Mageth

Even if I were unable to demonstrate to your satisfaction that there is an objective basis for morality, it wouldn't necessarily follow that such a thing doesn't exist, or that it is as elusive (or nonexistant) as you claim it is.

Here's some definitions of the adjective "objective":

If the basis is objective, you should be able to demonstrate it or at least present evidence of it. If it exists but exists out there in space somewhere where we humans can't perceive it, then what use is it as a basis for our morals? If it's objective, exists outside our minds, and is a basis for our morals, it must be here somewheres, existing, where it can be perceived, and perceived, understood, and agreed upon by all.

If you can't produce it where I and everyone else can perceive it, then it's not objective. If it's "written on our hearts", it's not objective.

So where the hell is it? So far it appears to be only in your mind, thus making it not objective.

Keith

Can you explain what you mean here, that I was never an atheist?

Keith

I wasn't trying to confuse you. I didn't expect you to answer my rhetorical questions. And I am willing to answer all of your relevant questions.

Mageth

They should be punished for doing what? You are assuming that just because most people on the planet have reached a concensus that terrorism is morally wrong, this means that terrorists should be punished.

Yes. What's the problem with that? The global society has decided that terrorists should be brought to justice, and therefore the global society punishes terrorists for the global good.

What if most of the world's population believed in a god? Would that mean that atheists should be punished for being wrong?

Most of the world's population do believe in a god. Fortunately, most of them also believe in such things as "freedom of religion", and that it's morally wrong to punish someone just for not believing exactly as they do, at least in this life. (

Further, I'm assuming you hold to the "moral" that atheists should and will be punished for being "wrong" in the next life. So it's odd that you would assume the argument would lead us to this conclusion when your "Godly morals" actually do insist on the punishment of atheists.

By the way, how many wars have been fought, how many people punished, because they were "wrong" in their religious beliefs? Remember the Inquisition? Note that for the most part it's believers, particularly those of the Abrahamic religions, that have held the moral that "the wrong should be punished" and that have performed these acts. Where was their "objective morality"?

dangin

What was your worldview based on when you were? Were you a strong or weak atheist? How did you reconcile morality when you were an atheist? What was it about religion that made you an atheist, and how did you overcome it to "return to the flock"?

Or were you just someone who "sinned" a lot, didn't think about religion, and was thus "secular".

dangin

Exactly. When most people agree it is a "social norm"

Most of the world does believe in god. Most of the world does not believe that they have the right to punish those who believe differently. Most of the world does believe that perpetrators of terrorism should be punished.

Can you see the difference between terrorist activities that result in death, and philosophical differences of opinion?

Mageth

I'll repeat it. God is then, by definition amoral. You said:

God can't appeal to anything beyond himself as ultimate because only God is capable of being the ONE ULTIMATE. This means that God can't choose what is "good" "just" or "morally right" without reference to himself.

If God cannot or does not rely on an external moral standard, but only to his inner, subjective whim or "choice", if god can and does do what he wants to do, if there's no external moral restraint that dictates what god can or cannot do, then God is by definition amoral.

Without God, these words have no meaning.

That's funny; they're defined in the dictionary, usually without any reference to God.

Mageth

I wasn't trying to confuse you. I didn't expect you to answer my rhetorical questions.

What was the purpose of those rhetorical questions? I could see none, except to muddy the waters.

And I am willing to answer all of your relevant questions.

Then go back through this thread and look for all the relevant questions that you may have left unanswered.

Here's one I asked:

If it's morally wrong to kill a child for cursing his or her parents (and I assume you think this is one of God's objective morals), why would God place a "special legal/moral demand" on a people to do just that?

dangin

Back to OP, Hey Carrie check out this.

http://atheists.meetup.com/

Keith

Are you speaking on God's behalf here? Isn't it possibe that God can make his existence known to you even if you choose to deny it? God is the one who "decides" what is/isn't possible, not you. The fact that you want to pretend that no god exists is really irrelevant to whether he exists. His existence is actual and real regardless what you say.