Ensign Steve

Thank you Molly. You saved me a lot of time that I don't have this morning.

Pudgyfarmer, this is a debate. You must argue your position. It is not enough just to state it repeatedly.

Why do you think objective morality requires a God? You need to state premises that we can agree that are true ("God exists" is not one), and then a logical reason that those premises must lead to your conclusion. Fire away.

Non-praying Mantis

Er, um, excuse me:



I suppose that you could take this as an insult, but since your user name IS pudgyfarmer, I thought I would make a little joke. My apologies, but the above is NOT an ad hominem argument!

My real argument was here:



Now, you say:

and



So I suppose that you think that God is the absolute dictator of us, and we live in an absolute dictatorship?

Well, let me use your own words to that:



How dare God force his views on me! Especially when:



and



If the above is correct, it seems that God does not follow his own moral laws. This makes him a hypocrite! In other words, "do as I say, not as I do."

Hello!?! Isn't God supposed to be more moral than us? Omnibenevolence (meaning all good) ring any bells for you?

So, according to you, we are stuck in this horrible situation with a hypocritical, murdering God, and we can't get out of it? God forces us to live under his dictatorship? Frankly, I would rather not!

NPM

The Other Michael

Cool it with the insults folks (whether they are or are not an ad hominem attack, they are still not in keeping with the standards of civility for this forum).

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Ensign Steve

Okay, I've got a few extra minutes for a point-by-point rebuttal.

Not so. There are a few different theories of where objective morals come from. Kant believes that we reach them using experience and logic. The point is, even if we don't agree where they came from, that doesn't mean we can't still know they exist and study them.

If you want me to believe they come from God, you have to prove it, not just say it.

Here you are saying the same thing again. Quantity does not make up for quality. You must argue your position, not just assert it. I thought you wanted a debate.

Quote:

Yes, if God chose to make murder right, then it would be right since his will is Sovereign. He can do what he wants.

No way! If god said that murder was moral, I would immediately reject him as being immoral. His will is not sovereign over me. I have morals (you know the ones that popped right out of my head) and they say that murder is wrong. Nobody can just tell me on a whim that murder is right. Not even a god. That is a huge part of what morality is: doing what you know is right, even when an authority figure tries to get you to do otherwise. That is one example where atheism holds the upper hand to theism in the morality department.

Quote:

But murder would never become right, because God never changes. Mal 3:6 says, “For I, Jehovah, change not.” This explains why morality is objective. God does not change, neither does morality.

Blah-blah-blah. Don't quote scripture at me. In a debate, the parties must agree on true premises and reliable sources, and I do not consider the Bible to be a reliable source of information. And, trust me, if we did, you would not want me quoting scripture back at you. Especially not in a debate on morality.

Quote:

And, on the last issue, we do not choose God, God chooses us. So, it is not a moral choice.

For the sake of argument, I'll pretend that God chooses us. Given that, help me with these issues:

How do we know that the right god has chosen us? Allah chose the Islamics. Vishnu chose the Hindus. Is each group of people responsible only for the morals passed down by the god that chose them? That sounds pretty damn subjective to me. Indians can eat pork, Islamics can eat beef, but if they traded lunches, that would be completely immoral. How can you tell me that is not comptely subjective and arbitrary?

Okay, wait. I'll say that everybody else has it wrong, and your god is the one true god. The one true god has chosen every man and woman on the planet, and those who don't believe that have rejected him. Well, it is still a moral choice whether to accept or reject god. If morality comes from god, there would be no way to make the choice to accept god. You would have no morals that would compell you to do so. You are still putting the cart before the horse.

Your reasoning is backwards and illogical.

Before Christ was born, Plato put forth a riddle of whether acts are moral because god likes them, or whether god likes them because they are intrinsically moral. It is agreed among ethicists and religious scholars alike that objective morals are moral intrinsicly, and not determined by god's whim. Ask any educated person, even a leader at your church, and they might be able to explain it to you better.

Edit: Correction, when Plato posed the riddle, he referred to "the gods" because the greeks had more than one. Isn't it amazing how the gods or god has changed, but the arguments stay the same?

Alonzo Fyfe

Better yet, rather than going to the effort of asking people, readThe Euthyphro, by Plato yourself.

Ensign Steve

Thank you for the link, Alonzo.

pudgyfarmer

To Ensign Steve.
Sorry about the wait.

"You need to state premises that we can agree that are true"

Ok here’s a premise that we both can agree on. Murder is wrong. But why? I know murder is wrong because God says it is wrong. But why do you think it is wrong?

“I have morals (you know the ones that came out of my head) and they say murder is wrong.”

Just for sake of argument let us assume that morals do just come from our heads. Hitler believed what he was doing by killing Jews was moral. The morals that came out of his head obviously weren’t the same as the ones from yours. And going even further the morals out of your head are not the same as the ones out of mine considering your life style. So in the examination of three different people we have found three different sets of morals. So who’s right? Either one of us or someone else sets the standard for all morality or there is no such thing as objective morality. I propose that it is someone else that does set the standard. And that someone is God. But of course you do not agree with me.

“The point is, even if we don’t agree where they come from, that doesn’t mean we can’t still know they exist and study them.”

You are absolutely correct we do know they exist and we can’t agree on where they come from but that is the argument. Where do morals come from? You say your head. I say God. Who are we to believe your head or God?

“If God said that murder was moral, I would immediately reject him as being immoral. His will is not sovereign over me."

You have already rejected him you are an atheist but that is beside the point. Let us assume just for argument that God does exist. If this were so then his will would be sovereign over you. If God exists then he created every thing even morals. So whether you confirmed him or not would not matter he would still be God and his morals would still apply to you.

“Don’t quote scripture at me.”

You tell me not to quote scripture yet you quote Kant. Maybe I don’t agree with Kant.

"How do we know that the right god has chosen us? Allah chose the Islamics. Vishnu chose the Hindus. Is each group of people responsible only for the morals passed down by the god that chose them? That sounds pretty damn subjective to me. Indians can eat pork, Islamics can eat beef, but if they traded lunches, that would be completely immoral. How can you tell me that is not comptely subjective and arbitrary?"


Let us clarify the debate. There are only two types of people in the world Christian and non-Christian. I am a Christian you are a non-Christian. The Islamic and Hindus are not Christians, you have add an unnecessary element to the argument.


"Okay, wait. I'll say that everybody else has it wrong, and your god is the one true god. The one true god has chosen every man and woman on the planet, and those who don't believe that have rejected him. Well, it is still a moral choice whether to accept or reject god. If morality comes from god, there would be no way to make the choice to accept god. You would have no morals that would compell you to do so. You are still putting the cart before the horse."

That is just the point God has not chosen everybody on the planet that is why there are some who have rejected him. But this is turning into a theological debate instead of a moral one. Let’s get back on the point.


"It is agreed among ethicists and religious scholars alike that objective morals are moral intrinsicly, and not determined by god's whim."

You are committing the ad populum fallacy by saying the educated majority believe it, therefore it is true.

"Why do you think objective morality requires a God?"

"morals are moral intrinsicly,"

This is what the debate is about. This is the issue which we disagree. Do morels require God. You asked me to give you evidence that they do. Well I could give material evidence tell I tern blue. I could, like you comet the fallacy ad populum and tell you that educated people since the beginning of time have believed morals require God. I could tell you that Gods morals have never changed and are the same as the ones we have today. But no mater how compelling the evidence you would not be convinced for you have purposed in your heart not to believe. So here is a question for you. Prove to me that morals come from any wear else but God. I believe you can not so give it your best shot.

Nowhere357

I had accepted the challenge, and posted my answer. You have ignored it.

Do I win by default?

MollyMac

I don’t need a god to tell me murder is wrong. It’s an unjustifiable act against someone’s will, which causes needless suffering, therefore it’s wrong. Consider the prospect of your own life being deliberately cut short for no good reason and how the people you love will suffer as a result. Consider the effect the murder of one of your loved ones would have on you. Do you still need God to tell you that it’s wrong, or might you come to that conclusion using your faculty to reason? Is there not a very strong case for declaring that murder is inherently wrong without reference to a god?

The fact that Hitler made a very strong case for murdering non-Aryans, doesn’t make any difference to the argument that murder is inherently wrong. Hitler’s case for eliminating Jews was not based on reason – his arguments were demonstrably false. It is perfectly clear that what he did was immoral and very easy to argue exactly why it was immoral and God doesn’t come into it.

What is more difficult, is deciding what makes when and why killing is justified. God does not help us with situation ethics. Is it still wrong to murder someone even if doing so would save more lives? Many Christians say yes, it is wrong. Other Christians just go out and kill people using precisely that justification - abortion clinic staff, for example. What does God say? Depends who you ask.
Go on then.
On the contrary, it is only when evidence is compelling that freethinkers that are convinced about anything..
And you have “purposed in your heart” to believe - without the compelling evidence that many of us require.

It’s quite consistent for people who have faith in something for which there is no evidence – i.e. a god – to trace their notion of what is right and wrong, back to this god. But you cannot prove any of it, so stop pretending you can.

WinAce

I was going to post a response, but after seeing this:

I decided that this guy is a certifiable troll.