I've always been amazed at how dense Christians are when it comes to the idea of God being a subject. They desperately want morality to be objective, but then insist that a subjective agent like God serve as the standard. It's such a glaring contradiction.
Check out Counter Apologist's videos on this exact topic where he replies (directly to a rebuttal to and from WLC). He really breaks down how Divine Command Theory is no better than an arbitrary atheistic theory (by the so-called "objective" standards)
They want morality to be objective because then YOU have to obey their morality. That's it. If it's subjective, even subjective of god, then there's no reason to obey other than god is stronger than you and will hurt you if you don't obey. If morality is objective, though, you MUST obey it to be moral.
I can't believe theists tell us we have no "foundation" for morality, while claiming their own morality is "founded" upon the whims of a violent, intolerant and vengeful god, whose existence has never been established.
+Ixtl guul It is even worth - they claim the likes and dislikes of this God for example the smell of animal sacrifice against fruit sacrifice (cain vs. abel) should be "magically" objective and not subjective.
see why we say u have no foundation of morality, u dont even know what is morality, morality isnt what u think is right and wrong, but what God determines, and u think justice which vengeful is immoral
+HELENO HENZO We know that you say a meaningless subject like God which does not even exist would determing his own subject likes and dislikes as moral. Like in the Cain and Abel story in which the scent/smoke of animal sacrifices "smells" better than vegetable s to the biblical God within the fiction. ;-) You don't need to repeat your subjective meaningless God fiction. ;-)
No, Mr Henzo, YOU don't know what is morality, if you think morality is "what god determines". Especially if the god in question is the one described in the bible, the god who commits genocide and mass-infanticide, advocates slavery and rape, inflicts disease and suffering on an appalling scale, and inflicts infinite punishment for imaginary crimes committed by one's supposed ancestors. Your a priori assumption that everything this god does is by definition morally good, forces you to assume that his victims must therefore deserve everything they get. That may qualify as some perverted form of "justice", but it's not morality. Morality can ONLY be based on one's own assessment of whether something is positive or harmful, based on reason, conscience and empathy with other conscious beings. Your unquestioning acceptance of the bible's immoral teachings without empathy, reason or conscience makes YOU immoral.
What's the point of having a foundation of morality, if they arent even going to evaluate that foundation to see if its a good source or produces good results? From their own logic, their foundation for morality could be a shitty one, but they wouldn't even know it because they aren't allowed to question it. Divine Command has nothing to do with morality or empathy.
Matt Dillahunty has a video on slavery that goes into every verse in the Bible about slavery. He also talks to immoral people who try to defend it on The Atheist Experience. The Bible is sickening!
Notice that he picks an example - slavery - that everyone in his culture _does_ believe is wrong. How about lying? That's always wrong too, but religion - and religious apologetics in particular - couldn't exist without it.
Oh. Wow. He really picked wrong when he used slavery as an example. The bible explicitly endorses slavery, so... according to this guy it must be objectively right.
Amaranth He may have, but will do every contortion to twist the meaning into whatever he believes it says. It seems that no matter how many time you point out that bible says God or at least Moses endorsed slavery, they will go to the chapters on Hebrew indentured servitude to refute it. Then you when point out that there are two different standards one for male Hebrews and another for everyone else, they get stuck in 'God is good' mode and because slavery is evil, God couldn't ever endorse it. Then they go 'LaLaLaLaLaLa...I cannot hear your'
It's quite possible, I'm just making the point that frequently, even apologists haven't read the Bible. Or, I suppose I should be more correct here in that they haven't read the *whole* Bible. Now, obviously some apologists and even some laychristians have read the Bible and know it inside and out, but I've watched Matt Dillahunty stump many a Christian by pointing out passages that they legitimately seemed unprepared for. Perhaps it's the bias of a Catholic background, because we were discouraged from reading the Bible and most of my knowledge of the Bible as a kid was from those storybooks that whitewash things like Noah's flood. And I can see why: I'm an example of the cliché that reading the Bible is the best way to make an atheist. It's been my experience that I'm better versed in the Bible than many, maybe most apologists. They tend to have certain passages memorised, usually ones that were spoonfed to them, and are unaware of the rest of the book. And I'm not even a Biblical scholar or anything. Matt Dillahunty occasionally busts out a passage I'd forgotten, so I go and look it up. Meanwhile, the reaction of apologists--even the professional and/or educated ones is often "nuh uh' or "the Bible doesn't say that." Don't get me wrong, it's worse when someone knows the Bible and tries to justify the atrocities in it. I just experience that far less.
Amaranth What I see many doing is using the "you don't understand the context" or ""it was a different time" arguments. Both of which dispute their vapid claim of objective morality but as another poster pointed out it just rolls of their back like water. The context claim is really absurd. The problem with that approach is that anyone can justify any position from any book claiming to have special insight into context. There is not a person alive today who can possibly say they know for certain what the original authorers meant. Even the most studied biblical historian. It is all conjecture since we can't talk to the original authorers and have a limited understanding of the social climate at the time.
No offense intended, honestly, but that's unbelievably full of shit. God is supposedly the originator of morality, and is known to be pretty tetchy about people breaking his rules. Yet one of the most abhorent acts in all of human history gets the slow (by which I mean thousands of years) ease-out treatment? And yes, the bible does endorse slavery. "Slaves obey your masters", is an explicit endorsement of slavery.
I love that part when you say, that even morality from a god is NOT objective. This is the most important part of any discussion of subjective vs objective morality, that those apologists just outright ignore or deny. They are not arguing for any objective morality, they are just claiming they have it, *because god*, EOD!!. Once again, god is the ultimate wildcard for these people, the ultimate excuse...
+TheQuietAtheist As I mentioned 100x before. In created worlds like several computer games you can't murder town people or other players, because you can't target them with your weapons or they get resurrected where they stay or the last safe point etc. In these created worlds are natural and therfor OBJECTIVE MORAL laws implemented - like natural laws to fly a dragon or to ride a unicorn or to swim in molten rocks (lava). In our world however are no dragons to ride no lava you could swim with your flesh, but you can equip weapons and murder town people. We have no moral natural laws but the natural laws to prohibit lava swimming. Usually God believers like to claim: God is just another name/fancy term for objective, when the will/persons are always subjective that is the very definition of the word and activity to have love, likes, dislikes and hates. What Jesus or Yahwe/God in the bible for example likes, loves or hates is his _own subjective_ and therfor ignorable nonsense. Especially when you do not even believe in the bible. A good example is that God liked the smell of sacrificed animals and not of sacrificed fruits. (Cain vs. Abel) Moral systems in human society root in acknowledgement and weighting of subjective wants towards *eachother* invidiual vs. indiviudal and Group vs. Group. So the most honest definition of the term moral is actually: "How to see yourself humble and meek and on the same level as other people without denial of yourself - when it comes to The teaching how to behave and also how you compromise with other (real existing) individuals." This is even true for animal rights and why sacrificing animals to a non existing God for example is immoral from an animal rights standpoint. The subjectivity of a dog at least exists - and can be weighted and compared to others. The subjectivity of God is not even existing. Because it is a myth. God believers jump therfor around because the very base of their existence is shown as myth and actually a true worthless subjective opinion below the wish of a dog to get a nice snack. Because it is not real. To deny this they jump around plead to salvation (subjective for humans to be saved to heaven) or threaten people with damnation (subjective for humans to be doomed in hell) But God believers do not want to face this prime problem that "God's will" exists only in their heads, because they like to push their own opinions and likes _undoubtable and uncompromizable_ towards others to gulp it don't. That is why atheists are the actual threat for this. It continously reminds that this is only in their heads and that they are not loved by any "Jesus", but as worthless as everyone else. Unescapble doomed to compromize and performing something that is called _democracy_ .
are u a false atheist, u r here judging, as atheist u cant judge, u have no standard to do so and u cant judge if we weren't created that means we are dont see the same things, looks like u claim to be atheist, but u r living as theist. maybe u should be quiet if u r an atheist,
Any system of morality that's worth using needs a "foundation" in the sense that it has to be tied to some kind of real life consequences, because if it isn't, then nobody has any reason to care about what is moral or immoral.
I mean, a lot of Christians will say that slavery in the Bible was nicer and all-around more fair than regular, well-documented slavery... as if that somehow made Biblical slavery okay.
no objective morality no morality. say there is other morality beside objective morality is saying a murder, homo, pedo... can decide if their action is moral or not w/o objective source which only come from a source above humans
"no objective morality no morality" wrong. "say there is other morality beside objective morality" is not the same as saying "there is no objective morality". there could also be NO morality. or every subjective morality could be the same. (i am not saying that is the case, just that it would be possible) "is saying a murder, homo, pedo... can decide if their action is moral or not w/o objective source which only come from a source above humans" 1. so what? 2. how is god an "objective source"? does he know what is objectively moral true because he knows everything? or do you just assume that it is moraly true because he says it is morally true? the latter would only mean that your opinion equals his opinion, not that this opinion is objectively true. and the first would mean that god has nothing to do with whether or not objective morality exists but that he only has to do with whether or not we get to know about these morals.
jacob, if u can say murder is right and i can say murder is wrong, and there is no objective source to judge us, murder is right and wrong, that means there is no right and wrong w/o objective morality
"there is no objective source to judge us, murder is right and wrong, that means there is no right and wrong" that means it is both right and wrong, idiot. that is called relativism. and btw. it is not my position. and btw. answer my questions.
HELENO And the population that says that murder is right would die out thanks to natural selection. We don't need objective morality to make a judgement on what is right or wrong. Natural selection does a pretty good job at that. It's why we exist in the first place. Because our conscience gives us an advantage over many animal species.
Your opinion is wrong, you do know you are the apologist in the video? Please watch it again and refute TMM's rebuttals to you, to refute? That is why you are here?
You are confusing objective morality with universal morality. Morality does not have to be objective for it to be universal. Also, "you can't judge homo"? Grow up.
By "universal" I just mean "the same for everyone". Many people assume that if morality is not objective then it is just a matter of opinion (above that guy says: w/o objective morality it is your opinion against mine). This is false, though, because the foundation of morality can be something shared by all agents necessarily, in which case it is subjective and universal. In the case of religious folk, it is also false by their own lights: if morality is set by God for everyone, then morality is subjective and universal.
I once had a conversation with a Catholic. I was making a statement, telling it is immoral from Abraham, an estimated 80 year old, to have a child with a very young woman, Hagar. The only thing, I got as a response was "How can you judge Abraham?! Your morals are subjective and society and time always changes it."
I have morality because I am not a freaking sociopath. Hiding behind the "objective morality" displayed in the bible is what not only the inquisition did, but also the witch-hunters and the slave-owners..
"If nobody believes that it is objectively wrong, then the fact that it is objectively wrong is of no consequence whatsoever" Incorrect TMM. For example if nobody believes 2+2=4 when it factually does there are in fact dire consequences to that. The same holds true if there is an objective basis for morality. If there is an objective basis for morality, then ignoring that reality will result in actual negative consequences. To claim otherwise is itself a form of magical thinking. Note that I am not getting into if there is an objective basis for morality here, I am stating that your claim there would be no consequences to ignoring objective reality is silly.
Morals are simply any action or behaviour that I would appreciate if I were on the receiving end ..... do I like it when people steal from me? No, so I won't do it to others.
What is the foundation for liking your favourite colour? Sure, it's definitely worth questioning your positions and your reasoning -- frequently -- but it's all arbitrary.
Simple: there is no basis in reality to claim that morals are "objective". Morality is how we, individually, feel about something. When enough people feel the same way about something, that becomes "societal morality". It's really not nearly as complicated as theists try to make it out to be. They _HAVE_ to believe in an objective morality" because that then gives them a basis to claim that there must be a "morality giver" (which would still make it subjective because it would be based on how GAWD feels about something).
Actually, slavery proves the opposite to what he says. "God's unchanging word" says that it's OK to own slaves under certain conditions -- relatively lenient ones (for the slaves) if the slaves are from your own nation, very harsh ones (for the slaves) if theyr'e not. But society changed its mind about slavery, and therefore this Christian believes -- *despite* "God's unchanging word, not because of it -- that slavery is wrong.
whos subjective morality? are u saying a murder can decide if murdering is moral or a rapist can say rape is moral and there is no objective source to show it is immoral? that is exactly what u r saying: rape, murdering... are moral, because each person decide what is right and wrong.
u said u r beyond faith but looks u still using christianity. for atheists there is no such thing as logic, reason, morality... or whos morality, reason...?_Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it_
morality is for us, it comes from God, we are talking about humans, God is above humans, which makes anything he does for us, objective. TMM is dumb, he doesnt realize simple coherence statements he makes, he even doesnt know morality isnt what he thinks is right and wrong, but how God wants humans to live. morality fromm God is subjective if God belongs to the same group as humans
HELENO HENZO "objective" is not defined as "independent of any human" but as "independent of any subject" - since god is a subject, it is SUBJECTIVE. you cannot change definitions of words in order to make your wrong opinion right.
because they have zero knowledge about argumentation... it is common knowledge that x leading to y, while y is something we wouldn´t WANT to be true, says absolutely nothing about whether or not x is true.
His last statement is so disingenuous. We don't say that slavery is only wrong because society says so at the time. We say that slavery has always been wrong specifically because we empathise with the slaves. We put ourselves in the place of the slaves and we know that we would not want to be there so we say that slavery is wrong. That is the very definition of empathy so for him to claim that our position hardly shows empathy demonstrates that he is either a lying sack of shit or a psychopath.
Christianity at its inception didn't come out against slavery because if it had, the Romans would have never adopted it as their state religion, and Christianity would still be a minor religion. During the lead up to the Civil war, many preachers, both North and South, but mostly South, preached the righteousness of slavery,
Because odds are, everyone believes in rightful consequence... for example if someone murdered your family no one (except for perhaps the person at fault) would say the rightful consequence is to provide the murderer with praise instead of punishment...
Slight disagreement TMM. I define specific goals for a moral system, "well being with priority of personal authority". That is what I mean when I say moral. From there in my moral system is objective because actions are either allined with that goal, against it or neutral. And it's not contingent on opinion. This way, by measuring my own biases against this standard it helps me discover my own biases and overcome them. For example, I was raised to be against homosexuality. Because of that my conscience told me that being gay was wrong. But argumentation and new information changed that biased view. Having an objective standard to follow helps inform my conscience beyond unthinking emotional reaction.
I get what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree that that is the moral system that societies work by. The problem is, I don't think that you can necessarily even say that morals are objective with regards to a defined standard because how people judge actions to affect their well-being and that of others differs too. All you can really say is that your morals are objective in relation to your standard, because everyone will have a slightly different standard.
*The problem with objective morality is that there is no objective way to show that it even exists.* People who just _imagine_ that objective morality exists have no way to show that what they imagine exists in the real world anyway. And imagination is subjective, not objective And just because the writers of some ancient texts wrote down what they imagined to be true _still_ doesn't make it real. Calling a collection of ancient texts "The Bible" can't make the imagined things in the text suddenly real. They are _still_ just writings about people's subjective imagination. If anyone thinks that they can make a reasonable case that what they imagine is objective morality is actually _real,_ I would love to hear their argument.
Even if a religion has a foundation i.e. objective morals then what use are they to the religious when they are not accessible to the religious? A small point the religious conveniently overlook.
I have a hypothetical question for all those god botherers that buy into this moral argument for god: If god suddenly stopped existing, or otherwise put an end to objective morality, how would that affect our lives? What difference would it make? Would we even notice a difference?
Is it not possible to equate "god inventing morality" as "humans inventing a ruleset for a boardgame" - the ruleset wouldn't be subjective, even if they stem from subjects. They are what they are. Objective fact.
Hmm, further thinking about it -- originally i was going to have a quip about "how would your conscience be more valid than others" for TMM, but then i realize that the preacher is doing something else. Conscience would be perfectly fine with an Individual level of morality as an explanation for our actions and reactions -- yes we have a foundation for our moral. But then the "objective" part, as a society, we need to have a standard above our own, in which our conscience is subjective and wouldn't cut it. However i don't see why we have to shoehorn their deity into this. I'd rather go with consequentionalism. If an objective standard suddenly says that Slavery is right again,, or murder is right, -- under the pretense that with great deliberation that we deem it to be so -- then yes, slavery is right, unfortunately. Such as if we have to enslave people in such a way that it has a lot of net benefits over net disadvantages. That's how it works. We are able to improve ourselves by being open to change and correction, and by being at risk of devolution does not make that any less valid. It sounds like he (preacher) just doesn't like it, therefore it's not right.
i don´t see why an atheist cannot believe in objective morality. theism just means "god exists". how does this lead to "objective morality exists"? the arguments for objective morality are either based on the premise that a god exists or they aren´t. if they aren´t, they can be used by an atheist just as well as by a theist. if they are, then they are based on a premise of which i think that this premise is wrong. so either way, my view is that the reasons (arguments) for believing in objective morality of atheists and theists are equally as valid or invalid.
There's another part of this question that isn't getting asked: You ask "Why does morality need a foundation", I ask "Is morality itself not the foundation?" To ask me what my morality is founded upon is like asking me the foundation upon which the Earth sits (flattards get out). Both are the foundation upon which other man-made things sit. My morality is the foundation for my actions and does not itself require a foundation, just like the earth is the foundation upon which we build things and does not itself require a foundation.
Even if I would grant that guy that his deity is somehow objective, then it still would not follow that the morals it dictates are also objective, especially since the bible makes it clear that what is considered moral changes throughout that book, which means that those morals taught there are not absolute but behave exactly like the morals of changing societies, almost as if deities have nothing to do with it. Wonder why that is? ;)
Why? Why would he use slavery, of all things, as an example? That's the _easiest_ thing for a non-believer to point at as a clear example of God's subjective morality.
This is simply yet another case of trying to prove god with wishful thinking. They prey on people who WANT morality to be objective and say that it can't be without god so that those people will delude themselves into believing in god so that they can feel comfortable "knowing" that the objective morality they want actually is. The continual talk about objective morality is a perfect demonstration of the fact that theists are either stupid or outright liars. Either they don't know what "objective" means or they don't care that they are making outright contradictory statements. If you say "you can't have X without Y" then you are inherently stating that X is subject to Y, i.e. X is subjective. I believe that these people are smart enough to understand that. I believe that they are liars.
I'd like to know how he can be certain opposition to slavery is an objective moral. Even if it were in the Bible, he'd then need to prove the Bible is a means of knowing objective morality. But the Bible doesn't make it clear slavery is objectively wrong. So how does he know? Seems to me, this guy chooses his own morality like the rest of us, except he just egotistically adds that his is based on objective fact. That strikes me as far more dangerous. That kind of certainty and claim of understanding God is what makes people believe their horrible actions are justified.
What's up with these guys and slavery? Why do they bring up slavery so often (right after murder and rape) as an example of a wrong/immoral thing? Show me one, just one, passage in the Bible, that says that slavery is always (aka. objectively) wrong.
Before I'll even attempt to establish a "moral foundation for objective morality" then I'll need to see an example of an "objective moral value", so far it's at exactly the same level as the evidence that a god actually exists (pssst ... that's zero for those who don't internet). And Christians ... stop trying to use slavery as an example of objective morality since your god codifies and condones it. In fact he's the one who apparently told his people that it's OK to take slaves (as long as they weren't Hebrews ... only Yahweh can deliver his people into slavery over and over again). . So ... let the excuses begin!
Christian morality is not objective by their own definition because it is based on their interpretations of what Yahweh said in either the New or Old Testament of their Bible. As we have seen repeatedly they have reinterpreted those words to mean one moral standard or another. They used it to justify slavery for centuries and now use it to criticize slavery. They used the Bible to morally justify Jim Crow laws and some still do so. Even today they have used it to justify the actions of a Republican running for political office who has been accused by multiple women of sexual improprieties towards young women. Morality is inherently subjective and always has been. The fact that most humans agree that murder, rape, and cannibalism are wrong has nothing to do with some sky pixie telling us. It has to do with the negative social effects on a society in general.
Except of course, according to the apologist in this video, he CANNOT have authored morality... It has to be foundational and imparted. So god would've had to have had it given to him... It's the same dead-end argument as "nothing happens without a cause, the universe happened, so the universe has a cause: god!" So what's god's cause?
God's unchanging... WwwTF?! How many slaves were taken in the name of/at God's command in the OT alone? I'd like this guy to explain why devout Christians (as they considered themselves) took and bought slaves right into the 19th century? And those around now who still do, but I'm not sure how much religion has to do with modern slavery. It took the Enlightenment for the start of the idea that slavery was wrong. And that was the time that religion started to really be questioned. Coincidence? I doubt it.
if u can say murder is right and i can say murder is wrong, and if there is no objective source to judge us, murder is right and wrong, that means there is no right and wrong w/o objective morality
But there is an objective source to judge us : our shared preferences. You, like me and like every living human, prefer life over death, pleasure over pain, health over sickness and freedom over captivity. That's the foundation. It is subjective (by humans for human), but it is universal which means it can be applied objectively.
every human being prefer life over death? never heard about suicide. suicide bombers, pro choice people....? u r literally saying people who dont mind being killed, killing for them is moral.
No, not at all. People who choose suicide do prefer life over death (in general) but there desire for pleasure (lack of pain) over pain "overrides" their "default". Same for suicide bombers, their preference for "promised eternal pleasure" over "earthly pain" overrides their default. Can you name me any person that prefers death over life without any of the other 3 preferences being compromized? And pro choice people don't prefer death over life.
Wow, did you see this RUclips channel's main website? Raising money to "engage with cultures hostile to Christ." Sounds provocative to mutually exclusive religious cultures.
By objective they mean independent of human whims and subjective judgements not independent of everything, and by subjective they mean based on human whims and judgements, so u are making a bit of a strawman and also objective moral values are not based what God says arbitrarily as if God is gonna say something different next time, they are based on his commandments which flows from his unchanging divine nature, SO @ATHIESTS (THOSE WHO DO) STOP MAKING STRAWMANS AND THEN CELEBRATING WHEN U REFUTE THEM
Good grief! Slavery is the WORST ground on which to stake a Biblical claim to morality. The Bible is pro-slavery. It tells you where to buy slaves and how much you are allowed to beat them. It makes distinctions between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves and between male and female slaves. It's quite specific about how to conduct your slavery activities.
Slavery was always wrong. So the Bible was and is still wrong and therefore Christianity is wrong. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"nature" doesn´t have anyting to do with this. and what makes you think there is no way for an atheist to argue for objective morality? i could have the following premises: 1. i simply happen to have knowledge about the unvierse which i gained by meditation or some other bullshit that is equally as believable as any argument based on theistic believes 2. this knowledge is unquestionable 3. this knowledge includes statements about objective morality, the fact that it exists and its qualities. those premises work equally as good as any theistic premises that are supposed to prove objective morality. heck, as an atheist, i could also just have the OPINION that objective morality exists. because there is no rule that says "you cannot believe in x without having GOOD arguments for it."
Heleno (or was that HELENO so your poor eyesight can read it better - blame your god for that) - are you still around? I thought you were raptured away to Kolob or something. Good to see you're still as gullible and ignorant as always. Please: entertain us some more with your funny straw-man claims.
Well mortally needs a foundation because if it doesn't then its just irrational and completely ridiculous and can lead to the justification of horrendous act. This is lazy philosophy. There are atheistics moralities. That have rational grounding. Come on now
Well no, it can also be the majority opinion, or any of those other versions of ethics we've seen since the classical foundationalism you seem to push.
i don´t see why an atheist cannot believe in objective morality. theism just means "god exists". how does this lead to "objective morality exists"? the arguments for objective morality are either based on the premise that a god exists or they aren´t. if they aren´t, they can be used by an atheist just as well as by a theist. if they are, then they are based on a premise of which i think that this premise is wrong. so either way, my view is that the reasons (arguments) for believing in objective morality of atheists and theists are equally as valid or invalid.
if u believe in morality, u r a false atheist, no such thing as universalism w/o us being created. if we werent created, dont expect us to see the same things,
faith, how can u be as stupid as TMM to not realized what he said was stupid, he is putting God in the same group as humans to say God's morality is subjective. if God makes morality for him it is subjective, but morality is for other group (humans), making God's morality objective
I've always been amazed at how dense Christians are when it comes to the idea of God being a subject. They desperately want morality to be objective, but then insist that a subjective agent like God serve as the standard. It's such a glaring contradiction.
It's putting your brain on Easy Mode and honestly, it seems like we're wired to do just that.
Contradictions roll off a Christian like water off a duck's back.
i tried bouncing "objectively subjective" off them. no takers.
KEvron
Check out Counter Apologist's videos on this exact topic where he replies (directly to a rebuttal to and from WLC). He really breaks down how Divine Command Theory is no better than an arbitrary atheistic theory (by the so-called "objective" standards)
They want morality to be objective because then YOU have to obey their morality. That's it. If it's subjective, even subjective of god, then there's no reason to obey other than god is stronger than you and will hurt you if you don't obey. If morality is objective, though, you MUST obey it to be moral.
I can't believe theists tell us we have no "foundation" for morality, while claiming their own morality is "founded" upon the whims of a violent, intolerant and vengeful god, whose existence has never been established.
+Ixtl guul
It is even worth - they claim the likes and dislikes of this God for example the smell of animal sacrifice against fruit sacrifice (cain vs. abel) should be "magically" objective and not subjective.
see why we say u have no foundation of morality, u dont even know what is morality, morality isnt what u think is right and wrong, but what God determines, and u think justice which vengeful is immoral
+HELENO HENZO
We know that you say a meaningless subject like God which does not even exist would determing his own subject likes and dislikes as moral. Like in the Cain and Abel story in which the scent/smoke of animal sacrifices "smells" better than vegetable s to the biblical God within the fiction. ;-) You don't need to repeat your subjective meaningless God fiction. ;-)
HELENO HENZO, if we could stop a child from being raped, we would. That's the difference between our morality and the morality of your God.
No, Mr Henzo, YOU don't know what is morality, if you think morality is "what god determines". Especially if the god in question is the one described in the bible, the god who commits genocide and mass-infanticide, advocates slavery and rape, inflicts disease and suffering on an appalling scale, and inflicts infinite punishment for imaginary crimes committed by one's supposed ancestors. Your a priori assumption that everything this god does is by definition morally good, forces you to assume that his victims must therefore deserve everything they get. That may qualify as some perverted form of "justice", but it's not morality.
Morality can ONLY be based on one's own assessment of whether something is positive or harmful, based on reason, conscience and empathy with other conscious beings. Your unquestioning acceptance of the bible's immoral teachings without empathy, reason or conscience makes YOU immoral.
What's the point of having a foundation of morality, if they arent even going to evaluate that foundation to see if its a good source or produces good results? From their own logic, their foundation for morality could be a shitty one, but they wouldn't even know it because they aren't allowed to question it. Divine Command has nothing to do with morality or empathy.
Matt Dillahunty has a video on slavery that goes into every verse in the Bible about slavery. He also talks to immoral people who try to defend it on The Atheist Experience. The Bible is sickening!
Objective morality does not exists.
"God is a subject. If morals are contingent upon him they are... by definition subjective." This is some grade school level stuff, man.
It is, yet apologists still seem to have trouble understanding it.
TMM .... cute.
@@keithboynton
Devastating.
Notice that he picks an example - slavery - that everyone in his culture _does_ believe is wrong. How about lying? That's always wrong too, but religion - and religious apologetics in particular - couldn't exist without it.
Oh. Wow. He really picked wrong when he used slavery as an example. The bible explicitly endorses slavery, so... according to this guy it must be objectively right.
Yeah, but what are the odds he's actually read the Bible?
Amaranth He may have, but will do every contortion to twist the meaning into whatever he believes it says. It seems that no matter how many time you point out that bible says God or at least Moses endorsed slavery, they will go to the chapters on Hebrew indentured servitude to refute it. Then you when point out that there are two different standards one for male Hebrews and another for everyone else, they get stuck in 'God is good' mode and because slavery is evil, God couldn't ever endorse it. Then they go 'LaLaLaLaLaLa...I cannot hear your'
It's quite possible, I'm just making the point that frequently, even apologists haven't read the Bible. Or, I suppose I should be more correct here in that they haven't read the *whole* Bible. Now, obviously some apologists and even some laychristians have read the Bible and know it inside and out, but I've watched Matt Dillahunty stump many a Christian by pointing out passages that they legitimately seemed unprepared for.
Perhaps it's the bias of a Catholic background, because we were discouraged from reading the Bible and most of my knowledge of the Bible as a kid was from those storybooks that whitewash things like Noah's flood. And I can see why: I'm an example of the cliché that reading the Bible is the best way to make an atheist.
It's been my experience that I'm better versed in the Bible than many, maybe most apologists. They tend to have certain passages memorised, usually ones that were spoonfed to them, and are unaware of the rest of the book. And I'm not even a Biblical scholar or anything. Matt Dillahunty occasionally busts out a passage I'd forgotten, so I go and look it up.
Meanwhile, the reaction of apologists--even the professional and/or educated ones is often "nuh uh' or "the Bible doesn't say that."
Don't get me wrong, it's worse when someone knows the Bible and tries to justify the atrocities in it. I just experience that far less.
Amaranth What I see many doing is using the "you don't understand the context" or ""it was a different time" arguments. Both of which dispute their vapid claim of objective morality but as another poster pointed out it just rolls of their back like water. The context claim is really absurd. The problem with that approach is that anyone can justify any position from any book claiming to have special insight into context. There is not a person alive today who can possibly say they know for certain what the original authorers meant. Even the most studied biblical historian. It is all conjecture since we can't talk to the original authorers and have a limited understanding of the social climate at the time.
No offense intended, honestly, but that's unbelievably full of shit.
God is supposedly the originator of morality, and is known to be pretty tetchy about people breaking his rules.
Yet one of the most abhorent acts in all of human history gets the slow (by which I mean thousands of years) ease-out treatment?
And yes, the bible does endorse slavery. "Slaves obey your masters", is an explicit endorsement of slavery.
I love that part when you say, that even morality from a god is NOT objective. This is the most important part of any discussion of subjective vs objective morality, that those apologists just outright ignore or deny. They are not arguing for any objective morality, they are just claiming they have it, *because god*, EOD!!. Once again, god is the ultimate wildcard for these people, the ultimate excuse...
I personally think that there is no such thing as objective morality. It's a Fairy Tale like Jesus.
+TheQuietAtheist
As I mentioned 100x before.
In created worlds like several computer games you can't murder town people or other players, because you can't target them with your weapons or they get resurrected where they stay or the last safe point etc.
In these created worlds are natural and therfor OBJECTIVE MORAL laws implemented - like natural laws to fly a dragon or to ride a unicorn or to swim in molten rocks (lava).
In our world however are no dragons to ride no lava you could swim with your flesh, but you can equip weapons and murder town people.
We have no moral natural laws but the natural laws to prohibit lava swimming.
Usually God believers like to claim: God is just another name/fancy term for objective, when the will/persons are always subjective that is the very definition of the word and activity to have love, likes, dislikes and hates.
What Jesus or Yahwe/God in the bible for example likes, loves or hates is his _own subjective_ and therfor ignorable nonsense. Especially when you do not even believe in the bible.
A good example is that God liked the smell of sacrificed animals and not of sacrificed fruits. (Cain vs. Abel)
Moral systems in human society root in acknowledgement and weighting of subjective wants towards *eachother* invidiual vs. indiviudal and Group vs. Group.
So the most honest definition of the term moral is actually: "How to see yourself humble and meek and on the same level as other people without denial of yourself - when it comes to The teaching how to behave and also how you compromise with other (real existing) individuals."
This is even true for animal rights and why sacrificing animals to a non existing God for example is immoral from an animal rights standpoint.
The subjectivity of a dog at least exists - and can be weighted and compared to others.
The subjectivity of God is not even existing. Because it is a myth.
God believers jump therfor around because the very base of their existence is shown as myth and actually a true worthless subjective opinion below the wish of a dog to get a nice snack. Because it is not real.
To deny this they jump around plead to salvation (subjective for humans to be saved to heaven) or threaten people with damnation (subjective for humans to be doomed in hell)
But God believers do not want to face this prime problem that "God's will" exists only in their heads, because they like to push their own opinions and likes _undoubtable and uncompromizable_ towards others to gulp it don't. That is why atheists are the actual threat for this. It continously reminds that this is only in their heads and that they are not loved by any "Jesus", but as worthless as everyone else. Unescapble doomed to compromize and performing something that is called _democracy_ .
no objective morality, no morality.
+HELENO HENZO
That is why religious subjective God is no morality. We know that. Why do you repeat yourself?
HELENO HENZO The absurdity of your thought process knows no bounds.
are u a false atheist, u r here judging, as atheist u cant judge, u have no standard to do so and u cant judge if we weren't created that means we are dont see the same things, looks like u claim to be atheist, but u r living as theist. maybe u should be quiet if u r an atheist,
Any system of morality that's worth using needs a "foundation" in the sense that it has to be tied to some kind of real life consequences, because if it isn't, then nobody has any reason to care about what is moral or immoral.
Wow! Did he ever choose a bad example with slavery! LOL!
good example, for the fact bible teaches to love others like yourself, that means u cnat own people
HELENO HENZO
Which contradicts most of the verses in the Bible .
I mean, a lot of Christians will say that slavery in the Bible was nicer and all-around more fair than regular, well-documented slavery... as if that somehow made Biblical slavery okay.
I have no foundation for objective morality because I don't believe in objective morality.
How was that supposed to demonstrate anything again?
no objective morality no morality. say there is other morality beside objective morality is saying a murder, homo, pedo... can decide if their action is moral or not w/o objective source which only come from a source above humans
"no objective morality no morality"
wrong.
"say there is other morality beside objective morality"
is not the same as saying "there is no objective morality".
there could also be NO morality. or every subjective morality could be the same.
(i am not saying that is the case, just that it would be possible)
"is saying a murder, homo, pedo... can decide if their action is moral or not w/o objective source which only come from a source above humans"
1. so what?
2. how is god an "objective source"?
does he know what is objectively moral true because he knows everything?
or do you just assume that it is moraly true because he says it is morally true?
the latter would only mean that your opinion equals his opinion, not that this opinion is objectively true.
and the first would mean that god has nothing to do with whether or not objective morality exists but that he only has to do with whether or not we get to know about these morals.
jacob, if u can say murder is right and i can say murder is wrong, and there is no objective source to judge us, murder is right and wrong, that means there is no right and wrong w/o objective morality
"there is no objective source to judge us, murder is right and wrong, that means there is no right and wrong"
that means it is both right and wrong, idiot. that is called relativism.
and btw. it is not my position.
and btw. answer my questions.
HELENO And the population that says that murder is right would die out thanks to natural selection. We don't need objective morality to make a judgement on what is right or wrong. Natural selection does a pretty good job at that. It's why we exist in the first place. Because our conscience gives us an advantage over many animal species.
*THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY*
HELENO HENZO and?
Your opinion is wrong, you do know you are the apologist in the video? Please watch it again and refute TMM's rebuttals to you, to refute? That is why you are here?
You are confusing objective morality with universal morality. Morality does not have to be objective for it to be universal.
Also, "you can't judge homo"? Grow up.
@Nick
what's the difference between objective morality and universal morality? (legit question)
By "universal" I just mean "the same for everyone". Many people assume that if morality is not objective then it is just a matter of opinion (above that guy says: w/o objective morality it is your opinion against mine). This is false, though, because the foundation of morality can be something shared by all agents necessarily, in which case it is subjective and universal. In the case of religious folk, it is also false by their own lights: if morality is set by God for everyone, then morality is subjective and universal.
I once had a conversation with a Catholic. I was making a statement, telling it is immoral from Abraham, an estimated 80 year old, to have a child with a very young woman, Hagar. The only thing, I got as a response was "How can you judge Abraham?! Your morals are subjective and society and time always changes it."
If I remember my U.S. Civil War history, there were many ministers in the Antebellum south that were quite content to give the OK for slavery.
If God's morality is absolute and unchanging I hope you don't eat shellfish or wear clothing made from blended fabric.
I have morality because I am not a freaking sociopath. Hiding behind the "objective morality" displayed in the bible is what not only the inquisition did, but also the witch-hunters and the slave-owners..
"If nobody believes that it is objectively wrong, then the fact that it is objectively wrong is of no consequence whatsoever"
Incorrect TMM. For example if nobody believes 2+2=4 when it factually does there are in fact dire consequences to that. The same holds true if there is an objective basis for morality. If there is an objective basis for morality, then ignoring that reality will result in actual negative consequences. To claim otherwise is itself a form of magical thinking.
Note that I am not getting into if there is an objective basis for morality here, I am stating that your claim there would be no consequences to ignoring objective reality is silly.
Comments disabled. What a shock.
The last argument was a total fatality. Nice TMM
Morals are simply any action or behaviour that I would appreciate if I were on the receiving end ..... do I like it when people steal from me? No, so I won't do it to others.
Another gem!
Anyone else get completely distracted by the Gumby toy on the book shelf.
What is the foundation for liking your favourite colour?
Sure, it's definitely worth questioning your positions and your reasoning -- frequently -- but it's all arbitrary.
Simple: there is no basis in reality to claim that morals are "objective". Morality is how we, individually, feel about something. When enough people feel the same way about something, that becomes "societal morality". It's really not nearly as complicated as theists try to make it out to be. They _HAVE_ to believe in an objective morality" because that then gives them a basis to claim that there must be a "morality giver" (which would still make it subjective because it would be based on how GAWD feels about something).
Actually, slavery proves the opposite to what he says. "God's unchanging word" says that it's OK to own slaves under certain conditions -- relatively lenient ones (for the slaves) if the slaves are from your own nation, very harsh ones (for the slaves) if theyr'e not. But society changed its mind about slavery, and therefore this Christian believes -- *despite* "God's unchanging word, not because of it -- that slavery is wrong.
Morality IS subjective but my foundations are : self interest ( survival ) , empathy and/or sympathy .
whos subjective morality? are u saying a murder can decide if murdering is moral or a rapist can say rape is moral and there is no objective source to show it is immoral? that is exactly what u r saying: rape, murdering... are moral, because each person decide what is right and wrong.
u said u r beyond faith but looks u still using christianity. for atheists there is no such thing as logic, reason, morality... or whos morality, reason...?_Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it_
morality is for us, it comes from God, we are talking about humans, God is above humans, which makes anything he does for us, objective. TMM is dumb, he doesnt realize simple coherence statements he makes, he even doesnt know morality isnt what he thinks is right and wrong, but how God wants humans to live. morality fromm God is subjective if God belongs to the same group as humans
HELENO HENZO "objective" is not defined as "independent of any human" but as "independent of any subject" - since god is a subject, it is SUBJECTIVE.
you cannot change definitions of words in order to make your wrong opinion right.
HELENO HENZO
Proverb 22:6 means indoctrination .
And you Guys don't have the true way .
It doesn't matter if it has a foundation. No one is bound by someone else's morality.
I find the moral argument to be one of the least convincing arguments for God's existence. I don't know why so many apologists think it's a slam-dunk.
because they have zero knowledge about argumentation... it is common knowledge that x leading to y, while y is something we wouldn´t WANT to be true, says absolutely nothing about whether or not x is true.
His last statement is so disingenuous. We don't say that slavery is only wrong because society says so at the time. We say that slavery has always been wrong specifically because we empathise with the slaves. We put ourselves in the place of the slaves and we know that we would not want to be there so we say that slavery is wrong. That is the very definition of empathy so for him to claim that our position hardly shows empathy demonstrates that he is either a lying sack of shit or a psychopath.
as they used to say, PWNED!
Christianity at its inception didn't come out against slavery because if it had, the Romans would have never adopted it as their state religion, and Christianity would still be a minor religion. During the lead up to the Civil war, many preachers, both North and South, but mostly South, preached the righteousness of slavery,
0:15 I think the reason they believe morality needs a foundation is so that we can have an easier time justifying morality and solving conflicts.
"Comments Disabled" on the target video--but appropriate ratings can still be made...
Because odds are, everyone believes in rightful consequence... for example if someone murdered your family no one (except for perhaps the person at fault) would say the rightful consequence is to provide the murderer with praise instead of punishment...
Slight disagreement TMM. I define specific goals for a moral system, "well being with priority of personal authority". That is what I mean when I say moral. From there in my moral system is objective because actions are either allined with that goal, against it or neutral. And it's not contingent on opinion. This way, by measuring my own biases against this standard it helps me discover my own biases and overcome them. For example, I was raised to be against homosexuality. Because of that my conscience told me that being gay was wrong. But argumentation and new information changed that biased view. Having an objective standard to follow helps inform my conscience beyond unthinking emotional reaction.
I get what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree that that is the moral system that societies work by. The problem is, I don't think that you can necessarily even say that morals are objective with regards to a defined standard because how people judge actions to affect their well-being and that of others differs too. All you can really say is that your morals are objective in relation to your standard, because everyone will have a slightly different standard.
*The problem with objective morality is that there is no objective way to show that it even exists.*
People who just _imagine_ that objective morality exists have no way to show that what they imagine exists in the real world anyway.
And imagination is subjective, not objective
And just because the writers of some ancient texts wrote down what they imagined to be true _still_ doesn't make it real. Calling a collection of ancient texts "The Bible" can't make the imagined things in the text suddenly real. They are _still_ just writings about people's subjective imagination.
If anyone thinks that they can make a reasonable case that what they imagine is objective morality is actually _real,_ I would love to hear their argument.
Comments disabled on the original video. Funny how someome with his dilusional beliefs cant stand up to severely basic scrutiny
Even if a religion has a foundation i.e. objective morals then what use are they to the religious when they are not accessible to the religious? A small point the religious conveniently overlook.
I have a hypothetical question for all those god botherers that buy into this moral argument for god:
If god suddenly stopped existing, or otherwise put an end to objective morality, how would that affect our lives? What difference would it make? Would we even notice a difference?
Tell’em!
Is it not possible to equate "god inventing morality" as "humans inventing a ruleset for a boardgame" - the ruleset wouldn't be subjective, even if they stem from subjects. They are what they are. Objective fact.
Hmm, further thinking about it -- originally i was going to have a quip about "how would your conscience be more valid than others" for TMM, but then i realize that the preacher is doing something else. Conscience would be perfectly fine with an Individual level of morality as an explanation for our actions and reactions -- yes we have a foundation for our moral.
But then the "objective" part, as a society, we need to have a standard above our own, in which our conscience is subjective and wouldn't cut it. However i don't see why we have to shoehorn their deity into this. I'd rather go with consequentionalism.
If an objective standard suddenly says that Slavery is right again,, or murder is right, -- under the pretense that with great deliberation that we deem it to be so -- then yes, slavery is right, unfortunately. Such as if we have to enslave people in such a way that it has a lot of net benefits over net disadvantages.
That's how it works. We are able to improve ourselves by being open to change and correction, and by being at risk of devolution does not make that any less valid.
It sounds like he (preacher) just doesn't like it, therefore it's not right.
If god never changes his mind then slavery is still okey-dokey.
Fucking hell, I can't get away from the slavery debate these days.
Slavery was objectively wrong, even when God was in favour of Hebrew slavery.
i don´t see why an atheist cannot believe in objective morality.
theism just means "god exists".
how does this lead to "objective morality exists"?
the arguments for objective morality are either based on the premise that a god exists or they aren´t.
if they aren´t, they can be used by an atheist just as well as by a theist.
if they are, then they are based on a premise of which i think that this premise is wrong.
so either way, my view is that the reasons (arguments) for believing in objective morality of atheists and theists are equally as valid or invalid.
I think I still watch your videos because I find it interesting when I disagree with both the religitard and the fellow atheist criticizing him.
There's another part of this question that isn't getting asked: You ask "Why does morality need a foundation", I ask "Is morality itself not the foundation?"
To ask me what my morality is founded upon is like asking me the foundation upon which the Earth sits (flattards get out). Both are the foundation upon which other man-made things sit. My morality is the foundation for my actions and does not itself require a foundation, just like the earth is the foundation upon which we build things and does not itself require a foundation.
I still say you should end every video with a mic drop.
Even if I would grant that guy that his deity is somehow objective, then it still would not follow that the morals it dictates are also objective, especially since the bible makes it clear that what is considered moral changes throughout that book, which means that those morals taught there are not absolute but behave exactly like the morals of changing societies, almost as if deities have nothing to do with it. Wonder why that is? ;)
Why? Why would he use slavery, of all things, as an example? That's the _easiest_ thing for a non-believer to point at as a clear example of God's subjective morality.
Is he reading a PragerU transcript?..
Never go to this channel's videos. The comments are always disabled.
This is simply yet another case of trying to prove god with wishful thinking. They prey on people who WANT morality to be objective and say that it can't be without god so that those people will delude themselves into believing in god so that they can feel comfortable "knowing" that the objective morality they want actually is. The continual talk about objective morality is a perfect demonstration of the fact that theists are either stupid or outright liars. Either they don't know what "objective" means or they don't care that they are making outright contradictory statements. If you say "you can't have X without Y" then you are inherently stating that X is subject to Y, i.e. X is subjective. I believe that these people are smart enough to understand that. I believe that they are liars.
One word about their so-called foundation. ALABAMA
Can anyone name one objective morality that is specifically mentioned in the Bible?
Don't cook a baby sheep on it's mother's milk.
I'd like to know how he can be certain opposition to slavery is an objective moral. Even if it were in the Bible, he'd then need to prove the Bible is a means of knowing objective morality. But the Bible doesn't make it clear slavery is objectively wrong. So how does he know? Seems to me, this guy chooses his own morality like the rest of us, except he just egotistically adds that his is based on objective fact. That strikes me as far more dangerous. That kind of certainty and claim of understanding God is what makes people believe their horrible actions are justified.
Psst! Your tumblr link description lost its "l."
What's up with these guys and slavery? Why do they bring up slavery so often (right after murder and rape) as an example of a wrong/immoral thing?
Show me one, just one, passage in the Bible, that says that slavery is always (aka. objectively) wrong.
Before I'll even attempt to establish a "moral foundation for objective morality" then I'll need to see an example of an "objective moral value", so far it's at exactly the same level as the evidence that a god actually exists (pssst ... that's zero for those who don't internet).
And Christians ... stop trying to use slavery as an example of objective morality since your god codifies and condones it. In fact he's the one who apparently told his people that it's OK to take slaves (as long as they weren't Hebrews ... only Yahweh can deliver his people into slavery over and over again).
.
So ... let the excuses begin!
Christian morality is not objective by their own definition because it is based on their interpretations of what Yahweh said in either the New or Old Testament of their Bible. As we have seen repeatedly they have reinterpreted those words to mean one moral standard or another. They used it to justify slavery for centuries and now use it to criticize slavery. They used the Bible to morally justify Jim Crow laws and some still do so. Even today they have used it to justify the actions of a Republican running for political office who has been accused by multiple women of sexual improprieties towards young women.
Morality is inherently subjective and always has been. The fact that most humans agree that murder, rape, and cannibalism are wrong has nothing to do with some sky pixie telling us. It has to do with the negative social effects on a society in general.
Where did god get his morality if it has to be foundational?
God created morality to give to humans
Except of course, according to the apologist in this video, he CANNOT have authored morality... It has to be foundational and imparted. So god would've had to have had it given to him... It's the same dead-end argument as "nothing happens without a cause, the universe happened, so the universe has a cause: god!" So what's god's cause?
nothing is given to God, everything is. u r putting God in the same dimension as ours, God is from other dimension, the opposite.
HELENO HENZO - That is a logical fallacy called "special pleading"
You contradicted yourself at 1:10-1:23. Lol wtf
JW Money Who and what?
God's unchanging... WwwTF?! How many slaves were taken in the name of/at God's command in the OT alone? I'd like this guy to explain why devout Christians (as they considered themselves) took and bought slaves right into the 19th century? And those around now who still do, but I'm not sure how much religion has to do with modern slavery. It took the Enlightenment for the start of the idea that slavery was wrong. And that was the time that religion started to really be questioned. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Well slavery isn’t wrong according to the bible it say it’s wrong to lie he’s done that not very strong foundation
if u can say murder is right and i can say murder is wrong, and if there is no objective source to judge us, murder is right and wrong, that means there is no right and wrong w/o objective morality
So god is objective therefore god condones slavery making slavery good.
But there is an objective source to judge us : our shared preferences. You, like me and like every living human, prefer life over death, pleasure over pain, health over sickness and freedom over captivity. That's the foundation. It is subjective (by humans for human), but it is universal which means it can be applied objectively.
morality is what God determines, like he said to love others like yourself, that means u cant own people, unless u want to be owned
every human being prefer life over death? never heard about suicide. suicide bombers, pro choice people....? u r literally saying people who dont mind being killed, killing for them is moral.
No, not at all. People who choose suicide do prefer life over death (in general) but there desire for pleasure (lack of pain) over pain "overrides" their "default". Same for suicide bombers, their preference for "promised eternal pleasure" over "earthly pain" overrides their default.
Can you name me any person that prefers death over life without any of the other 3 preferences being compromized?
And pro choice people don't prefer death over life.
Wow, did you see this RUclips channel's main website? Raising money to "engage with cultures hostile to Christ." Sounds provocative to mutually exclusive religious cultures.
Another 'preacher' who demonstrably has not read his Bible.
By objective they mean independent of human whims and subjective judgements not independent of everything, and by subjective they mean based on human whims and judgements, so u are making a bit of a strawman and also objective moral values are not based what God says arbitrarily as if God is gonna say something different next time, they are based on his commandments which flows from his unchanging divine nature, SO @ATHIESTS (THOSE WHO DO) STOP MAKING STRAWMANS AND THEN CELEBRATING WHEN U REFUTE THEM
Yahweh has definitely said contradictory things and changed his mind. Yahweh. Is. A. Subject. Period.
@@DarkAdonisVyers u racist mf, don't assume my religion I don't believe in Yahweh
Good grief! Slavery is the WORST ground on which to stake a Biblical claim to morality. The Bible is pro-slavery. It tells you where to buy slaves and how much you are allowed to beat them. It makes distinctions between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves and between male and female slaves. It's quite specific about how to conduct your slavery activities.
Slavery was always wrong. So the Bible was and is still wrong and therefore Christianity is wrong. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
simple, who determine what is right and wrong?
"simple, ...question..."
... ? are you trying to tell me something?
or interested in an answer?
btw. how do you define "determine" in this context?
faith, that means u r living like theists, imposing on others
stop writing stuff if you aren´t answering any questions, fucking troll.
How does faith determine what is right and wrong? Also, faith is a who?
morality does. not a subject.
Slavery is not objectively wrong.
for atheists anything is just nature, no right and no wrong. atheists cant even say the word wrong or right, but it is nature
"nature" doesn´t have anyting to do with this.
and what makes you think there is no way for an atheist to argue for objective morality?
i could have the following premises:
1. i simply happen to have knowledge about the unvierse which i gained by meditation or some other bullshit that is equally as believable as any argument based on theistic believes
2. this knowledge is unquestionable
3. this knowledge includes statements about objective morality, the fact that it exists and its qualities.
those premises work equally as good as any theistic premises that are supposed to prove objective morality.
heck, as an atheist, i could also just have the OPINION that objective morality exists. because there is no rule that says "you cannot believe in x without having GOOD arguments for it."
Heleno (or was that HELENO so your poor eyesight can read it better - blame your god for that) - are you still around? I thought you were raptured away to Kolob or something. Good to see you're still as gullible and ignorant as always. Please: entertain us some more with your funny straw-man claims.
faith, if an atheist judges he is false, he is living like theists
for atheists no right and wrong but nature taking its course. so many false atheists here
Well mortally needs a foundation because if it doesn't then its just irrational and completely ridiculous and can lead to the justification of horrendous act. This is lazy philosophy. There are atheistics moralities. That have rational grounding. Come on now
w/o God it is your opinion against mine. an atheist should be against govt. who gave them rights to impose their views on u, jail u...?
Well no, it can also be the majority opinion, or any of those other versions of ethics we've seen since the classical foundationalism you seem to push.
i don´t see why an atheist cannot believe in objective morality.
theism just means "god exists".
how does this lead to "objective morality exists"?
the arguments for objective morality are either based on the premise that a god exists or they aren´t.
if they aren´t, they can be used by an atheist just as well as by a theist.
if they are, then they are based on a premise of which i think that this premise is wrong.
so either way, my view is that the reasons (arguments) for believing in objective morality of atheists and theists are equally as valid or invalid.
majority? that means u r living like theists, imposing
if u believe in morality, u r a false atheist, no such thing as universalism w/o us being created. if we werent created, dont expect us to see the same things,
faith, how can u be as stupid as TMM to not realized what he said was stupid, he is putting God in the same group as humans to say God's morality is subjective. if God makes morality for him it is subjective, but morality is for other group (humans), making God's morality objective