Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Problems with the moral argument for god.

bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

Well lets get one thing out of the way, P1 is an assertion that is backed only by the God of the gaps fallacy. Yet, lets look at whether that assertion actually plays out to be true.

It is actually funny to me, since Gods and religions actually give us a very big clue to the foundation of our morality, and its not a God or the religion itself. Our morality appears to come from benefit to society and well being. Here is how religions and God beliefs demonstrate that. What they do is they actually change how we understand benefit to society. For instance Christianity invented heaven and hell (Islam followed suit) as a way to get us to find benefit from their actions they call moral. This is a call back to this basics of the foundation of morality, benefit and well being. Judaism, created vengeful god, attaching false beliefs about YWWH getting revenge for his rules, firmly attaching the laws with harm and reward. Again giving us undeniable evidence that his morality actually comes from benefit and well being, not from god himself. Buddhism does the same with reincarnation, and so on. We can even see this further in recent examples, such as Christians sited as saying that, the Ark project will bring Jobs, undermining the position of morality needs god as that is clearly a benefit to society.

So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong. Yet, it gets worse as God makes absolutely no sense of morality and why it is so different where as a complex structure of understanding benefit to survival and well being and different people having different facts to work with on this does a far superior job of explaining this. A god who is capable and wants us to be moral, should have made a universal moral code that everyone is familiar with, we have no such code instead we have different holy books in different areas of world with mass disagreement. Where if we have different people who have different understandings of what benefits society and well being and what doesn't based on different facts, we should expect that our morality will grow closer with education, as it has, yet there will still be disagreements because we still don't all have the same information to inform our moral frame work. So it perfectly explains the debates on abortion and stem cell research, while God as an explanation for moral values fails miserably to explain how a all powerful being who wants something has failed so miserably to make it so.

It still gets worse, as religion actually bastardizes morality. Ill give a few examples, I once was having a discussion about morality and the topic of the teacher who lied to save the kids at Sandy Hook came up. The christian literally said based on the christian world view what she did was wrong and soul damning. He was so caught up in the concept that moral absolutes must match those things labeled by god, such as lying that he couldn't see that moral absolutes will almost never match these nice neat categories our ancient ancestors decided to label. If your talking a label such as stealing, lying, murder, or almost anything, there may be a situation its right to do it. That does not make this subjective, which is a confusion many have, its still very objective, but is a far more situational objective morality then we like to deal with.

Another example was in the case of the woman who died with dignity. Christians were arguing that she would go to hell, brings you back to the earlier point about referring to benefit and harm.. This woman was going to suffer, yet the God belief led people to think she should have suffered in the only life we know she had. This was a complete bastardization of morality as they were clearly arguing from harm, yet had zero proof that their greater harm existed. Yet another example is Christianity being spread in Africa where many cultures still believe in witch craft. Now what we have is a group who believes in witches being handed a holy book by god that tells them to kill witches. This has led to the death of many. The same can be said of the concept that prayer works, thousands of children have died because their well meaning parents had their morality bastardized by a religion that supports the power of prayer. This is one of the few concepts the 4 gospels all agree on. Yet, children are dying.

We haven't even really got into the fact that the God most often proposed as this source of morality supports genocide, murder, rape, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexism and more. All things we would now say are wrong in most(if not all) cases.

So in conclusion, not only is the first premise false, it is actually not possible that the God being proposed is the actual source of morality, or at the very least so highly unlikely he is, that it is a laughable that Christians such as William Lane Craig and others continue to present this as a serious argument. Its an embarrassment to theists every where and needs to be put to bed.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 8:14:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

Well lets get one thing out of the way, P1 is an assertion that is backed only by the God of the gaps fallacy. Yet, lets look at whether that assertion actually plays out to be true.

It is actually funny to me, since Gods and religions actually give us a very big clue to the foundation of our morality, and its not a God or the religion itself. Our morality appears to come from benefit to society and well being. Here is how religions and God beliefs demonstrate that. What they do is they actually change how we understand benefit to society. For instance Christianity invented heaven and hell (Islam followed suit) as a way to get us to find benefit from their actions they call moral. This is a call back to this basics of the foundation of morality, benefit and well being. Judaism, created vengeful god, attaching false beliefs about YWWH getting revenge for his rules, firmly attaching the laws with harm and reward. Again giving us undeniable evidence that his morality actually comes from benefit and well being, not from god himself. Buddhism does the same with reincarnation, and so on. We can even see this further in recent examples, such as Christians sited as saying that, the Ark project will bring Jobs, undermining the position of morality needs god as that is clearly a benefit to society.

So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong. Yet, it gets worse as God makes absolutely no sense of morality and why it is so different where as a complex structure of understanding benefit to survival and well being and different people having different facts to work with on this does a far superior job of explaining this. A god who is capable and wants us to be moral, should have made a universal moral code that everyone is familiar with, we have no such code instead we have different holy books in different areas of world with mass disagreement. Where if we have different people who have different understandings of what benefits society and well being and what doesn't based on different facts, we should expect that our morality will grow closer with education, as it has, yet there will still be disagreements because we still don't all have the same information to inform our moral frame work. So it perfectly explains the debates on abortion and stem cell research, while God as an explanation for moral values fails miserably to explain how a all powerful being who wants something has failed so miserably to make it so.

It still gets worse, as religion actually bastardizes morality. Ill give a few examples, I once was having a discussion about morality and the topic of the teacher who lied to save the kids at Sandy Hook came up. The christian literally said based on the christian world view what she did was wrong and soul damning. He was so caught up in the concept that moral absolutes must match those things labeled by god, such as lying that he couldn't see that moral absolutes will almost never match these nice neat categories our ancient ancestors decided to label. If your talking a label such as stealing, lying, murder, or almost anything, there may be a situation its right to do it. That does not make this subjective, which is a confusion many have, its still very objective, but is a far more situational objective morality then we like to deal with.

Another example was in the case of the woman who died with dignity. Christians were arguing that she would go to hell, brings you back to the earlier point about referring to benefit and harm.. This woman was going to suffer, yet the God belief led people to think she should have suffered in the only life we know she had. This was a complete bastardization of morality as they were clearly arguing from harm, yet had zero proof that their greater harm existed. Yet another example is Christianity being spread in Africa where many cultures still believe in witch craft. Now what we have is a group who believes in witches being handed a holy book by god that tells them to kill witches. This has led to the death of many. The same can be said of the concept that prayer works, thousands of children have died because their well meaning parents had their morality bastardized by a religion that supports the power of prayer. This is one of the few concepts the 4 gospels all agree on. Yet, children are dying.

We haven't even really got into the fact that the God most often proposed as this source of morality supports genocide, murder, rape, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexism and more. All things we would now say are wrong in most(if not all) cases.

So in conclusion, not only is the first premise false, it is actually not possible that the God being proposed is the actual source of morality, or at the very least so highly unlikely he is, that it is a laughable that Christians such as William Lane Craig and others continue to present this as a serious argument. Its an embarrassment to theists every where and needs to be put to bed.

Response: Assuming that by absolute morals you mean objective morals, then objective morals can only exist if God exist. For human views of morality is subjective. Thus there is no problem for the theist. Only the atheist.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 8:30:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

It's a terrible argument that I find baffling to think how people accept it.

P1 is just plain false. If morality is dependent on what God says then it is by definition subjective. If it is not dependent on what God says then he is not the architect of it, thus it must have some external source, thus the argument is worthless.

P2 is just a baseless assertion that cannot be demonstrated even if it were true (and it is not).
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:17:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 8:14:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

Well lets get one thing out of the way, P1 is an assertion that is backed only by the God of the gaps fallacy. Yet, lets look at whether that assertion actually plays out to be true.

It is actually funny to me, since Gods and religions actually give us a very big clue to the foundation of our morality, and its not a God or the religion itself. Our morality appears to come from benefit to society and well being. Here is how religions and God beliefs demonstrate that. What they do is they actually change how we understand benefit to society. For instance Christianity invented heaven and hell (Islam followed suit) as a way to get us to find benefit from their actions they call moral. This is a call back to this basics of the foundation of morality, benefit and well being. Judaism, created vengeful god, attaching false beliefs about YWWH getting revenge for his rules, firmly attaching the laws with harm and reward. Again giving us undeniable evidence that his morality actually comes from benefit and well being, not from god himself. Buddhism does the same with reincarnation, and so on. We can even see this further in recent examples, such as Christians sited as saying that, the Ark project will bring Jobs, undermining the position of morality needs god as that is clearly a benefit to society.

So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong. Yet, it gets worse as God makes absolutely no sense of morality and why it is so different where as a complex structure of understanding benefit to survival and well being and different people having different facts to work with on this does a far superior job of explaining this. A god who is capable and wants us to be moral, should have made a universal moral code that everyone is familiar with, we have no such code instead we have different holy books in different areas of world with mass disagreement. Where if we have different people who have different understandings of what benefits society and well being and what doesn't based on different facts, we should expect that our morality will grow closer with education, as it has, yet there will still be disagreements because we still don't all have the same information to inform our moral frame work. So it perfectly explains the debates on abortion and stem cell research, while God as an explanation for moral values fails miserably to explain how a all powerful being who wants something has failed so miserably to make it so.

It still gets worse, as religion actually bastardizes morality. Ill give a few examples, I once was having a discussion about morality and the topic of the teacher who lied to save the kids at Sandy Hook came up. The christian literally said based on the christian world view what she did was wrong and soul damning. He was so caught up in the concept that moral absolutes must match those things labeled by god, such as lying that he couldn't see that moral absolutes will almost never match these nice neat categories our ancient ancestors decided to label. If your talking a label such as stealing, lying, murder, or almost anything, there may be a situation its right to do it. That does not make this subjective, which is a confusion many have, its still very objective, but is a far more situational objective morality then we like to deal with.

Another example was in the case of the woman who died with dignity. Christians were arguing that she would go to hell, brings you back to the earlier point about referring to benefit and harm.. This woman was going to suffer, yet the God belief led people to think she should have suffered in the only life we know she had. This was a complete bastardization of morality as they were clearly arguing from harm, yet had zero proof that their greater harm existed. Yet another example is Christianity being spread in Africa where many cultures still believe in witch craft. Now what we have is a group who believes in witches being handed a holy book by god that tells them to kill witches. This has led to the death of many. The same can be said of the concept that prayer works, thousands of children have died because their well meaning parents had their morality bastardized by a religion that supports the power of prayer. This is one of the few concepts the 4 gospels all agree on. Yet, children are dying.

We haven't even really got into the fact that the God most often proposed as this source of morality supports genocide, murder, rape, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexism and more. All things we would now say are wrong in most(if not all) cases.

So in conclusion, not only is the first premise false, it is actually not possible that the God being proposed is the actual source of morality, or at the very least so highly unlikely he is, that it is a laughable that Christians such as William Lane Craig and others continue to present this as a serious argument. Its an embarrassment to theists every where and needs to be put to bed.

Response: Assuming that by absolute morals you mean objective morals, then objective morals can only exist if God exist. For human views of morality is subjective. Thus there is no problem for the theist. Only the atheist.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote, of course not, because everything you said was absolutely obliterated in the original post.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:42:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:17:12 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:14:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

Well lets get one thing out of the way, P1 is an assertion that is backed only by the God of the gaps fallacy. Yet, lets look at whether that assertion actually plays out to be true.

It is actually funny to me, since Gods and religions actually give us a very big clue to the foundation of our morality, and its not a God or the religion itself. Our morality appears to come from benefit to society and well being. Here is how religions and God beliefs demonstrate that. What they do is they actually change how we understand benefit to society. For instance Christianity invented heaven and hell (Islam followed suit) as a way to get us to find benefit from their actions they call moral. This is a call back to this basics of the foundation of morality, benefit and well being. Judaism, created vengeful god, attaching false beliefs about YWWH getting revenge for his rules, firmly attaching the laws with harm and reward. Again giving us undeniable evidence that his morality actually comes from benefit and well being, not from god himself. Buddhism does the same with reincarnation, and so on. We can even see this further in recent examples, such as Christians sited as saying that, the Ark project will bring Jobs, undermining the position of morality needs god as that is clearly a benefit to society.

So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong. Yet, it gets worse as God makes absolutely no sense of morality and why it is so different where as a complex structure of understanding benefit to survival and well being and different people having different facts to work with on this does a far superior job of explaining this. A god who is capable and wants us to be moral, should have made a universal moral code that everyone is familiar with, we have no such code instead we have different holy books in different areas of world with mass disagreement. Where if we have different people who have different understandings of what benefits society and well being and what doesn't based on different facts, we should expect that our morality will grow closer with education, as it has, yet there will still be disagreements because we still don't all have the same information to inform our moral frame work. So it perfectly explains the debates on abortion and stem cell research, while God as an explanation for moral values fails miserably to explain how a all powerful being who wants something has failed so miserably to make it so.

It still gets worse, as religion actually bastardizes morality. Ill give a few examples, I once was having a discussion about morality and the topic of the teacher who lied to save the kids at Sandy Hook came up. The christian literally said based on the christian world view what she did was wrong and soul damning. He was so caught up in the concept that moral absolutes must match those things labeled by god, such as lying that he couldn't see that moral absolutes will almost never match these nice neat categories our ancient ancestors decided to label. If your talking a label such as stealing, lying, murder, or almost anything, there may be a situation its right to do it. That does not make this subjective, which is a confusion many have, its still very objective, but is a far more situational objective morality then we like to deal with.

Another example was in the case of the woman who died with dignity. Christians were arguing that she would go to hell, brings you back to the earlier point about referring to benefit and harm.. This woman was going to suffer, yet the God belief led people to think she should have suffered in the only life we know she had. This was a complete bastardization of morality as they were clearly arguing from harm, yet had zero proof that their greater harm existed. Yet another example is Christianity being spread in Africa where many cultures still believe in witch craft. Now what we have is a group who believes in witches being handed a holy book by god that tells them to kill witches. This has led to the death of many. The same can be said of the concept that prayer works, thousands of children have died because their well meaning parents had their morality bastardized by a religion that supports the power of prayer. This is one of the few concepts the 4 gospels all agree on. Yet, children are dying.

We haven't even really got into the fact that the God most often proposed as this source of morality supports genocide, murder, rape, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexism and more. All things we would now say are wrong in most(if not all) cases.

So in conclusion, not only is the first premise false, it is actually not possible that the God being proposed is the actual source of morality, or at the very least so highly unlikely he is, that it is a laughable that Christians such as William Lane Craig and others continue to present this as a serious argument. Its an embarrassment to theists every where and needs to be put to bed.

Response: Assuming that by absolute morals you mean objective morals, then objective morals can only exist if God exist. For human views of morality is subjective. Thus there is no problem for the theist. Only the atheist.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote, of course not, because everything you said was absolutely obliterated in the original post.

Response: Yet your inability to refute what I stated or provide an objective authority for morality other than God says otherwise. Thus your OP is invalid.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:44:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:42:33 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:17:12 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:14:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

Well lets get one thing out of the way, P1 is an assertion that is backed only by the God of the gaps fallacy. Yet, lets look at whether that assertion actually plays out to be true.

It is actually funny to me, since Gods and religions actually give us a very big clue to the foundation of our morality, and its not a God or the religion itself. Our morality appears to come from benefit to society and well being. Here is how religions and God beliefs demonstrate that. What they do is they actually change how we understand benefit to society. For instance Christianity invented heaven and hell (Islam followed suit) as a way to get us to find benefit from their actions they call moral. This is a call back to this basics of the foundation of morality, benefit and well being. Judaism, created vengeful god, attaching false beliefs about YWWH getting revenge for his rules, firmly attaching the laws with harm and reward. Again giving us undeniable evidence that his morality actually comes from benefit and well being, not from god himself. Buddhism does the same with reincarnation, and so on. We can even see this further in recent examples, such as Christians sited as saying that, the Ark project will bring Jobs, undermining the position of morality needs god as that is clearly a benefit to society.

So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong. Yet, it gets worse as God makes absolutely no sense of morality and why it is so different where as a complex structure of understanding benefit to survival and well being and different people having different facts to work with on this does a far superior job of explaining this. A god who is capable and wants us to be moral, should have made a universal moral code that everyone is familiar with, we have no such code instead we have different holy books in different areas of world with mass disagreement. Where if we have different people who have different understandings of what benefits society and well being and what doesn't based on different facts, we should expect that our morality will grow closer with education, as it has, yet there will still be disagreements because we still don't all have the same information to inform our moral frame work. So it perfectly explains the debates on abortion and stem cell research, while God as an explanation for moral values fails miserably to explain how a all powerful being who wants something has failed so miserably to make it so.

It still gets worse, as religion actually bastardizes morality. Ill give a few examples, I once was having a discussion about morality and the topic of the teacher who lied to save the kids at Sandy Hook came up. The christian literally said based on the christian world view what she did was wrong and soul damning. He was so caught up in the concept that moral absolutes must match those things labeled by god, such as lying that he couldn't see that moral absolutes will almost never match these nice neat categories our ancient ancestors decided to label. If your talking a label such as stealing, lying, murder, or almost anything, there may be a situation its right to do it. That does not make this subjective, which is a confusion many have, its still very objective, but is a far more situational objective morality then we like to deal with.

Another example was in the case of the woman who died with dignity. Christians were arguing that she would go to hell, brings you back to the earlier point about referring to benefit and harm.. This woman was going to suffer, yet the God belief led people to think she should have suffered in the only life we know she had. This was a complete bastardization of morality as they were clearly arguing from harm, yet had zero proof that their greater harm existed. Yet another example is Christianity being spread in Africa where many cultures still believe in witch craft. Now what we have is a group who believes in witches being handed a holy book by god that tells them to kill witches. This has led to the death of many. The same can be said of the concept that prayer works, thousands of children have died because their well meaning parents had their morality bastardized by a religion that supports the power of prayer. This is one of the few concepts the 4 gospels all agree on. Yet, children are dying.

We haven't even really got into the fact that the God most often proposed as this source of morality supports genocide, murder, rape, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexism and more. All things we would now say are wrong in most(if not all) cases.

So in conclusion, not only is the first premise false, it is actually not possible that the God being proposed is the actual source of morality, or at the very least so highly unlikely he is, that it is a laughable that Christians such as William Lane Craig and others continue to present this as a serious argument. Its an embarrassment to theists every where and needs to be put to bed.

Response: Assuming that by absolute morals you mean objective morals, then objective morals can only exist if God exist. For human views of morality is subjective. Thus there is no problem for the theist. Only the atheist.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote, of course not, because everything you said was absolutely obliterated in the original post.

Response: Yet your inability to refute what I stated or provide an objective authority for morality other than God says otherwise. Thus your OP is invalid.

A self interested social species, meaning a species that depends on each other for survival, exists as per evolution, this species is the human race, from this there are objectively things that benefit our survival and well being, done, you lose.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 10:28:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:44:08 AM, bebil10 wrote:

A self interested social species, meaning a species that depends on each other for survival, exists as per evolution, this species is the human race, from this there are objectively things that benefit our survival and well being, done, you lose.

Response: And yet human perspective on morality is still subjective, not objective, thus debunking your whole premise. You lose.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 10:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:42:33 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:17:12 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:14:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:40:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
the moral argument goes like this:

P1: if absolute moral values exist, then god exists.
P2: absolute moral values exist
C: therefore god exists.

Well lets get one thing out of the way, P1 is an assertion that is backed only by the God of the gaps fallacy. Yet, lets look at whether that assertion actually plays out to be true.

It is actually funny to me, since Gods and religions actually give us a very big clue to the foundation of our morality, and its not a God or the religion itself. Our morality appears to come from benefit to society and well being. Here is how religions and God beliefs demonstrate that. What they do is they actually change how we understand benefit to society. For instance Christianity invented heaven and hell (Islam followed suit) as a way to get us to find benefit from their actions they call moral. This is a call back to this basics of the foundation of morality, benefit and well being. Judaism, created vengeful god, attaching false beliefs about YWWH getting revenge for his rules, firmly attaching the laws with harm and reward. Again giving us undeniable evidence that his morality actually comes from benefit and well being, not from god himself. Buddhism does the same with reincarnation, and so on. We can even see this further in recent examples, such as Christians sited as saying that, the Ark project will bring Jobs, undermining the position of morality needs god as that is clearly a benefit to society.

So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong. Yet, it gets worse as God makes absolutely no sense of morality and why it is so different where as a complex structure of understanding benefit to survival and well being and different people having different facts to work with on this does a far superior job of explaining this. A god who is capable and wants us to be moral, should have made a universal moral code that everyone is familiar with, we have no such code instead we have different holy books in different areas of world with mass disagreement. Where if we have different people who have different understandings of what benefits society and well being and what doesn't based on different facts, we should expect that our morality will grow closer with education, as it has, yet there will still be disagreements because we still don't all have the same information to inform our moral frame work. So it perfectly explains the debates on abortion and stem cell research, while God as an explanation for moral values fails miserably to explain how a all powerful being who wants something has failed so miserably to make it so.

It still gets worse, as religion actually bastardizes morality. Ill give a few examples, I once was having a discussion about morality and the topic of the teacher who lied to save the kids at Sandy Hook came up. The christian literally said based on the christian world view what she did was wrong and soul damning. He was so caught up in the concept that moral absolutes must match those things labeled by god, such as lying that he couldn't see that moral absolutes will almost never match these nice neat categories our ancient ancestors decided to label. If your talking a label such as stealing, lying, murder, or almost anything, there may be a situation its right to do it. That does not make this subjective, which is a confusion many have, its still very objective, but is a far more situational objective morality then we like to deal with.

Another example was in the case of the woman who died with dignity. Christians were arguing that she would go to hell, brings you back to the earlier point about referring to benefit and harm.. This woman was going to suffer, yet the God belief led people to think she should have suffered in the only life we know she had. This was a complete bastardization of morality as they were clearly arguing from harm, yet had zero proof that their greater harm existed. Yet another example is Christianity being spread in Africa where many cultures still believe in witch craft. Now what we have is a group who believes in witches being handed a holy book by god that tells them to kill witches. This has led to the death of many. The same can be said of the concept that prayer works, thousands of children have died because their well meaning parents had their morality bastardized by a religion that supports the power of prayer. This is one of the few concepts the 4 gospels all agree on. Yet, children are dying.

We haven't even really got into the fact that the God most often proposed as this source of morality supports genocide, murder, rape, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexism and more. All things we would now say are wrong in most(if not all) cases.

So in conclusion, not only is the first premise false, it is actually not possible that the God being proposed is the actual source of morality, or at the very least so highly unlikely he is, that it is a laughable that Christians such as William Lane Craig and others continue to present this as a serious argument. Its an embarrassment to theists every where and needs to be put to bed.

Response: Assuming that by absolute morals you mean objective morals, then objective morals can only exist if God exist. For human views of morality is subjective. Thus there is no problem for the theist. Only the atheist.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote, of course not, because everything you said was absolutely obliterated in the original post.

Response: Yet your inability to refute what I stated or provide an objective authority for morality other than God says otherwise. Thus your OP is invalid.

Why do you always say "Response" before you say something?
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 10:36:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 10:32:44 AM, IEnglishman wrote:

Why do you always say "Response" before you say something?

Response: Because when I first began debating on websites several years ago, I did it through a mobile phone format in which the only way to distinguish my post from others was to put the word "Response" in front of it. Since I became known for it and accustomed to doing it, I continue to do so til this day.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 10:47:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 10:36:08 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/20/2014 10:32:44 AM, IEnglishman wrote:

Why do you always say "Response" before you say something?

Response: Because when I first began debating on websites several years ago, I did it through a mobile phone format in which the only way to distinguish my post from others was to put the word "Response" in front of it. Since I became known for it and accustomed to doing it, I continue to do so til this day.

Ah. I thought you were some kind of automated programme written by a religious guy to provide easy answers to people who are atheists. Glad to see I was wrong.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 5:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
bebil10
So what we really need of an objective moral standard is a self interested social species, which we have through evolution. This on its own is enough to prove P1 wrong.
Not really. In order to refute P1 you would have to prove that absolute morality exists and disprove that God exists.

Double_R
P2 is just a baseless assertion that cannot be demonstrated even if it were true (and it is not).
If with 'absolute moral values' is meant objective morality, then I think P2 is correct, as I argued in <url=www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333>The subjectivity of objective morality</url>.

bebil10
Did you [Fatihah] even bother to read what I wrote, of course not, because everything you said was absolutely obliterated in the original post.
Fatihah is a fanatic, religious lunatic. Arguing with him his a waste of time. Challenge him to a formal debate and he'll probably chicken out.

The most immediate problem is that the concepts used (morality and God) are not defined. Therefore a causal relation between the two can not be established. The only thing we know about the god in that argument is that it is the cause of absolute moral values, which may have nothing to do with the god of the Bible.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.