Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

looksee

Antiskeptic, you are the one that insists I have a flexible morality, not me, in fact religion is much more 'flexible' if you go back to post 347 where I have given examples. God, through his various religions has adjusted morality numerous times over the centuries. If a person works on the basis of doing ones best for society that is a much more stable morality than creating religious rules then finding ways to work round them.

Now, will you tell us how your ultimate source works?

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

Point you to what?

Whilst I point to God as the foundation for morality, I don't suppose I fully comprehend what his view might be of each and every situation. I think I can point to general principles: not being judgemental, selflessness, courage, resisting evil (in so far as that is recognised as such) without and within.

There is no possibility of coming up with a moral code in any absolute sense since no man is in a position to assess God's mind on all matters. But no matter: the ultimate concern is my facing God with how I acted with the amount of 'light' I have been given.

If you're going to point to some nebulous other being as somehow having perfect morality, it'd help your argument a lot better if you could say something stronger than just "general principles", don't you think?

looksee

antiskeptic wrote: »

Point you to what?

Whilst I point to God as the foundation for morality, I don't suppose I fully comprehend what his view might be of each and every situation. I think I can point to general principles: not being judgemental, selflessness, courage, resisting evil (in so far as that is recognised as such) without and within.

There is no possibility of coming up with a moral code in any absolute sense since no man is in a position to assess God's mind on all matters. But no matter: the ultimate concern is my facing God with how I acted with the amount of 'light' I have been given.

Ah! so atheists have a flexible morality, but theists have a secret moral code which no-one except god knows, therefore they have to guess at what god wants. Sounds fairly flexible to me.

RikuoAmero

looksee wrote: »

Ah! so atheists have a flexible morality, but theists have a secret moral code which no-one except god knows, therefore they have to guess at what god wants. Sounds fairly flexible to me.

Does he actually think his arguments through before posting them? I think not.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

*Points to the thread title*
I as someone who has not been convinced only have to debunk the arguments made by theists such as yourself in order to "win".
You, on the other hand, not only have to debunk our arguments (if any) but also have to successfully defend yours. So what if you somehow succesfully show our morality to be full of holes? What good does that do in vindication of your claims?

"Can an atheist address the issues raised in these last posts?"

It appears not. Hide behind the thread title if you like.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

Antiskeptic, you are the one that insists I have a flexible morality, not me,

Not that you've flexible morals - you might have the same morality that you had all your life.

That you've no fixed reference point as outlined over a number of posts

Last chance to address the problem you face. Not deflecting by pointing out problems you think I face. Otherwise I'll take it you're not prepared to address the problems you face.

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not that you've flexible morals - you might have the same morality that you had all your life.

That you've no fixed reference point as outlined over a number of posts

Last chance to address the problem you face. Not deflecting by pointing out problems you think I face. Otherwise I'll take it you're not prepared to address the problems you face.

Human well being...and also, why should we accept your claim of having a fixed reference point? Just because you claim to have one?

looksee

Just remind me, what exactly is the problem that I face? I don't recall saying I had a problem?

silverharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not that you've flexible morals - you might have the same morality that you had all your life.

That you've no fixed reference point as outlined over a number of posts

Last chance to address the problem you face. Not deflecting by pointing out problems you think I face. Otherwise I'll take it you're not prepared to address the problems you face.

what does fixed points mean? people are rational and parents and the rest of society have ways of transferring moral values (that work) and each generation will either accept them and or tweak them as the society becomes more sophisticated and developed.
Its not like religious values are all absolute and correct, christian values didnt divine that owning people as slaves was morally objectionable whereas a modern society would most likely conclude that people have certain rights to self ownership and self determination thereby making slave owning legally and also morally objectionable. Also need it be said that under Christian ethics , homosexuality would still most likely be illegal and most people would conclude that the fixed points were wrong and just primitive ethics set in stone.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Point you to what?

-
The problem a theist faces with his own position from his own perspective (which is what I've been asking atheists to look at regarding their own position from their own perspective)

Whilst I point to God as the foundation for morality, I don't suppose I fully comprehend what his view might be of each and every situation. I think I can point to general principles: not being judgemental, selflessness, courage, resisting evil (in so far as that is recognised as such) without and within. The atheist can rightfully ask how the I can consider themselves right on even global points. I can point to my taking my time to understand the mechanics or point to the large body of agreement in the body Christianity. None of these are absolutes however.

There is no possibility of a theist coming up with a moral code in any absolute sense since no man is in a position to assess God's mind on all matters.

But no matter: my ultimate concern is my facing God with how I acted with the amount of 'light' and opportunity for understanding that I have been given.

So there is no absolutes .

So how are you any different with your moral code than any atheist with his moral code ?

RikuoAmero

marienbad wrote: »

So there is no absolutes .

So how are you any different with your moral code than any atheist with his moral code ?

No no no! You've got it all wrong, marien! There is an absolute morality...he just doesn't have a clue what it is. It still makes his morality superior to ours for some reason, but don't ask me why. I'm just an atheist, I don't base my answer on anything concrete.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

Just remind me, what exactly is the problem that I face? I don't recall saying I had a problem?

Look upstream from our first encounter. It's pointed out to you in this that and the other fashion.

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

So there is no absolutes .

There is an absolute. Figuring out what it is exactly on every point is a different matter

So how are you any different with your moral code than any atheist with his moral code ?

An atheist could have a closer-to-God's-standard moral code than I. My sister, who isn't a believer is far more upstanding that I.

The issue here is how one reconciles own view. I want to know how the atheist figures his moral standard "better" than that old chestnut, Hitlers.

"It hurts less people" kind of responses don't suffice since "who gives a hoot that it hurts people" is the obvious response. At which point folk seem to duck out and point to the problem the theist faces by way of deflection.

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

what does fixed points mean?

A fixed point is something which stands outside that which is variable and changing and subject to time passing and fashion.

people are rational and parents and the rest of society have ways of transferring moral values (that work)

The transfer of value downstream doesn't in itself add value, so by pointing to parents you've shifted my question onto them. Dead end there..

But you add in the notion 'utility'. That which is found to work. But that's not a basis for morality since what works for one society (putting all their Jews in gas chambers) might not work for another.

Utility is very much in the eye of the beholder.



I've ignored the rest of your post since it doesn't deal with the question being asked: how the atheist deals with the floating-point nature of their morality.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Human well being...and also, why should we accept your claim of having a fixed reference point? Just because you claim to have one?

For info: I tend not to respond to responses to others posts. And time constraints mean I'm less likely to respond to those posts which don't address the question I've raised; how does an atheist reconcile his the floating reference point aspect of his morality. Utility has featured a few times .. with its obvious pitfalls (such as to make me wonder how on earth utility is adhered to). Not much else to date though.

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

For info: I tend not to respond to responses to others posts. And time constraints mean I'm less likely to respond to those posts which don't address the question I've raised; how does an atheist reconcile his the floating reference point aspect of his morality. Utility has featured a few times .. with its obvious pitfalls (such as to make me wonder how on earth utility is adhered to). Not much else to date though.

Let me make it as clear as possible for you. You too suffer from this problem of a "floating reference point aspect of morality". You can claim all you want that your reference is perfect, absolute, ultimate, or whatever term you want to use. However, without strong evidence, we won't believe you.
Therefore, your demand that we address the point is hypocritical and meaningless.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is an absolute. Figuring out what it is exactly on every point is a different matter



An atheist could have a closer-to-God's-standard moral code than I. My sister, who isn't a believer is far more upstanding that I.

The issue here is how one reconciles own view. I want to know how the atheist figures his moral standard "better" than that old chestnut, Hitlers.

"It hurts less people" kind of responses don't suffice since "who gives a hoot that it hurts people" is the obvious response. At which point folk seem to duck out and point to the problem the theist faces by way of deflection.

This is all just much of a muchness then, if your absolute code has to be figured out and is not consistent from person to person and age to age , then how is it any different that your average atheist ?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Let me make it as clear as possible for you. You too suffer from this problem of a "floating reference point aspect of morality". You can claim all you want that your reference is perfect, absolute, ultimate, or whatever term you want to use. However, without strong evidence, we won't believe you.

There are two issues here.

1) My ability to 100% accurately determine the viewpoint of God on the matter of morality

2) My ability to convince you of God's existence and all that floats downstream because of that


In the context of this particular discussion, 2) is irrelevant. The problem facing the atheist is HIS dealing with the problem HE faces. I'm merely asking how he reconciles to HIMSELF the issue facing him

I recognize the problem I face. I've outlined upstream how that is dealt with

Therefore, your demand that we address the point is hypocritical and meaningless.

Not so, since I've answered my dealing with the problem I face.

RikuoAmero

The problem facing the atheist is HIS dealing with the problem HE faces.

No-one has ever demonstrated that they have access to ultimate morality, so I, and probably the other atheists along here, don't worry over it. We don't view it as a problem.

I recognize the problem I face. I've outlined upstream how that is dealt with

Yes, and it makes what you do sound just as "bad" as what you say our position is. You've got access to this perfect morality, but you haven't got a clue what the morality is, beyond general principles that I would (mostly) agree on with you (such as violence, theft, slavery etc).
So why is your system of morality better? At least we don't pretend to have perfect morality.

Dionysius2

Meanwhile back at the ranch...../
What understandable reason can be offered for the suffering of all those countless millions and millions of people who are born handicapped into lives of endless pain and affliction where they have been cast by an omniscient being who could cure everything but chooses not to do so and in so doing commits utterly innocent beings to lives of unending suffering ? Is there any theologian to come on here and give us the rationale for that ? Please...I'd just love to hear it as would many others no doubt.

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

This is all just much of a muchness then, if your absolute code has to be figured out and is not consistent from person to person and age to age , then how is it any different that your average atheist ?

Supposing God to exist, I can point to my best efforts to understand and apply the Absolute Moral Standard as being all I can achieve.

My efforts, judgeable against what was possible for me to achieve, imbues my effort with objective value.

That another Christian theist ploughs a different furrow to me isn't relevant to me: I'll stand before my Maker on the basis of what I did or didn't do. And all will be objectively and individually assessed.

From my perspective (as work in progress) my morality has objective value and I have valid reason to strive to achieve.

The atheist can have no such objective framework. Everything he attempts to attach his morality lacks firm ground. That is to say: the atheist has no mechanism for supposing firm ground under his feet.

-

Whether or not God exists isn't the issue. My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist). The atheists moral compass can have no objective value.

Which is the difference.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

No-one has ever demonstrated that they have access to ultimate morality, so I, and probably the other atheists along here, don't worry over it. We don't view it as a problem.

You don't worry about the fact that you have no grounds whatsoever to differentiate your morality from Hitlers?

The 'general principles" which you decry move me a long way from him.

I couldn't give a fig that you decry Hitlers morality. I'm looking for the basis which you do that by.

RikuoAmero

Whether or not God exists isn't the issue. My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist). The atheists moral compass can have no objective value.

Which is the difference.

Hey guys...I am reading those sentences, right? I mean, someone thought them up and typed them out, apparently not realising just how...I want to say the word that begins with stu...but I won't.

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't worry about the fact that you have no grounds whatsoever to differentiate your morality from Hitlers?

The 'general principles" which you decry move me a long way from him.

I couldn't give a fig that you decry Hitlers morality. I'm looking for the basis which you do that by.

Okay, I'll bite. Remember those three words I've repeated several times today? Human well being?
I want you to take Hitler's morality and apply the standard of human well being to him. Go on, try and make Hitler's actions moral when you use human well being.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite. Remember those three words I've repeated several times today? Human well being?
I want you to take Hitler's morality and apply the standard of human well being to him. Go on, try and make Hitler's actions moral when you use human well being.

Hitler Fails Miserably

Your turn. Point out why anyone need consider "human well being" as a component of their moral standard. Failure on your part gives Hitler a pass.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Hey guys...I am reading those sentences, right? I mean, someone thought them up and typed them out, apparently not realising just how...I want to say the word that begins with stu...but I won't.

You don't see a difference between potential (depending on whether or not God actually exists) and no potential whatsoever?

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hitler Fails Miserably

Your turn. Point out why anyone need consider "human well being" as a component of their moral standard. Failure on your part gives Hitler a pass.

Precisely. He fails. Thanks for playing. Now...why did he fail? What happened? I'll answer for you. Nazism is not conducive to human well being.

Now...why wouldn't we consider human well being? If you don't have HWB as a component of your morality, then actions you take can and will most likely harm others and that can hardly be moral, now can it? Do you seriously not read your posts before hitting the post button? Do you not realise how asinine your question is? What do you think happens to a moral system if you don't have HWB in it?

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't see a difference between potential (depending on whether or not God actually exists) and no potential whatsoever?

I'll spell it out for you (seems I have to do that a lot with you)

Whether or not God exists isn't the issue.

*Looks up at thread title* Hmm...you do remember which thread we're on, right? I know I've forgotten once or twice which thread I'm on, but that doesn't happen to me if I've been on the same thread for a few hours, like we have.

My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist).

You do realise that makes your statement an If-Then statement, right? If God, then my moral compass has objective value. Thing is, you're not demonstrating the If part (in fact, for some weird reason, you've stated it's not the issue? )

The atheists moral compass can have no objective value.

Which is fine, since I'm not aware that I've ever stated my moral compass to be objective. Again, it's hypocritical of you to be saying so anyway, because you face the exact same problem.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now...why wouldn't we consider human well being? If you don't have HWB as a component of your morality, then actions you take can and will most likely harm others and that can hardly be moral, now can it?

You've skimmed the Wiki page elaborating on circular reasoning I gather?

"The reason why HWB must be a component of one's morality model is that without it one's morality-model wouldn't be moral"

Do you seriously not read your posts before hitting the post button? Do you not realise how asinine your question is? What do you think happens to a moral system if you don't have HWB in it?

For posterity!

RikuoAmero

Just humour me. What happens to a person's actions, if their moral system doesn't have HWB as a component?