic standards.

Nah.

How can anything other than a source of intentionality ground objective idealistic standards?


Meh, why not, I'll give you this point. Note that adding God to the picture doesn't improve things, as they just become subjective dependant on God,

But is God a subjective being?

About as subjective as I am.

Human beings have a natural sense of beauty, morality, intelligence, etc.. We can judge the degree of such characteristics around us. Without any objective source as a maximum for judging degrees on that scale, those characteristics have subjective maximums. If people have subjective maximums we wouldn't expect to see universal agreement evidencing objective maximums. A shiny diamond is always aesthetically more beautiful than dung, loving an infant is always more morally good than raping it, etc,. If any objective ideals are more evident than all ideals being subjective, Occam's razor determines that objective ideals exist. God can only be the source to ground objective ideals. If God is the source of all objective ideals, it's more logical to believe that God is an objective being rather than subjective one.

Further, even considering that God makes his decisions subjectively, would this mean that our objective standards (inherent idealistic truths) are no longer objective because God didn't derive our objective standards objectively?

This makes no sense.

Even if God derived our objective standards subjectively, that wouldn't make our objective standards untrue.

It would be irrelevant if God is the only source of all objective truths that describe our reality.

Even if you defined God as the source of all truth (which seems to be what you imply), then I would argue that god would be unable to make objective moral statements, because they would be meaningless or non-cognitive. He would no more be able to say 'murder is objectively wrong' than he would be able to say 'ice cream is objectively delicious'.

Well if you allow God to be defined as the source of all truth, God would only make objective (true) statements. Truth itself can never be untrue.


Even assuming God exists, then objective moral standards don't 'exist'. What one can say though, is that the actions that are depicted within the bible are completely unrepresentivive of values that we hold today. So you hold onto concepts that are far outdated, and values that are on an meritless foundation.

Objective moral standards are inherently true as an aspect of reality.

Yeah.... no.

Has it ever been moral to rape an infant? Show me which society thinks so. If you can't find any societies allowing this, is this evidently a subjective moral standard?

Something that exists is present in reality. Reality itself is our conscious perception it.

I don't agree with that definition. Reality is itself by definition objective, and it doesn't depend upon our or God's perception of it. A tree is still a tree even if I hallucinate it not existing.

That isn't true. Colors, for example, are an objective aspect of reality. Without any consciousness, color doesn't exist because color itself doesn't physically exist or exist at all unless perceived by consciousness.

If it's an innate fact of consciousness that certain rights are wrongs are perceived, this perception actually exists and is just as real as the rest of reality.

God luck proving the mind 'perceives' rights and wrongs as opposes to just imagining them. Given that there is a broad spectrum of what people 'perceive' to be right and wrong within the present day, and the fact that what people 'perceive' to be right and wrong has changed over time, it is a lot simpler to just assume that right and wrong and just mental constructs, raher than tangable things.

Something doesn't need to be tangible in order to exist. Having a universal imagination is no different than actually perceiving it except for the semantic difference.

Our 'perception' of objects, distance, sound, smell, etc never changed much or at all over time, so the case that morals are in a similar category is dubious at best.

Some cases of moral perceptions haven't either.


Subjective does not equal meritless.

How so?

Whatever society accepts as idealistically valuable is only based on current collective meritless opinions.

Sure, have got a problem with that>

It doesn't make subjective judgements any less subjective.

If it's logical that we should change our ideals to match society you're telling me that I "ought" to idealize "X" reasons by conforming but those reasons wouldn't exist as any objective truth anyway so the point is moot

No, I never made that claim. I would argue that society should be dependant or contengent on what the values of the minds that constitute it, since that would then represent values which the people within that society actually hold.

My values are subjective, but also not contingent on something who most likely doesn't exist. Yours are based on something which most likely doesn't exist. Hence my values make significantly more logical sense than yours, even if they are subjective.

But logic itself is only logical if grounded in absolute truth.

Um, no.

What? How can logic itself not be grounded in absolute truth and remain logical?

If all values aren't grounded in absolute truth, it's illogical to assert that it's more logical to believe in something not grounded in any absolute truth as being more logical than something else not grounded in any absolute truth.

The fact I exist, is an absolute truth. The fact I have values, is arguably an absolute truth. Therefore the fact I hold values, is an absolute truth.

I don't disagree but if you were to imply that the values that you hold are somehow superior to any other values is an unqualified judgement if all values are subjective.

Unless you are going to deny my existance.

Now when I apply than to the theist, who derives their values from something that probably doesn't exist... is just going to assert arbitrary values which have nothing to do with their actual values.

Even if it had nothing to do with their actual values it's still meritless opinion that it's better to hold actual values.



Objective ideals are non-cognitive I hold, and that applies to both theistic positions and atheistic ones.

Objective ideals wouldn't exist even if God exists?

Yes. Because they would be meaningless.

To state 'You ought not to kill' as a blanket statement is meaningless, as it gives no reason why it has any truth condition attached to it. If a statement 'You ought not to kill' has no inherent truth value, then it is a meaningless statement.

Is it not inherently that true that we ought not to kill? In this case that truth is self-evident. It's not a matter of questioning if God's judgements are true or not of all truth is embodied in God.

Subjective morality IS meaningful because it's truth condition is a conditional:

"You ought not to kill, if you value not going to jail"

As an example.

Should we ought not to kill if we could get away with it? It seems the truth of it is self-evident.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:58:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 5:56:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:14:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:55:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

No Ben, it isn't true and you already know why. I've explained what morality is and why it's immoral to engage in behaviors which degrade social function. You and I have gone over this at least a dozen times. And yet, here you are spouting the same old refuted claims and pretending like you don't remember any of the many times they've been refuted.

Just a quick question and I'll let you go on your merry way. Immoral subjectively or objectively?

And here you go again, pretending like we haven't hashed this out a half dozen times. Morality is subjective BUT... it must still serve to benefit social harmony (that's what "moral" means). It so happens that no society has found slavery to be moral (hence it is illegal in every country in the world). But there are behaviors which benefit the harmony of one society, and might not benefit the harmony of other societies. So it's SUBJECTIVE, but must still serve the purpose which makes it "moral".

As I recall, you've left the conversation after I asked: "is benefiting social harmony objective?"
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:

Basically objective means to always be true. Subjective is not always true.

Ideal is one's idea of perfect.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:25:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:04:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:

Basically objective means to always be true. Subjective is not always true.

I think that is a pretty poor definition. Something will always be true to the individual who believes it to be true. That doesn't make it objective. I have heard theists in formal debates define objective as "true regardless of what people think". I think that is better but still needs work. My definition is: "a truth value independent from the mind". What do you think about that definition?

Ideal is one's idea of perfect.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:27:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:58:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:56:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:14:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:55:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

No Ben, it isn't true and you already know why. I've explained what morality is and why it's immoral to engage in behaviors which degrade social function. You and I have gone over this at least a dozen times. And yet, here you are spouting the same old refuted claims and pretending like you don't remember any of the many times they've been refuted.

Just a quick question and I'll let you go on your merry way. Immoral subjectively or objectively?

And here you go again, pretending like we haven't hashed this out a half dozen times. Morality is subjective BUT... it must still serve to benefit social harmony (that's what "moral" means). It so happens that no society has found slavery to be moral (hence it is illegal in every country in the world). But there are behaviors which benefit the harmony of one society, and might not benefit the harmony of other societies. So it's SUBJECTIVE, but must still serve the purpose which makes it "moral".

As I recall, you've left the conversation after I asked: "is benefiting social harmony objective?"

And this is why people grow weary of even trying to discuss this with you. You're not being honest. We've discussed this to great depths and this has all been explained multiple times. And no matter how many times you ask the question, the answer won't change. Yet, you remain hopeful that it will, so you continue to pretend that you don't know what answers you've been provided in the past.

Morality is a code of behaviors which benefit and facilitate living in social groups.
Not all societies are the same, so what benefits or harms them is not always the same (AKA: subjective).

So morality is subjective, Ben. And it doesn't matter how badly that screws up your need to believe that morality arises from some unseen, unevidenced, and illogical "supreme agent", there comes a time with any idea to simply admit that it has failed. When you can't admit that you're wrong, religions are born. When you can admit when you're wrong, and see it as another step toward finding the truth, science is born.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:33:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:25:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:04:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:

Basically objective means to always be true. Subjective is not always true.

I think that is a pretty poor definition. Something will always be true to the individual who believes it to be true. That doesn't make it objective. I have heard theists in formal debates define objective as "true regardless of what people think". I think that is better but still needs work. My definition is: "a truth value independent from the mind". What do you think about that definition?

I don't think so because the truth of anything doesn't depend on belief in order for it to be true. The best you could say is that it is believed to be true. If everyone believes that the world is flat, it is true *that they believe* it is flat, but the truth of whether or not the world is actually flat has always remained the same. Also, by defining objective as something independent of the mind, you're implying that nobody can be objective. Is that true?

Ideal is one's idea of perfect.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:27:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:58:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:56:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:14:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:55:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:19:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:15:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.

The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.

Oh look. Ben is playing his violin again. New thread, same tired old rhetoric refuted a thousand times.

So what I've said here isn't true? If so, why?

No Ben, it isn't true and you already know why. I've explained what morality is and why it's immoral to engage in behaviors which degrade social function. You and I have gone over this at least a dozen times. And yet, here you are spouting the same old refuted claims and pretending like you don't remember any of the many times they've been refuted.

Just a quick question and I'll let you go on your merry way. Immoral subjectively or objectively?

And here you go again, pretending like we haven't hashed this out a half dozen times. Morality is subjective BUT... it must still serve to benefit social harmony (that's what "moral" means). It so happens that no society has found slavery to be moral (hence it is illegal in every country in the world). But there are behaviors which benefit the harmony of one society, and might not benefit the harmony of other societies. So it's SUBJECTIVE, but must still serve the purpose which makes it "moral".

As I recall, you've left the conversation after I asked: "is benefiting social harmony objective?"

And this is why people grow weary of even trying to discuss this with you. You're not being honest. We've discussed this to great depths and this has all been explained multiple times. And no matter how many times you ask the question, the answer won't change. Yet, you remain hopeful that it will, so you continue to pretend that you don't know what answers you've been provided in the past.

Morality is a code of behaviors which benefit and facilitate living in social groups.
Not all societies are the same, so what benefits or harms them is not always the same (AKA: subjective).

So morality is subjective, Ben. And it doesn't matter how badly that screws up your need to believe that morality arises from some unseen, unevidenced, and illogical "supreme agent", there comes a time with any idea to simply admit that it has failed. When you can't admit that you're wrong, religions are born. When you can admit when you're wrong, and see it as another step toward finding the truth, science is born.

You didn't answer the direct question but I'll assume that by saying morality is subjective that meant that your answer to the question is "subjective." So by saying that my initial post was untrue, you're essentially disagreeing with yourself.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:48:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:33:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:25:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:04:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:

Basically objective means to always be true. Subjective is not always true.

I think that is a pretty poor definition. Something will always be true to the individual who believes it to be true. That doesn't make it objective. I have heard theists in formal debates define objective as "true regardless of what people think". I think that is better but still needs work. My definition is: "a truth value independent from the mind". What do you think about that definition?

I don't think so because the truth of anything doesn't depend on belief in order for it to be true. The best you could say is that it is believed to be true. If everyone believes that the world is flat, it is true *that they believe* it is flat, but the truth of whether or not the world is actually flat has always remained the same. Also, by defining objective as something independent of the mind, you're implying that nobody can be objective. Is that true?

Ben, please read my statement again. You'll not only note that I said nothing about belief being involved in objective, but that my definition clearly excludes it. In fact that is the whole point of my definition. A truth value independent from the mind means that belief is irrelevant. It means that the minds interpretation of reality is irrelevant because there is only one true reality so any given statement or concept is either consistent with that reality (objectively true) or not consistent with that reality (objectively false).

As far as your question, I have no idea what "nobody can be objective" means. In every day life we use a more watered down version of objective so that it can have a practical usage. In religious discussion we are talking about the word in it's most purest form. In that sense the word objective applies to the truth about reality, it's not a description of someone's characteristics or the way people do things.

Objections?

Ideal is one's idea of perfect.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:49:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Having an objective source of intentionality (God) is the only way to ground objective idealistic standards.

Nah.

How can anything other than a source of intentionality ground objective idealistic standards?

I don't agree with the question, which *presupposes* that intentionality CAN ground objective idealistic standards.

But is God a subjective being?

About as subjective as I am.

Human beings have a natural sense of beauty, morality, intelligence, etc.. We can judge the degree of such characteristics around us. Without any objective source as a maximum for judging degrees on that scale, those characteristics have subjective maximums. If people have subjective maximums we wouldn't expect to see universal agreement evidencing objective maximums. A shiny diamond is always aesthetically more beautiful than dung, loving an infant is always more morally good than raping it, etc,. If any objective ideals are more evident than all ideals being subjective, Occam's razor determines that objective ideals exist. God can only be the source to ground objective ideals. If God is the source of all objective ideals, it's more logical to believe that God is an objective being rather than subjective one.

You are presupposing objective ideals exist, which is exactly the thing I am holding contentious. So far your arguments that they do exist have been rather laughable. Try formulating them in premise-conclusion format. Such as:

P1) if objective ideals don't exist then x
P2) not x
C) objective ideals exist

Good luck!

Further, even considering that God makes his decisions subjectively, would this mean that our objective standards (inherent idealistic truths) are no longer objective because God didn't derive our objective standards objectively?

This makes no sense.

Even if God derived our objective standards subjectively, that wouldn't make our objective standards untrue.

That sentence is an oxymoron.subjective objective standards.... Lol. Perhaps you should define your terms.

Even if you defined God as the source of all truth (which seems to be what you imply), then I would argue that god would be unable to make objective moral statements, because they would be meaningless or non-cognitive. He would no more be able to say 'murder is objectively wrong' than he would be able to say 'ice cream is objectively delicious'.

Well if you allow God to be defined as the source of all truth, God would only make objective (true) statements. Truth itself can never be untrue.

You ignored the point, which argues that it would be impossible for God to make any moral statements if he is defined as such.

Objective moral standards are inherently true as an aspect of reality.

Yeah.... no.

Has it ever been moral to rape an infant?

Sure, I can quite easily imagine cultures which happily rape infants, especially during the bronze ages before modern civilisation.

Show me which society thinks so. If you can't find any societies allowing this, is this evidently a subjective moral standard?

Even if very single human agreed infant rape is wrong, it in no way means that it is an objective moral standard. A non-human species for example would be completely neutral to rape/infant rape.

I myself don't think there is anything wrong with infant rape outside of it being against my own values of society. And society's general values. Try formulating an argument here.

I don't agree with that definition. Reality is itself by definition objective, and it doesn't depend upon our or God's perception of it. A tree is still a tree even if I hallucinate it not existing.

That isn't true. Colors, for example, are an objective aspect of reality.

Bald assertion.

Without any consciousness, color doesn't exist because color itself doesn't physically exist or exist at all unless perceived by consciousness.

You presuppose that what is perceived by consciousness is reality. That is being held contentious.

If it's an innate fact of consciousness that certain rights are wrongs are perceived, this perception actually exists and is just as real as the rest of reality.

God luck proving the mind 'perceives' rights and wrongs as opposes to just imagining them. Given that there is a broad spectrum of what people 'perceive' to be right and wrong within the present day, and the fact that what people 'perceive' to be right and wrong has changed over time, it is a lot simpler to just assume that right and wrong and just mental constructs, raher than tangable things.

Something doesn't need to be tangible in order to exist. Having a universal imagination is no different than actually perceiving it except for the semantic difference.

You are shifting the BoP here, and you are ignoring my argument as to why it's simpler to assume they are just mental constructs. Please *actually provide an argument* as for why *objective* moral values exist. And better yet, out them into premise-conclusion format, which should be easy given you have done it before.

Our 'perception' of objects, distance, sound, smell, etc never changed much or at all over time, so the case that morals are in a similar category is dubious at best.

Some cases of moral perceptions haven't either.

Ignores the entire argument.


Subjective does not equal meritless.

How so?

Because I exist.

Whatever society accepts as idealistically valuable is only based on current collective meritless opinions.

Sure, have got a problem with that>

It doesn't make subjective judgements any less subjective.

Again, have you got a problem with that?

But logic itself is only logical if grounded in absolute truth.

Um, no.

What? How can logic itself not be grounded in absolute truth and remain logical?

Because it's a category error. And logic is grounded in framework and axioms of logic,cwhich are neither 'true' or 'false'. Cf. epistemology.

The fact I exist, is an absolute truth. The fact I have values, is arguably an absolute truth. Therefore the fact I hold values, is an absolute truth.

I don't disagree but if you were to imply that the values that you hold are somehow superior to any other values is an unqualified judgement if all values are subjective.

Depends on what you mean by superior.

Unless you are going to deny my existance.

Now when I apply than to the theist, who derives their values from something that probably doesn't exist... is just going to assert arbitrary values which have nothing to do with their actual values.

Even if it had nothing to do with their actual values it's still meritless opinion that it's better to hold actual values.

Objective ideals wouldn't exist even if God exists?

Yes. Because they would be meaningless.

To state 'You ought not to kill' as a blanket statement is meaningless, as it gives no reason why it has any truth condition attached to it. If a statement 'You ought not to kill' has no inherent truth value, then it is a meaningless statement.

Is it not inherently that true that we ought not to kill?

That's correct. It's not inherently true.

In this case that truth is self-evident.

No. Nothing is self-evident, that's a pathetically weak argument.

It's not a matter of questioning if God's judgements are true or not of all truth is embodied in God.

Huh?


Subjective morality IS meaningful because it's truth condition is a conditional:

"You ought not to kill, if you value not going to jail"

As an example.

Should we ought not to kill if we could get away with it?

That question is non cognitive, and hence meaningless. As meaningless as asking if ice cr
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 10:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the sake of cogency I want to condense your contentions into statement form. Tell me if any of these statements are incomplete or don't accurately reflect your views before I give premise-conclusion formatting of the arguments.

(1) objective ideals don't exist because ideals themselves are imagined (intangible) and don't have an objective presence such as sensory perception does (sight, smell), and because ideals have varied greatly over the course of history.

(2) God can't ground objective ideals because God is non-cognitive (can't determine the moral truth of any moral behavior because no moral behavior is truth-apt).

(3) Objective moral standards can't exist because inherent moral truths aren't adhered to by other species and the truth of those values can't be determined in the first place.

(4) reality exists just as it does now independent of any conscious perceptions of reality.

(5) an entirely subjective value judgement can have merit because my existence establishes the truth of that value judgement.

(6) logic is not grounded in absolute truth.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 10:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:48:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:33:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:25:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:04:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:

Basically objective means to always be true. Subjective is not always true.

I think that is a pretty poor definition. Something will always be true to the individual who believes it to be true. That doesn't make it objective. I have heard theists in formal debates define objective as "true regardless of what people think". I think that is better but still needs work. My definition is: "a truth value independent from the mind". What do you think about that definition?

I don't think so because the truth of anything doesn't depend on belief in order for it to be true. The best you could say is that it is believed to be true. If everyone believes that the world is flat, it is true *that they believe* it is flat, but the truth of whether or not the world is actually flat has always remained the same. Also, by defining objective as something independent of the mind, you're implying that nobody can be objective. Is that true?

Ben, please read my statement again. You'll not only note that I said nothing about belief being involved in objective, but that my definition clearly excludes it. In fact that is the whole point of my definition. A truth value independent from the mind means that belief is irrelevant. It means that the minds interpretation of reality is irrelevant because there is only one true reality so any given statement or concept is either consistent with that reality (objectively true) or not consistent with that reality (objectively false).

As far as your question, I have no idea what "nobody can be objective" means. In every day life we use a more watered down version of objective so that it can have a practical usage. In religious discussion we are talking about the word in it's most purest form. In that sense the word objective applies to the truth about reality, it's not a description of someone's characteristics or the way people do things.

Objections?

Ideal is one's idea of perfect.

I guess we're back to the contention that reality can exist independent of the mind. I'll accept objective as meaning "consistent with reality (objectively true)" and subjective as "not consistent with reality (objectively false)." To assert that reality is what is true independent of the mind is to assert that reality is purely material. But we know this isn't the case. We have no evidence of a non-mental reality. Everything that we perceive as reality is irrevocably mental. To say that we know of a non-mental reality is oxymoronic since a mental perception must occur to assert that a non-mental reality exists.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:40:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists reject that God exists.

"God" is a very openly defined concept, but generally God just means "supreme being."

Nah what most people have in mind is a person, an invisible, powerful and angry, the Gods are always angry person.


God, a conscious entity, is necessary to ground objective ideals (or inherent truths) about our existence. Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

The old "God" as a necessary precondition of X argument eh.

If X exists then God exists.
X exists
Therefore God exists

Suffice to say just because you assert it doesn't mean jack now does it ?

I see too often that atheists criticise the morality of Christians because of the accounts of genocide written in the Bible but the critics don't seem to realize the irony in doing this. If objective moral standards don't exist, it's simply your meritless opinion that anything immoral is immoral.

Non sequtor. I take it what you have in mind is the old well if God doesn't exist objective morals don't exist ergo atheists can't say sh*t.

Yeah we get that one alot around here.

Here is the true irony. Christians seem to use the same kind of moral thinking as those evil atheists when religious indoctrination is not an issue. For example both will agree that child rape is wrong ? why ? does a christian think hmmmm I had better see what the bible says first, do they think well something something God ergo wrong ? no. They just recognize the unjustified harm ergo it's wrong.

The trouble is sometimes that kind of thinking is also used where religion is playing a role and the religious people then use the God/sin/hell/faith card to get around some belief or act that is against that same moral reasoning.

Irony eh ?


If religious folks have a lesser IQ than atheists on average, atheists must concede that pursuing the acquisition or possession of a higher degree of knowledge isn't any better than remaining intellectually ignorant. Objective ideals really don't exist.


The irony is asserting that having higher IQ scores on average than religious folks or claiming the moral high ground is an ideal greater than the meritless opinion that they believe it is.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 6:49:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 10:14:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:48:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:33:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:25:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 12:04:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 10:22:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:57:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Without God, objective ideals wouldn't truly exist. The reason objective ideals wouldn't exist, is because if human beings are a byproduct from random interactions (a source and process devoid of intentionality) nothing truly grounds idealistic pursuits of knowledge, moral goodness, happiness, etc,.

Please provide definitions for the following:

1. Objective:

2. Ideal:

Basically objective means to always be true. Subjective is not always true.

I think that is a pretty poor definition. Something will always be true to the individual who believes it to be true. That doesn't make it objective. I have heard theists in formal debates define objective as "true regardless of what people think". I think that is better but still needs work. My definition is: "a truth value independent from the mind". What do you think about that definition?

I don't think so because the truth of anything doesn't depend on belief in order for it to be true. The best you could say is that it is believed to be true. If everyone believes that the world is flat, it is true *that they believe* it is flat, but the truth of whether or not the world is actually flat has always remained the same. Also, by defining objective as something independent of the mind, you're implying that nobody can be objective. Is that true?

Ben, please read my statement again. You'll not only note that I said nothing about belief being involved in objective, but that my definition clearly excludes it. In fact that is the whole point of my definition. A truth value independent from the mind means that belief is irrelevant. It means that the minds interpretation of reality is irrelevant because there is only one true reality so any given statement or concept is either consistent with that reality (objectively true) or not consistent with that reality (objectively false).

As far as your question, I have no idea what "nobody can be objective" means. In every day life we use a more watered down version of objective so that it can have a practical usage. In religious discussion we are talking about the word in it's most purest form. In that sense the word objective applies to the truth about reality, it's not a description of someone's characteristics or the way people do things.

Objections?

Ideal is one's idea of perfect.

I guess we're back to the contention that reality can exist independent of the mind. I'll accept objective as meaning "consistent with reality (objectively true)" and subjective as "not consistent with reality (objectively false)." To assert that reality is what is true independent of the mind is to assert that reality is purely material. But we know this isn't the case. We have no evidence of a non-mental reality. Everything that we perceive as reality is irrevocably mental. To say that we know of a non-mental reality is oxymoronic since a mental perception must occur to assert that a non-mental reality exists.

So let me ask you, when you gave me your definition of objective as "to always be true", what did you mean by true?