Atheists know God better than any Christian, Jew, or Muslim can hope...

I didn't say there was a universal standard. I said there was a universal correct way to act. No matter what the standard in a certain place, there is always one correct way to act even if it doesn't agree with the standard.

 

inb4 shitstorm. But all joking aside, you will never, ever get an atheist to agree with this.

 

A universally correct way to act is the same as a universal standard. What is such a universally correct way to act based upon? How do we know such a moral standard?

 

I disagree. A universal standard would be that it is understood by all people to be right. A universally correct way to act is what is right regardless of what the standard is. Even if there were a universal standard, it could be very different from the universally correct way to act.

Does it have to be based on anything measurable? I base my science on what I see. I base my religion on what I wish I could see. I base my morality on my religion. You base your morality on your personal interests. A homeless man might base his morality on being happy with as little as possible. A rich man might base his morality on making himself happy by obtaining as much as possible. As you can see, absolutely ALL of these are flawed ways to base morality. There is no way to know what the correct morality is or what it is based on. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Think of it like how if there is no way to know the precise means by which Phenomenon X happens, that doesn't mean that there is no means that causes Phenomenon X to occur, because then Phenomenon X would not occur in the first place, leaving no reason to wonder about the means.
/runonsentence

 

Provide evidence for the existence of the 'universally correct way to act'. Also, please provide a summary of the 'universally correct way to act'. Preferably in a way that makes sense to an atheist.

By evidence, I mean something along the lines of 'what people feel is the morally correct way to act', which is what I was basing it upon. However if you have a different source, which you are using to define this universal correct way of acting, please tell me.

 

I will use the fourth of St. Aquinas' Five Proofs of God.

This is flawed in terms of proving God, but can be used to prove a universally right morality. Consider the first two lines. They say that in every set there is a logical maximum or perfection, something that is a universally perfect or most acceptable example of its set.
Therefore, there must be a universally correct set of rules that can be used to derive a right course of action in any given situation.

It's not exactly something that I would an Atheist to understand due to being derived from a flawed proof of God, but you probably at least get the gist of it.

 

That argument only works for things that are objective. Heat is objective. Morality is not.

 

It is true that morality cannot be measured or observed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a universally correct version of it. Take a common argument.

I say that God exists. Somebody else says that God does not exist. Somebody else says that my God doesn't exist, but another one does. Yet a fourth person says that there are many gods. Of all the myriad opinions here, one of them has to be right. The same goes for morality. Even if nobody holds it yet, there must be one correct set of "rules," for lack of a better term.

 

Yes. For morality, I have put forward the viewpoint that an objective morality does not exist.

Prove to me the existence of a morality that is not subjective.

I state that an objective morality does not exist. Burden of proof is on you to prove that it does.

I provide people's individual viewpoints as evidence for the existence of subjective morality. Unless you can provide another piece of evidence, then I conclude that there is only subjective morality.

 

I have just stated proof. Logically speaking, out of all the possible viewpoints of how the world works and how people ought to act, one of them must be right. It isn't a measurable proof like you're asking, but it is a proof all the same. When you say, "This is right," you are either right or wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. So are you also arguing that the existence of God is subjective? Surely you don't believe that God can both exist an not exist depending on whether a person is an Atheist or a Theist. You could make the Schrödinger's Cat argument, but I don't see that as a valid argument because whether or not I am observing him, God either exists or doesn't. The same goes for morality. There are many opinions as to what the right morality is and even more possible opinions. Out of all those possible opinions, one of them must be right and all the others wrong. It's not as simple as "This tastes good," where the statement is neither right nor wrong. When you say, "This is the right course of action," you are are with right or wrong in the same way that 2+2=4 (base 10) is either right or wrong.

 

You have not presented proof, you have merely restated your opinion. You have presented an argument which works on things that are objective without proving that morality is objective.

 

Basically, if morality is subjective, then God is subjective and this is clearly not the case. Either you are right or you are wrong when it come to morality. You cannot be both or neither as with subjective things. It is moral to do x and immoral to do y. Despite what various people may think, only one version can be right. Can you prove that it is as morally right to kill an innocent man as it is to spare his life? No matter what, only one of those can be right. This is simple logic.

 

You believe that concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' exist above the level of humans. I believe that such concepts exist only in human perception. The universe does not care about murder. In fact, it encourages it due to the kill-or-be-killed aspect of nature. There is no higher plain of morality. The entire concept of morality is purely defined by people.

Let's analyse your examples:

A group of people holding coals can all state "My coal is the hottest", but only one will be objectively correct. They can measure this using a thermometer, which objectively judges. We agree on this.

A group of people eating different food can all state "My food is the most delicious", and all of them can be correct, because deliciousness is subjective. It's dependant upon what the person eating the food thinks as a subjective opinion, so it is possible for multiple, contradicting views to be subjectively correct. There is no objective way to measure the tastiness of a food. We agree on this too.

Those are two categories for facts. Objective and subjective. I believe morality fits into the second category, while you do not. You have presented the following analogies:

A group of people can all state "My god is the real one". It is possible that all of them are incorrect, because the truth may be something none of them predicted. However only one can be objectively correct, in the best of circumstances. (Assuming we're ignoring the possibility of pantheism) This can be confirmed by finding God and proving his existence.

To counter with my own analogy, a group of people sitting around a box all state what they believe is in a box that is in front of them. They can all be incorrect, but only one can be objectively correct. This is objective, like the one about gods. In fact, it is the same scenario, with gods substituted for the contents of a box. It is objective, because there is a way to confirm whether they are correct or not. All they have to do is look in the box, and then they'll objectively know what is in the box.

Then we get to the real situation. A group of people can all state "My set of morals is the most morally correct one". Next, to confirm whether such a statement is objective or subjective, we look at how we can prove it. Is there a thermometer we can check, as there is for the coals? Is there a box we can open, in the case of the contents of the box? There is no way to measure morality, just like there is no way to measure which food tastes the best, or which genre of music is superior. Therefore I conclude that morality is subjective.

If you wish to disagree, then it is your duty to provide a method of objectively measuring morality, or prove the existence of a single correct moral set.

 

Yet the idea of One God/Different God/Many Gods/Everything is God/No God is not provable. There is no evidence and no way to provide evidence. But one of them has to be right. There cannot be only one god, only a different god, many gods, everything as god, and no god at the same time. One of them has to be right, even though there is no way to measure which one is right. The same goes for morals. There is no way to measure it, there is no means by which to prove such an abstract concept, but there must be one viewpoint that is correct simply because not all of them can be correct.

You have the box. Everybody is making a different guess. Out of all the things that could possibly be guessed, it can be concluded that only one of the millions of possible guesses (including this AND this) is right even before the box is opened. What if the box is tightly sealed and can never be opened? Would every guess be correct? No. Because there is still only one thing/set of things in it. Let's call morality that sealed box. Out of all the possible guesses we can make as to what the right moral code is, only one of them is right. I have no real hard measurable evidence, but I do have a logical conclusion based on your examples.

 

God is a poor example, because it is something extremely difficult to prove, which is why I preferred to stay away from that analogy. If you insist though, we will deal with it.

Unless proof is provided of a deity's existence, then its existence is considered immaterial at best, and non-existent at worst. Furthermore, the burden of proof to prove the deity's existence rests with those arguing for the existence of the god. This is a basic rule of debates. Otherwise claims would become fact without any evidence behind them, and it would be up to the defendant to attempt to disprove the statements, which is nearly impossible in most cases.

In the same way, I demand proof of a set of absolute morals. Otherwise the default state of contents of the absolute morality box is considered to be nothing. Proving that it is possible for a set of absolute morals to exist doesn't cut it. If you want such an imposing idea to be accepted, then it requires evidence. At the moment, there is nothing that makes it more likely for absolute morals to exist than not exist. Following the ideas of the burden of proof, unless you can demonstrate the existence of a set of absolute morals, then they will not be accepted to exist.

 

That's why I chose God. It is impossible to prove the existence of God, but one party still has to be right. God cannot both exist and not exist, even if it is impossible to show proof of either position.

But you do admit that somebody has to be right in a debate about God/Gods/No God, even though there is no evidence for or against either position. Which side is right is irrelevant.

Before I start on this, I'd like to note that both of us have neglected the possibility that the proverbial morality box may well be empty, in which case there is no absolute OR ever-changing set of rules for any situation or purpose. This is to say that every single person is always wrong and nobody is ever right. As GLaDOS would put it, "You've been wrong about every single thing you've ever done, including this thing."

I'd also like to point out that there is no way of measuring subjectivity or objectivity. It's very possible that this argument is subjective in such a way that my Absolute Morality approves of your Subjective Moralities or vice versa where all of your Subjective Moralities in some way agree with my Absolute Morality, making the whole argument pointless.

Anyway, if everybody in the world made a different guess as to what is in the box, only one of them could possibly be right. As stated above, there could be nothing in the box, but this assumes somebody will guess that. You say that everybody will be right about what is in the box at some point, but I say that only one will be right.

Okay, so this isn't exactly a new point. Just a comparison of our points and some new things that I just noticed.

 

No, there is no doubt about subjective morality. I have proven that subjective morality exists. I am attempting to make it into the only morality. You keep throwing out an absolute morality, but have done nothing to prove the existence of it. Morality can quite happily be measured as subjective, in the same way as 'nice food' can be measured as subjective. There is no doubt about this. But you insist that they're all just guesses at what the 'correct' morality is, when as far as we know, there is no such thing as a correct morality. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence of a correct morality, otherwise my theory is correct.

I've been arguing the entire time that the absolute morality box is empty. There is no absolute morality. We define ourselves what 'right' and 'wrong' are. As such, each person has a different view of right and wrong is. So the idea of 'morality' depends on the subject being asked. Thus is it subjective, because it depends on the subject. Objective is when there is one universal morality, and it doesn't matter what group or situation you apply it to, because it will still be the same.

I say that the box is empty. Caput. Nothing. There is no one set of moral codes. Morality is a human construct, not an inbuilt part of the world. The only place we observe conventional morality is in human society, and even then, it is often violated. Moral beliefs differ depending upon the person, and there is nothing that judges those moral beliefs as 'right' or 'wrong'. The universe does not care what you do. There is no one judging your actions. Only you.

When you initially state that something exists, you have to back it up with evidence. You do not have to back up with evidence when you initially state something does not exist. If there is no evidence for something, then it is assumed not to exist. It does not have an equal chance at existence and non-existence. The burden of proof is on the one who states that something exists. If you wish to have an absolute morality acknowledged, then present any evidence you have. Circumstantial, naturalistic, coincidental, anything! It is possible that a grand morality exists, yes. But unless there is evidence suggesting that it exists, then it is not considered to exist.

 

And furthermore, if there were a god in this model, his version of morality would still be a subjective model. If you asked God, he would give you his model as a subject, and it would differ from what you got from me if you asked me as a subject. We are both subjects, and the answer directly depends on the subject in question. The answers that we give are thus subjective. Morality cannot exist objectively as long as there are individual minds or consciousnesses.

 

In the end there's no real reason to debate fact with faith. It's mentally impossible to convince someone one way or the other when they already know what they believe to be the truth. I myself am an Atheist based off of the facts that I know to be true. As would be the same if I were a Theist. The cycle of debate would cease to end. I know the fun of the debate is always there. I'm just stating that it's technically pointless. As for moral values; I tend to believe that there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" based off the fact that if you look back 2000 years ago people were selling slaves, pillaging, raping, etc. Although come to think of it, that sort of reminds me of the current times we live in. You can't establish a true right or wrong when theoretically they don't exist. It's just what your mind chooses to place in certain categories of so called morals. Therefore, everyones right from wrong situation is totally different. These are just some of the things I tend to believe, not saying that I'm correct. It's a debate am i right? ;}

 

Useless post is useless. Did you read the thread? The question was about how God relates to morals, and how Atheism relates to knowing God's morals, and as I could tell that was all. But you did not mention God at all or so much and acknowledge the notion. Sorry...