theophilus

From a materialistic worldview, we can share nothing but material similarity and "goals" are not material entities; have you ever "seen" a goal, tasted one, touched on?

You cannot explain the presence of values (the essence of morality) an immaterial entity on the basis of a survival instinct. Actually, you can't even explain the survical instinct - do rocks have a survival instinct?

Besides, the argument is not about moral uniformity but about morality as an objective concept, i.e., all cultures have the concept of morality.

Llyricist

The OP said:
You said:
In the very same post that you accused the OP of being a strawman.

If you don't see that the two are closely related, if not identical, I don't know how much more clear I could make it.

theophilus

No, you should learn to read.

I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, asserted either of those things.

If you don't understand my argument, please don't just make things up.

Now, if you want to respond meaningfully to this post, you'll find a place where I HAVE used those terms and rebut me. Otherwise, don't respond.

Keith Russell

Good afternoon.

We can conceive of an absolute, objective reality which includes (and requires) no 'God'.

There are numerous absolutes which govern human beings; that to live, we must eat, breathe, and give ourselves a minimum amount of physical care.

Why could we not abstract from our objective nature as human beings, certain objective principles regarding optimum behaviour, etc.?

Yes, these would be vastly different from religious 'moral' directives, but not so different--in principle--that the words 'morality' or 'ethics' could not apply...

K

theophilus

This last is wrong for the same reasons I've stated above.

theophilus

It would help if you would use the standard system so I could respond to the quotes in my answer.

Let me see; the OP is about "Absolute Morality." In my first response, I denied ever appealing to such or to "objective morality," i.e., a uniform standard of morality across cultures.

I do assert that people operate on the basis of objective morality, i.e., that their moral standards are not just "preferences," and that this cannot be explained by a materialist worldview since no "values" derive from materiality.

In my second remark that you quote regarding "subjective morality," I said that I don't appeal to subjective standards, per se. I do argue that the existence of even subjective standards cannot be explained materialistically.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Spenser

theophilus

There is no ball.

I have answered this equivocation over "objective morality"enough times that I won't again here.

Your comment about "some believers," is just silly. Does that mean because "some atheists" are jerks, I can demand that you justify their behavior?

I understand that those who cannot understand the substance of an argument often resort to ad homenim tactics to mask their lack. So what else is new?

Oh, and please take note Philosoft, that there was not one substantial comment in his entire post.

Spenser

I live in a material world. I have morality, I know morality exists. I do things because I think they are good or bad. Just because something is intangible, doesn't make it supernatural. The better my morals, the more they agree with the rest of the people around me, the better off in life I'll probably be, the less likely I'll be confronted by harm or danger, the more likely I'll be able to find a mate. These are perfectly good reasons for how morality can exist in a materialistic world.

All you do is say that it can't be explained in terms of materialism, and because so the Xian God exists. THAT my friend is an assertion, a complete guess. Even if you are right, and it cannot be explained in a material world (which I completely disagree with) all you are left with is an unknown. Inserting a God in there is as good of an answer as inserting a set of programmers keeping us in The Matrix, or the dome from The Truman Show.

Morals exist. The world exists. Your conclusion has no tie to any of it and does not offer up any evidence of an objective standard of morality by which most people operate"

-----------------------------------------------------
Objective:

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.

-----------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't "most people operate" suggest a consensus? Wouldn't that be a grouping of subjective moralities? Evidence of morality is nothing more than evidence of morality. The fact that the best morals that provide for maximum survival or maximum health of the maximum number of our species appear to be the consensus view only suggests that subjective morals exist.

Now if you are not willing to equate your "objective standard of morality by which most people operate" to Absolute Morality (or God's rules so-to-speak) then how the hell can they be used as evidence of God's existence???????

Llyricist

All I see is equivocation. And the only confusion is on your part.