Biff the unclean

So it doesn't make any sense for an advocate of moral relativism to try to "condemn" the terrorism of 9/11 as wrong. It is merely another viewpoint that is every bit as valid and right as any other.
You claim that morals come from a god whose existence you cannot prove. The Terrorists claim the same thing, from the same god whose existence they can't prove either. You claim the morals are in a magic book that when we look at it is filled with god doing horrible things. The Terrorists make the same claim but have a different magic book though it too has the god character doing terrible stuff. In both books god would think nothing of having a few thousand innocent people violently killed.
They say god demands that they kill us you say god demands that they not.
Both viewpoints based on the same non-existent god and some moldy old myths. Each every bit as valid as the other. Meaning, not at all, as they are based on gods who don't exist instead of being based on people who do exist.
If you cannot product a god for inspection then you have nothing.
If you base your morals on this god they are based on nothing.
When your morals haven't a sound base you are in deep trouble.
Had the Terrorists based their morals on actual people the WTC (being filled with actual people-including my daughter) would still be there

Pain Paien

You are a living condemnation of your own position. That you can be so obtuse and still manage to grasp language to some small extent is rather astounding.

To anyone who has been reading this thread since the beginning, this statement should show Keith's complete lack of understanding of the entirity of the argument. He still doesn't grasp even the most fundamental elements of the discussion. Keeping in mind that this thread now has over 600 posts (a large number of them being exhaustive responses to Keith's repetitions of the same questions), that's quite amusing in a pathetic sort of way.

It's almost certainly pointless to make any further attempts to communicate with this...black hole.

Keith

Wrong. YOU are. I'm pointing out that there is a huge conflict between what you atheists say you don't believe in (moral absolutes) and:

1. Your condemnation of God's moral law which you say proves that God can't be held up as a legitimate moral standard. If God's morals are "bad" or "wrong" how can you know it--much less prove it, unless objective morality exists? This whole argument is completely useless if we don't all possess objective knowledge of right from wrong.

2. Your repeated assertions that rape, murder, child molesting, genocide, and other acts are morally wrong. Again, how can you meaningfully call these things "wrong" unless they really are? If God doesn't exist and morality is all relative, then at best, these things are only "wrong" to someone who thinks they are wrong.

3. The reason given for the enormous time spent by many atheists on the God topic, is that they feel threatened by religious people and their horrible (moral) behavior towards atheists. But if relativism is true and absolutism is false, how can it be morally "wrong" for religious people to 'mistreat' atheists?

If moral relativism is what you atheists really believed is valid, legitimate, and the way the world actually works, why do atheists keep resorting to moral absolutism in order to make their case? It's blatently contradictory isn't it? The plain fact is...in order to refute God, they must assume God. In order to show that God is evil and unjust, they must assume that objective absolutes really do exist.

Consider your whole argument nuked! And you did it to yourself.

Mageth

Strawmen, Arguments ad nauseum, and other assorted faulty arguments don't equate to a "nuke", Keith.

Originally posted by Keith
Wrong. YOU are. I'm pointing out that there is a huge conflict between what you atheists say you don't believe in (moral absolutes) and:

1. Your condemnation of God's moral law which you say proves that God can't be held up as a legitimate moral standard. If God's morals are "bad" or "wrong" how can you know it--much less prove it, unless objective morality exists?

It's easy, Keith. We can (obviously) argue against the supposed objective morality (which you have yet to demonstrate exists) of the supposed God (again, which you have yet to demonstrate exists) as presented to you here on this thread, and as presented in the Bible. The "objective morality" doesn't have to actually exist to argue against it; this is true in any argument. One can argue about all sorts of non-existent things, or things you consider non-existent. I'm sure you've done this yourself more than once.

This whole argument is completely useless if we don't all possess objective knowledge of right from wrong.

Wrong. One can argue against the existence of objective knowledge without it actually existing, just like one can argue against the existence of Santa, fairies, and dragons without them actually existing.

2. Your repeated assertions that rape, murder, child molesting, genocide, and other acts are morally wrong. Again, how can you meaningfully call these things "wrong" unless they really are?

Are you really this dense? We can call them morally wrong because we, as societies and individuals, have decided and concur that they are morally wrong. It's really that simple. Morals and moral systems are created by people; once a moral system is created, one can call such things morally wrong under that system.

If God doesn't exist and morality is all relative, then at best, these things are only "wrong" to someone who thinks they are wrong.

Why, I suppose so, and this is a view that you supported earlier in the thread. Remember that discussion about Abraham and Haggar, when you said Abraham having sex with Haggar wasn't wrong to Abraham because he didn't know it was morally wrong?

3. The reason given for the enormous time spent by many atheists on the God topic, is that they feel threatened by religious people and their horrible (moral) behavior towards atheists.

Sounds like a potential strawman to me. That, or something like it, may have been a reason, but I doubt if it was expressed as the reason. Correct me if I'm wrong. And "enormous" time? Give me a break.

But if relativism is true and absolutism is false, how can it be morally "wrong" for religious people to 'mistreat' atheists?

Because we adhere to a consensus moral system that says mistreating anyone is morally wrong, and as a particular example religious people mistreating non-believers (or those of other religions) is wrong. This isn't rocket science, Keith.

If moral relativism is what you atheists really believed is valid, legitimate, and the way the world actually works, why do atheists keep resorting to moral absolutism in order to make their case?

Strawman. Define what you mean by "moral relativism"; I doubt I beleive what you think I believe. And I and the others here have yet to resort to "moral absolutism" on this thread to make our case. Quite the opposite.

It's blatently contradictory isn't it?

Obviously, since it hasn't happened the way you describe, no.

The plain fact is...in order to refute God, they must assume God. In order to show that God is evil and unjust, they must assume that objective absolutes really do exist.

Wrong on both counts, if I get your drift. As explained above, one can argue against the existence of something without it actually existing. I would assume you would, and probably have, argued against the existence of Allah, Vishnu and all sorts of other things without "assuming" their existence at one time or another.

Now, by "assume", it is true that in such an argument one might be arguing along the lines of "Assuming god exists..." This may or may not always be explicitly stated, but when an atheist is arguing against God, one should always consider it implied. Making an argument of this sort does not mean that the arguer does, or needs to, think the thing he is discussing actually exists, or that the thing being discussed needs to exist.

In other words, it's just a device commonly used in debate, and is not admitting the existence of anything.

Consider your whole argument nuked! And you did it to yourself.

Keep the laughs coming, Keith. Your frequent claims of premature victory are rather entertaining. And I love the smell of burning strawmen in the morning.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Well, whether you're speaking only of yourself or a whole bunch of people, the concept of moral relativism doesn't, by itself, establish anything significant (morally) in a consensus.

Huh?

So, you're still faced with the unpleasant fact that under relativism, anything and everything is ok for the person/people doing the deed.

Strawman, refuted multiple times on this thread.

So it doesn't make any sense for an advocate of moral relativism to try to "condemn" the terrorism of 9/11 as wrong. It is merely another viewpoint that is every bit as valid and right as any other.

Strawman, refuted multiple times on this thread.

If that's all you've got, go away and come back when you have an actual argument to make.

Keith

Keith: "1. Your condemnation of God's moral law which you say proves that God can't be held up as a legitimate moral standard. If God's morals are "bad" or "wrong" how can you know it--much less prove it, unless objective morality exists? This whole argument is completely useless if we don't all possess objective knowledge of right from wrong."


Mageth: "It's easy, Keith. We can (obviously) argue against the supposed objective morality (which you have yet to demonstrate exists) of the supposed God (again, which you have yet to demonstrate exists) as presented to you here on this thread, and as presented in the Bible. The "objective morality" doesn't have to actually exist to argue against it; this is true in any argument. One can argue about all sorts of non-existent things, or things you consider non-existent. I'm sure you've done this yourself more than once."


Keith: "I understand all of that. (that we can argue against nonexistent things) but that's not my point. My point is that in your attempt to portray God's moral standards as inferior to YOUR morals, you list several instances of God's alleged evilness. But how can anyone understand that it is, for example, WRONG for God to command the Israelites to kill their own child for cursing its parents unless we all possess an inherent knowledge of the moral wrongness of parents killing their own children for cursing them?

You are relying on moral absolutism (it's wrong to kill one's child for cursing a parent) in order to attack God's moral standards and show that moral relativism is legitimate. That type of argument doesn't work at all unless we know that it really is wrong to kill your child for cursing you.

If moral relativism were legitimate, no one could grant your initial premise--that it is morally wrong to kill your child for cursing you. Thus, on your own terms, your argument defeats itself. It simply cannot be established that it is morally wrong to kill a child for cursing its parent unless absolutism is true. Sorry to bring such bad news.

emur

I take it then that under your system of moral absolutes, it is right for parents to kill their children for cursing them.

Mel

Mageth

Keith: "I understand all of that. (that we can argue against nonexistent things) but that's not my point. My point is that in your attempt to portray God's moral standards as inferior to YOUR morals,

Umm, there's that YOUR strawman again, Keith. I'm sure there'll be a whole parade of strawmen in this post. And ones I've seen before, I'm sure.

..you list several instances of God's alleged evilness. But how can anyone understand that it is, for example, WRONG for God to command the Israelites to kill their own child for cursing its parents unless we all possess an inherent knowledge of the moral wrongness of parents killing their own children for cursing them?

A few things.

For the umpteenth time, we adhere to a (modern) consensus moral system that recognizes such things as morally wrong.

And again repeating, you've claimed that, for example, it was RIGHT for the Israelites to kill their own children for cursing them because God told them to, and what God tells you to do is right. So under your portrayal of the alleged God's morals (what God says to do is right; what God says not to do is wrong), you cannot claim that "we all possess an inherent knowledge of the moral wrongness" of such an action, because such an action is not inherently wrong under your system (or alternatively God commanded them to do something which they, and I would assume He, knew was inherently morally wrong, which doesn't sound too good for your God's moral system either).

And yet another thing: indeed, we may have a revulsion or resistance to killing our own children. Many wild animals exhibit a similar trait. But the existence of this trait to is not evidence that a God's objective morals exist and are "written on our hearts." Such a behaviour can be readily explained naturally in terms of evolution/natural selection. Put simply: our ancestors who tended to kill their offspring tended, obviously, not to have as many offspring as their neighbors who tended not to kill their offspring. Such a trait may be "instinctive" and/or social. No god required to explain it.

You are relying on moral absolutism (it's wrong to kill one's child for cursing a parent)

No, I am not. Another strawman joins the parade. Hail the march of the Strawmen!

I am relying on the existence of a consensus moral system that allows me, and other adherents, to consider such an action morally wrong.

...in order to attack God's moral standards and show that moral relativism is legitimate. That type of argument doesn't work at all unless we know that it really is wrong to kill your child for cursing you.

Well, that type of argument hasn't been made; you're fighting your own strawmen.

The argument that we can, and do, construct consensus moral systems under which such actions can be and are considered immoral has been made and not refuted in the least by you; you've been too busy fighting strawmen. The very existence of the disparate moral systems that have existed illustrates that such "moral relativism" is indeed "legitimate".

Strawmen and ad nauseum do not an argument make, Keith.

In addition, as stated above, under your "It's right if God tells you to do it" moral standard, you cannot know that it "really is wrong to kill your child for cursing you", for under the moral system you descrbed it was deemed right for the Israelites to do just that because God told them to.

You're arguing against moral relativism and for moral objectivity while at the same time arguing for a relativistic God-based moral system in which the only way to determine what is moral and what is not moral for you is to determine what you think God has told you to do or not do. Since God apparently told the Israelites other things than he told you, you can't pronounce their actions immoral, even if you now consider them "objectively" immoral, presumably because you think God has now told you they are immoral. Instead, you are lef with defending the actions of the Israelites as portrayed in the OT as being moral because that's what your God told them to do. Keith, there's absolutely no objective moral standard there.

If moral relativism were legitimate, no one could grant your initial premise--that it is morally wrong to kill your child for cursing you.

Obviously, we can, and do, under our current consensus moral system, consider it morally wrong to kill your child for cursing you. I've never claimed that it was "objectively" wrong to do so or morally wrong to do so outside any moral system; indeed, I've claimed exactly the opposite. So again you're arguing against a strawman. Your point is moot. And the parade gets longer and longer.

Thus, on your own terms, your argument defeats itself.

Sorry, but you have to actually make a viable argument, and one against my actual argument and not a rag-tag parade of strawmen, to have any hope of even scoring a point.

It simply cannot be established that it is morally wrong to kill a child for cursing its parent unless absolutism is true.

And the actual argument is that it can and is established that it is morally wrong to do such under consensus moral systems. Since these moral systems exist, it has been established that it is morally wrong to kill a child for cursing its parent without Moral absolutism being true. Moral absolutism is not necessary to construct such a moral system; human consensus is. And, indeed, that is the way moral systems work in the world, and the way they always have.

Further, I've illustrated why, under your God-based moral system, you have no basis for considering it "objectively" morally wrong to kill a child for cursing its parent. Your defense of the Israelites for doing just that, and it being "morally right" for them to do so, just because God told them to, establishes that.

Sorry to bring such bad news.

Did I tell you that, under a moral system to which I adhere, it is considered a bit immoral to repeatedly claim victory in an argument when such a victory has not been realized?

Mageth

Why, yes, it is, if God tells them to. Keith made that point early on in this thread.

Keith

But as I've shown, you can't rely on your OPINION or a consensus OPINION to establish the FACT of God's alleged inferior morals.

Your argument that God is an inferior moral standard compared to your standard (or society's) doesn't work unless we all possess an inherent knowledge of what is/isn't morally right. You might as well say that because we Americans prefer beer compared to wine (which the French prefer), then you have established that beer is better than wine. But how does the American preference for beer establish that beer is better than wine? With relativism, no one can have any basis on which to establish that one is any better than the other.

So, if morality is really subjective and relative, it is no different than beer vs wine. In that case, you can't establish that God's moral standard is inferior to some other standard.