Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

God is not necessary for objective morality

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

And this person is the thing from which we should anchor all our morality ? your kidding right ?

If I hear one more f*ck nut starting talking about how morality only makes sense in a christian world view I think I am going to have to punch them in the d*ck.
"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
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:17:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

And this person is the thing from which we should anchor all our morality ? your kidding right ?

If I hear one more f*ck nut starting talking about how morality only makes sense in a christian world view I think I am going to have to punch them in the d*ck.

*cue f#ck nuts...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:56:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

And this person is the thing from which we should anchor all our morality ? your kidding right ?

If I hear one more f*ck nut starting talking about how morality only makes sense in a christian world view I think I am going to have to punch them in the d*ck.

Well I hope you don't punch me in the d!ck, but objective morality only makes sense in a deistic world view.

Now subjective morality certainly can (and does) exist. And the vast majority of people would agree that child rape is not great for society and that clean water is good for society. But what I want, what you want, what society wants -- this does not suddenly create some objective moral rule.

Just because it seems harmful in every situation does not magically make it absolutely wrong. Consider two possibilities:

1. Morality comes from man or,

2. Morality comes from outside of man.

In the first case, one can easily prove morality is subjective. In today's society, child rape is considered wrong. One can easily imagine some future in only 10 child rapists exist and 2 children. The majority of people would clearly agree that child rape is ok. These people would also be better off for raping these children, as it sexual gratification is healthy -- and the majority of people would have their health improved as a result. Society would be better off.

So because different societies can value different and directly contradictory things, morality can not be objective.

In the second case, one would have to demonstrate some place besides man where morality comes from. I have yet to see any extra-human place of origin for morality except God.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:05:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:56:43 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

And this person is the thing from which we should anchor all our morality ? your kidding right ?

If I hear one more f*ck nut starting talking about how morality only makes sense in a christian world view I think I am going to have to punch them in the d*ck.

Well I hope you don't punch me in the d!ck, but objective morality only makes sense in a deistic world view.

Now subjective morality certainly can (and does) exist. And the vast majority of people would agree that child rape is not great for society and that clean water is good for society. But what I want, what you want, what society wants -- this does not suddenly create some objective moral rule.

Just because it seems harmful in every situation does not magically make it absolutely wrong. Consider two possibilities:

1. Morality comes from man or,

2. Morality comes from outside of man.

In the first case, one can easily prove morality is subjective. In today's society, child rape is considered wrong. One can easily imagine some future in only 10 child rapists exist and 2 children. The majority of people would clearly agree that child rape is ok. These people would also be better off for raping these children, as it sexual gratification is healthy -- and the majority of people would have their health improved as a result. Society would be better off.

So because different societies can value different and directly contradictory things, morality can not be objective.

In the second case, one would have to demonstrate some place besides man where morality comes from. I have yet to see any extra-human place of origin for morality except God.

So what ? you don't get to play the God card cause something something I don't know how therefore God.

Until proven otherwise, it's possible objective morality can exist without God, or aliens or the wizard of oz.
"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
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:10:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 9:05:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

So what ? you don't get to play the God card cause something something I don't know how therefore God.

Until proven otherwise, it's possible objective morality can exist without God, or aliens or the wizard of oz.

You are not understanding. I wasn't saying "I don't know, therefore God". I was saying that if objective morality exists, then so must God. The conclusion goes directly against your topic statement.

And the burden of proof rests upon the person claiming the objective existence of something. It is not my job or anyone else's job to prove that objective morality doesn't exist. Rather, it's your job to prove that it does.

I personally don't believe that objective morality does exist because I don't believe God does.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:13:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 9:10:06 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 1/21/2016 9:05:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


So what ? you don't get to play the God card cause something something I don't know how therefore God.

Until proven otherwise, it's possible objective morality can exist without God, or aliens or the wizard of oz.

You are not understanding. I wasn't saying "I don't know, therefore God". I was saying that if objective morality exists, then so must God. The conclusion goes directly against your topic statement.

And the burden of proof rests upon the person claiming the objective existence of something. It is not my job or anyone else's job to prove that objective morality doesn't exist. Rather, it's your job to prove that it does.

I personally don't believe that objective morality does exist because I don't believe God does.

Then I refer you to my child rape + or - invisible person = no difference to moral equal.

IN other words, objective morality is not dependent on the existence of God, as so many assume.
"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
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:19:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 9:13:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Then I refer you to my child rape + or - invisible person = no difference to moral equal.

IN other words, objective morality is not dependent on the existence of God, as so many assume.

Objectively speaking, no. Objective morality means that some actions are absolutely wrong, regardless of circumstance, public opinion, societal needs, the existence of humans at all, etc.

For the reasons I just went over, there could feasibly exist a world in which the majority of society believed in and practiced child rape. In that society, it would be generally understood that child rape is moral.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:23:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 9:19:26 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 1/21/2016 9:13:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Then I refer you to my child rape + or - invisible person = no difference to moral equal.

IN other words, objective morality is not dependent on the existence of God, as so many assume.

Objectively speaking, no. Objective morality means that some actions are absolutely wrong, regardless of circumstance, public opinion, societal needs, the existence of humans at all, etc.

For the reasons I just went over, there could feasibly exist a world in which the majority of society believed in and practiced child rape. In that society, it would be generally understood that child rape is moral.

Objective morality is not the same as absolute morality (rules that apply without exception)

Also don't confuse the existence of objective morality with consensus of what the right or wrong thing 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
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:24:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 9:23:31 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Objective morality is not the same as absolute morality (rules that apply without exception)

Also don't confuse the existence of objective morality with consensus of what the right or wrong thing is.

We may have some definition differences. In what way do you not consider objective morality to be "rules that apply without exception"? If there can be exceptions, then it isn't objective.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 10:14:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

You haven't summarized the theist's claim correctly. It doesn't become more wrong, it becomes wrong, period. Without His existence, rape is not inherently wrong. You may not like it personally, but it's not wrong. Without God, it's a matter of personal preference. You have no basis to tell the rapist he's objectively immoral.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.


Free will is a good thing. He couldn't take away rape, for example, without removing free will.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

Clean water and starvation are based on choices. We have the resources to eliminate both but choose not to. Again, free will is a good thing. As for parasites existing, Genesis tells us disease exists because of the actions/choices of our first parents. So we're back to choice. God is able to compensate those who are victims of such suffering in the afterlife. He's more concerned with our eternal life than our temporal one.

If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 10:22:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 10:14:30 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.


You haven't summarized the theist's claim correctly. It doesn't become more wrong, it becomes wrong, period. Without His existence, rape is not inherently wrong. You may not like it personally, but it's not wrong. Without God, it's a matter of personal preference. You have no basis to tell the rapist he's objectively immoral.

Same ole sh*t.

LOL, but if assume the invisible man NOW we have a basis that rape is objectively moral. Where is the f*cking logic in that ?

How about the harm ? nah, it's go to be about the invisible man.


People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.


Free will is a good thing. He couldn't take away rape, for example, without removing free will.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

Clean water and starvation are based on choices. We have the resources to eliminate both but choose not to. Again, free will is a good thing. As for parasites existing, Genesis tells us disease exists because of the actions/choices of our first parents. So we're back to choice. God is able to compensate those who are victims of such suffering in the afterlife. He's more concerned with our eternal life than our temporal one.

Cool story, doesn't change the fact that if God exists it COULD prevent such things.

Small pox ? burning witches on ignorance.

Wanna here a joke, without that same God, we couldn't have objective morality, it's f*cking hilarious.

Tell me more about how the God who sits back on the whole small pox things is just so necessary for objective morality.


"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
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 10:41:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

And this person is the thing from which we should anchor all our morality ? your kidding right ?

If I hear one more f*ck nut starting talking about how morality only makes sense in a christian world view I think I am going to have to punch them in the d*ck.

NOT knowing what happens when you die. Is the 1 and only thing we need for objective morality. I think. "It's everything" then you get religious groups taking advantage of this.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 4:58:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Well, tell us where an atheist gets objective, absolute, not arbitrary, rational morality without God.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:09:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 10:22:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/21/2016 10:14:30 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.


You haven't summarized the theist's claim correctly. It doesn't become more wrong, it becomes wrong, period. Without His existence, rape is not inherently wrong. You may not like it personally, but it's not wrong. Without God, it's a matter of personal preference. You have no basis to tell the rapist he's objectively immoral.

Same ole sh*t.

LOL, but if assume the invisible man NOW we have a basis that rape is objectively moral. Where is the f*cking logic in that ?

Because He's omniscient, so He knows for a certainty its immoral. Without certainty, we only have opinion.

How about the harm ? nah, it's go to be about the invisible man.

The Nazis thought harming others would benefit society as a whole based upon the perceived defects of certain groups of people. Based on their worldview, harming some supported the greater good. So arguing harm with them was a non starter. You need more than harm.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.


Free will is a good thing. He couldn't take away rape, for example, without removing free will.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

Clean water and starvation are based on choices. We have the resources to eliminate both but choose not to. Again, free will is a good thing. As for parasites existing, Genesis tells us disease exists because of the actions/choices of our first parents. So we're back to choice. God is able to compensate those who are victims of such suffering in the afterlife. He's more concerned with our eternal life than our temporal one.

Cool story, doesn't change the fact that if God exists it COULD prevent such things.

Only by depriving us of a good (free will). Forcing someone to do something is not a good.

Small pox ? burning witches on ignorance.

Already been over diseases. Results of a free will choice. Same for witch burning. Depriving everyone of free will would not be a good thing.

Wanna here a joke, without that same God, we couldn't have objective morality, it's f*cking hilarious.

Tell me more about how the God who sits back on the whole small pox things is just so necessary for objective morality.

Because allowing free will is a good thing.


If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:22:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:58:44 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Well, tell us where an atheist gets objective, absolute, not arbitrary, rational morality without God.

He is not arguing for 'absolute' morality. He is arguing for objective morality. Objective=/=absolute
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:43:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

Objective morality is only possible with some objective entity or objective existence. This entity is commonly referred to as God, but you can call it whatever you want.

Can you establish some objective moral law that could exist without the existence of some absolute entity? This is an impossible task. Without the context of a supreme entity that can establish moral laws, you are left with subjective interpretations of morality and what is good and bad.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:22:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:17:46 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:47:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You need God to have objective morality, we hear that one alot.

Consider child rape, if child rape is wrong does it become less wrong absent God ? does it become more wrong cause God exists ? On the surface it doesn't seem to make a difference.

People just assume it makes a difference. But as I have said many times you don't change the moral equation of something like child rape by adding or subtracting the existence of an invisible person who exists outside our universe.

I think it gets worse if the invisible person is all powerful and all knowing, this person could with no effort at all make the world a much better place.

Clean water for all, no starvation, no parasites that turn you blind etc etc..............yet if it exists obviously chooses not too.

And this person is the thing from which we should anchor all our morality ? your kidding right ?

If I hear one more f*ck nut starting talking about how morality only makes sense in a christian world view I think I am going to have to punch them in the d*ck.

*cue f#ck nuts...

Apparently...
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 7:02:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 9:19:26 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 1/21/2016 9:13:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Then I refer you to my child rape + or - invisible person = no difference to moral equal.

IN other words, objective morality is not dependent on the existence of God, as so many assume.

Objectively speaking, no. Objective morality means that some actions are absolutely wrong, regardless of circumstance, public opinion, societal needs, the existence of humans at all, etc.

For the reasons I just went over, there could feasibly exist a world in which the majority of society believed in and practiced child rape. In that society, it would be generally understood that child rape is moral.

That would be the world described in the bible. Good for you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin