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

Look, Jet. You're missing the point by a longshot. You are stating over and over agian that morality is objective without providing any proof of it. You are making examples out of other things and saying "Replace X with morality" or "Morality is the same as X" without providing any reason WHY. Couldn't I just say "Replace X with beauty" or "Beauty is the same as X" and prove that beauty is objective? NO. Beause there is no beauty-omoter to see how beautiful someting is, and therefore is subjective.

In the same way atheists will always say that there is no morality-omoter to prove whether something is moral (I personally think there is one and it's the Bible), so to an athiest, morality will always be subjective. There is literally no substance to any argument stating the opposite unless you bring God into it.

 

Please read my first post here... It directly contradicts what you just said. If you don't understand what it contradicted, please look to your comment about bringing God into it.

 

This doesn't work because it goes against the Christian idea of God. God is infallible. It is impossible for anthing he says or does to be wrong, because he is God. It is not fair to refer to him as a subject. If God gives us a moral code, that moral code is objective, not subjective, simply because he is God.

 

The notion that he is infallible is still subjective, because what makes one fallible is. Clearly... How can you differentiate it otherwise? So far, your argument is this, and I expect it will be this:

God is infallible, therefore what he says is true is true. If he says something is wrong, it is. How do we know God is infallible? He said so himself, and he is infallible, so it must be true. Using the point as a means of proving the point is a rather obvious fallacy. So, it would probably come down to, "He just is."

So, I say, "The things that he does are failings, therefore he isn't." There is no way for you to differentiate our statements or make one more objective than the other. So, they are both subjective values taken from two subjects. You believe that something is not a failing, and I believe that it is. It comes down to that.

And beyond that, assuming that God's morality is objective in the way that you say, that still does not solve the problem. What effect does God having an "objective" morality have, based on what you just said? It means to me that each of us still has our own definitions of right and wrong. What is the difference? Of course both sides will claim to be right, and that the other is in the wrong. Subjective value remains while my value still remains different from yours, or your God's.

 

You're just proving my point :/
My point was that, for the reasons you have stated, atheists will never believe in an objective morality. Christians can, but the only argument we have means we have to bring God into it. Atheists, for the reasons you have stated, don't accept that. That's the point.

 

I don't think you quite get what I mean by empty. When I think of the subjective morality that you believe in, I think of a set of rules that constantly changes depending on a person's upbringing, goals, and circumstances. In other words, it is okay for a certain person to do x action because he is under y circumstances and holds z beliefs. This is what you mean by a subjective morality right? Everyone is right because they all have different circumstances surrounding them.

When I noted the possibility of an empty morality, I meant that there is no morality, subjective or absolute. In the "nice taste" vs "bad taste" example, everybody is right because they were brought up under a different cultural standard of "nice taste." With the idea of an empty morality, everyone is wrong because nobody can agree on any moral issue at all. You say there are many correct moralities depending on the person while an empty morality says that there are no correct moralities at all. Alas, I cannot prove this nor am I inclined to. It would make for a rather fun to defend platform.

As far as proof goes, that's not true. Let's take math. Even if you say that a postulate is false, you still need to prove the existence of at least one instance where it is not true. You have yet to provide any such instance where an absolute morality cannot exist, only show examples that prove the existence of a subjective morality which, by the way, I have never denied, as I'll explain below. An absolute morality with no way to be proven could be said to be nonexistent, but could also be said to be simply unprovable due to the lack of evidence against it. So as it stands now, an objective morality is in neither a state of existence nor nonexistence.

P, you are right that morality can be subjective, but not all subjects can be right according to their society's standards. Morality can also be objective by the idea that people can always be right compared to other people on an individual basis, but not when compared to the societal standard. Only one can be right in the long term. Abortion for the sake of convenience is either right or wrong. You say that it is right and I say that it is wrong. Only one of us can be right about this moral issue. If this were not the case then the Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life debate would have dissolved long ago because both sides would be right. Granted, I'm assuming that the majority of people believe what you're saying about an objective morality not existing, but that's fairly likely, right?

Meanwhile, I'm providing analogies that explain the idea of an absolute morality while never providing any real proof. As a result, it can be can be said that this argument itself is subjective unless you have at least one situation in which every single choice is perfectly equal in terms of rightness or wrongness. As there is no way to measure either of those concepts, this argument is rendered a matter of opinion with only your idea of subjective morality being right and my idea of absolute morality being neither right nor wrong.

Lol, Garland.

In Makaze's defense, the matter of what God's moral code for us is can be subjective. Sure God says it, but not always in plain language. It may very well be up to the individual to determine what God means.

 

This is true, but the point is it is viable for a Christian to believe that there IS an objective moral code out there. It's impossible for an atheist to believe that.

 

Unless an Atheist is able to have something else concrete to base morals on. It is possible to not believe in God and still have a godlike figure. You know, a person who absolutely can't go wrong. And most people don't progress beyond, "The law is always right," on Kholberg's morality scale, so an Atheist could potentially look to the law as a source of infallible morals. Even without God, there's always something that could become a source of absolute wisdom.

 

Except, no. Really, I dare you to find an atheist who considers law to be absolute infallible objective morals. Seriously.

 

I'm stating that 'right' and 'wrong' don't exist. Forget concepts of good and bad. There is only existence. Morality is a set of beliefs each person holds, that drives them to take certain actions. They're not 'right' or 'wrong', because those are also human concepts. They simply do. That's all that matters. It's impossible for a morality to be correct or incorrect, because there is no right answer. That is what I mean by them being subjective and not objective. They cannot be judged objectively.

Correct. I have not dis-proven the existence of an absolute morality, because disproving the existence of anything is extremely difficult, short of strict tautological statements. (e.g. A triangle with four squares.) This is why the burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to have it acknowledged, if it is to play any role in the argument. At present, it is of no consequence, because no evidence for such a concept has been provided. The reason I provided evidence for the existence of a subjective morality is so that its existence is fully acknowledged, unlike that of objective morality.

Neither side is objectively right, and neither will be objectively right at any point in time. Even if in the future, everyone were to universally acknowledge abortion as being morally 'wrong', it will not be objectively wrong, because it is only considered wrong from a limited perspective. It isn't objectively correct either though. Morality is not an objective concept.

I don't understand what you mean by this argument being subjective. Please elaborate.

Exactly. Your theory has no evidence what-so-ever. As such, I see no reason to believe in it, nor for it to pose as a valid alternative to my theory of only subjective morality existing.

 

Rather, even if they believed that it was objective, that belief does not make it objective... Christian or atheist, no belief will change the objectivity or subjectivity of the thing. Whether one can or will believe in objective morality is not the question. Proving at the very least that one can exist is. No amount of belief on the part of any side will make it any more possible for objective values to exist in a world with two or more conscious beings. You did not address my argument in the least, or illustrate which parts of it supported your point and how. At best, you might be saying that because I even tried to defy you, I proved that I will never know the truth. That cannot be as anything but glaringly self-righteous. Please do so now.

You also seem to assume that I am an atheist. Please clarify as to your basis for this reasoning...

 

I thought it was pretty self-evident, honestly. The arguments you made are typical of any atheist and represent the reasons they won't believe in objective morality, but these arguments don't matter to Christians in the slightest.

 

There is no evidence for either of our arguments, and therefore it is left as a matter of opinion until it becomes possible to prove or disprove the concept of an objective morality. Therefore, there may as well be no right or wrong answer here. Given my position, it's kind of ironic, is it not?

As far as there being no right or wrong, that can't be true, at least in the sense that I'm speaking. For example, it is wrong to say that two plus two is five. It is right to say that two plus two is four. When you made the point about the possibility of a universal consensus on the abortion issue, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that under your logic both positions are right because nothing has any moral affiliation. If this were the case, it would be possible for Pro Choice arguers to note the pros of an abortion free society and the cons of an abortion loving society. The same goes for both Pro Life and Anti Abortion arguers. However, neither side is able to see the merits of the other because they both see themselves as objectively right. It's like saying that orange and blue are affiliated with the same part of the color wheel and the color wheel does not exist. They can't be the same because they are opposites and the color wheel certainly exists. But I suppose it'll be impossible to convince you of this because you are clearly incapable of seriously thinking beyond what you can perceive. In other words, you are trapped in a world of concrete. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it severely handicaps your ability to understand what I'm saying just as my inability to think only in the perceivable world impairs my ability to understand what you're saying. In other words, we're at a standstill. Equally flawed in opposing ways. Truly this is the meaning of a good debate!

 

I have provided evidence for my side of the argument. You have not provided evidence for your side. I do not have to provide evidence for why your theory is wrong for mine to be superior, because you have provided no evidence for your theory. I cannot logically disprove your theory, but that is not required in an argument. All I have to do is prove that my theory has a stronger standing than yours.

What? You seem to be confused about the idea of subjective and objective. If there were an objective morality, then both sides would be able to acknowledge each others' points, because they would have the same moral beliefs. It is because it is subjective that they can both be firm that they are right. Whether something is 'right' or 'wrong' depends on whose viewpoint you look through. Thus morality is subjective. Morality cannot be measured in the same way that heat can.

I fail to see how my viewpoint is flawed. I acknowledge the posssibility that an objective morality exists. However, because no evidence has been provided for it, I place it firmly in the same category as unicorns, because while I cannot prove that they don't exist, I have no evidence for them existing.

 

Both of our viewpoints are flawed because they are unable to understand the ideas behind the other. Where you think, "It can't be proven and therefore it may as well not exist," I think, "It must exist because it cannot be disproved." Both are equally flawed. Although they recognize each other's validity (or the possibility thereof), they do not understand the ideas behind the other viewpoint.

That, and all viewpoints are inherently flawed just by simple human nature. The only way to have a truly winnable debate is if one of the two parties has no opinion on the matter.

 

If something has no evidence, then it may as well not exist, yes. We should hold that viewpoint until a further point in time in which more evidence is available. The difference is that this belief is the one used in scientific deductions and logical discussions, while yours means that unicorns and dragons exist in my garage.

 

Please explain how they overlap with atheism in any way. Because the argument itself assumes that a god exists, I fail to see why you mention atheism at all; I do not claim atheism, and I am not arguing for or against the existence of a god. Please try again.

If you are not even willing to consider the respective meanings of subjective and objective morality, or were only coming in to say that it is a perfect example of how other people will never know, then why did you come in in the first place? Please get out until the prospect of discussion does matter to you, if you don't mind my asking.

 

That's exactly what I mean. Your viewpoint prevents you from understanding my viewpoint and vice versa.

 

Sorry to but in, but your response and the quote used for it make little sense to me in conjuction. You can understand his side because his is simply that of experience. Yours is harder because it is something that only you can see. Essentially, what you can both see is more reliable, is his argument. But let me take a strand from P's side here for a second to illustrate what I mean.

Let's say that you were just born, and that everything is a void. Darkness all around, no sense of gravity below you. Just floating. And then you see a light, and this light is on a desk a ways away; maybe twenty feet away. All that you see is this light and this desk. Does anything else exist there? Why do you think so, or why not? Is it safe to assume that other things exist there?

The obvious answer would be no. P is presenting this argument. You have no reason to assume the existence of something that you have not been given reason to think exists. That is, until the light turned on, you had no reason to think that the desk existed. And until more lights come on, you have no reason to think that anything else does, either. It will not even occur to you that a desk might exist until the light comes on and shows it to be there.

If you yourself have seen the desk and P has not, then I fail to see what you are trying to say. That would be evidence, and you and P are speaking on the same terms, so your claim to an inability to understand each other makes little sense. You should be able to explain to P what the desk looks like, where you saw it and so on, like he has been doing for you to give a reason for the desk's nonexistence.

If P has seen that the desk is not there by looking with the light and you have not, then you begin to make more sense, but you still have no reason to even consider that the desk is there, not having seen such a thing as the desk. One of two things may be true in this case: either you thought up the notion of the desk in your mind, or you cannot even conceive of a desk because you have not seen one, in which case your position would be impossible.

In the end, there are really only three options. Either you have seen that the desk is there and can argue from evidence with P (which you have denied being able to do), you have not seen the desk and so have no reason to even consider that it might exist, or you have not seen it but thought it up or were told about it and plan to argue it anyway while claiming that evidence based perception is just not how you see things, and that P will never understand you, and vice versa. Which of these is more likely, given the context?

 

To Jet User

Well, at least the majority of Atheists who live perfectly good and moral lives. Let me explain.

Look at me for a moment. I, as a Christian, follow the laws set by God out of fear that he will punish me if I don't. I consider God to be the almighty One and that what He is absolute until He says otherwise. This is a flawed viewpoint and sadly one that I cannot break because my mind is not a flexible as it once was.

Now take a look at the average Atheist. He follows God's laws (at least the morality based ones) not for fear of punishment, but because it is right. What's more, they don't believe it is right because God says so, but because they have realized it on their own. Instead of "It is wrong to kill because God says so," an Atheist probably thinks, "It is wrong to kill because there is still potential in that human being. If I kill him, the world will lose both a valuable resource and the thoughts, feelings, and emotions unique to this person." This is also flawed based on my religious beliefs, but an Atheist (ideally) does not have any religious beliefs, only moral beliefs.

In short, you can only fully know God if you do not believe in him and if you do, then you will never fully know God.

Thoughts on this sort of meta idea?



For starters, you talk about God as if he is some kind of malevolent ruler. He doesn't punish you he makes you repent. Furthermore, how can you say that a human being realizes that something is morally right or wrong. If you were a true christian you should know God instilled that way of feeling and thinking when he created us. How can you say you can only know god if you don't believe in him! That makes no sense, people who believe and follow his word are obviously closer in understanding. You want to fully know god!?!?! Read the damn bible! Pray! Go to church and get your freaking holy on!!!