Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8945 total)
415 online now:
Faith, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 411 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Happy Birthday: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,633 Year: 20,669/19,786 Month: 1,066/2,023 Week: 17/557 Day: 17/101 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs.
Gospel Preacher
Member
Posts: 549
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 1 of 71 (865111)
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong. All they can do is appeal to their own feelings, but without an absolute standard their feelings don't matter, because only an absolute standard can say that the feelings of humans beings ought to matter to every other human being. When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on?

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2019 12:24 AM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2019 12:25 AM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2019 7:57 AM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 10-21-2019 12:01 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 10-21-2019 1:14 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 10-21-2019 4:41 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 10-23-2019 1:22 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 71 (865113)
10-20-2019 9:27 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 3 of 71 (865118)
10-21-2019 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


In the same way that since there is no absolute standard of language, nobody can complain of misuse ? You can use any word to mean anything you want and nobody can complain ?

And if you do have a standard of morality that can be shown to be absolute, let’s see it. Because if you don’t all you are doing is denying that there is any valid basis for complaining about wrongs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5858
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 4 of 71 (865119)
10-21-2019 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong. All they can do is appeal to their own feelings, but without an absolute standard their feelings don't matter, because only an absolute standard can say that the feelings of humans beings ought to matter to every other human being. When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on?

How would you set about proving which morals are based on absolutes and which are based on fallible human feewings?

Murder (unlawful killing) is pretty unanimously deemed as immoral. Probably the closest thing you're going to ever get to in terms of absolute morality. Where things get tricky is determining what constitutes murder. One man's murder is another man's righteous execution.

So even with moral absolutes nothing gets resolved. If morality was so obviously absolute then no one would ever violate them now would they?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2019 3:22 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 7129
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 5 of 71 (865125)
10-21-2019 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2019 12:25 AM


There obviously is no moral absolute so whatever point you're trying to make is moot. But if you think there is, let's have a look at an example.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2019 12:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 6 of 71 (865136)
10-21-2019 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller magic act had the perfect answer to your problem, but I cannot find it readily on YouTube. He once described the following.

Basically, religionists seem to love to present a scenario in which an atheist family suffers a home invasion attack where the atheist male head of the family is tied up and has to suffer seeing each and every member of his family being extremely brutally mistreated and then most brutally murdered in front of his eyes and at every single unimaginable act being told that since he is an atheist then there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what he is witnessing.

Well FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PERVERTED PIECE OF SHIT!!!!

The point that Penn Jillette was making is that there are things that are obviously wrong, such as harming other people that everybody would agree was wrong to do regardless of any ****** god ideas and the like.

So then your entire attempt at a point to make is just ... nothing.

Edited by dwise1, : Late at night, hit wrong button and posted prematurely


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6826
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 7 of 71 (865139)
10-21-2019 8:43 AM


Everyone else was much more polite in responding to this entitled, (probably) white, christian. The argument is crap. I will be very surprised if the poster attempts an actual defense of the argument.

That the poster has posted under an multitude of ID's shows me that I really shouldn't waste much time with the posts. I understand occasional changing of ID's but a constant change seems to me to be a bit dishonest. A lack of faith in ones own arguments.

Destroy away folks. I may just get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy this one.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


jar
Member
Posts: 31646
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 71 (865140)
10-21-2019 9:08 AM


Come on Guido; at least try to make an intelligent argument.

Of course there is no need to appeal to any absolute moral standard regardless of whether someone is an atheist or theist. That's as completely silly as trying to argue there is some absolute moral standard in the Bible.

Really kid, you can do much better than this absurdity.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

ringo
Member
Posts: 17538
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 9 of 71 (865157)
10-21-2019 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


Gospel Preacher writes:

If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong.


We can appeal to societal standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6812
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


(3)
Message 10 of 71 (865158)
10-21-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on?

How does it work between two people who believe in different "absolute standards"? I bet they have no better basis for convincing the other person to agree with their version of "right" and "wrong" than people who accept the subjectivity of morality.

Come to think of it, how do people who believe in an absolute morality figure out what those standards are and how to apply them to difficult real life situations? I bet it comes back down to "feelings".


Hard as it is to fathom, Mr President, just because you’re the leader of the free world doesn’t entitle you to a free pass. Unfortunately, just a free press. -- Neil Cavuto

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 10-21-2019 1:57 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

GDR
Member
Posts: 5003
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 11 of 71 (865159)
10-21-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
10-21-2019 1:14 PM


Chiroptera writes:

How does it work between two people who believe in different "absolute standards"? I bet they have no better basis for convincing the other person to agree with their version of "right" and "wrong" than people who accept the subjectivity of morality.

Come to think of it, how do people who believe in an absolute morality figure out what those standards are and how to apply them to difficult real life situations? I bet it comes back down to "feelings".


The problem is that the argument seems to be about our response to "real life situations", and I agree that there is no absolute moral response to our actions in response to situations. It might be different for different people in different times and cultures.

If our real life situations require any kind of moral response, the moral decision should simply be based on it whether it is loving or unloving. Any absolute standard is simply about whether the response is loving, lovingly neutral or unloving.

I suggest that this standard is something that can be part of a Christian belief as well as for anyone of any religious faith or of no religious faith.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 10-21-2019 1:14 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 10-21-2019 3:49 PM GDR has responded
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2019 4:20 PM GDR has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31646
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 12 of 71 (865160)
10-21-2019 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by GDR
10-21-2019 1:57 PM


GDR writes:

Any absolute standard is simply about whether the response is loving, lovingly neutral or unloving.

But again that is simply far too subjective; there is no standard based on loving. The Inquisitors loved their victims enough to torture then until the victims reached a state of grace where they recanted their transgressions and so were saved and died.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 10-21-2019 1:57 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 10-21-2019 8:21 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Tangle
Member
Posts: 7129
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 13 of 71 (865167)
10-21-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by GDR
10-21-2019 1:57 PM


Benefit or harm. That's it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 10-21-2019 1:57 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 10-21-2019 8:24 PM Tangle has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4740
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 14 of 71 (865174)
10-21-2019 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


We Decide - Not You
Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong.

Yeah, we do. The whole body of law exists just for this purpose. And that body of law is determined by the secular society by experiencing, discussing, deciding and changing what “morality” is today.

Relative morality has been, is, and will always be alive and well in humanity. Your absolutes, which you cannot follow even within/among your own cults, was rejected many millennia ago.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-21-2019 4:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13193
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 71 (865176)
10-21-2019 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AZPaul3
10-21-2019 4:41 PM


Re: We Decide - Not You
Good point. Of course the same could be said for belief. Despite lack of evidence, (the only basic sound argument) Belief is determined by a body of society (currently still the majority) by experiencing, discussing, deciding, and slowly changing what belief is today.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 10-21-2019 4:41 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 10-21-2019 4:54 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 18 by AZPaul3, posted 10-21-2019 5:01 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019