one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John_Mann you constantly obsess with the minutiae of any analogy I use and totally ignore the actual arguments in the OP. Why? I suspect you did nothing but speed-read the OP and then wade in with the usual apologetics about morality.
There is no such thing as absolute moral standards. However we can discover moral facts to inform our decisions. Morality is how we worry about the way our actions affect the well-being of conscious creatures.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Another way to address this is to think of "absolute morality" as a top-down process.
We start with a perfect model of absolute perfect goodness - god - and everything else is measured in comparison to that. It is reminiscent of Platonic Essentialism where every triangle you have ever seen is an imperfect copy of the ideal triangle hanging somewhere in abstract space. The Platonic geometer might fear that if his essential triangle did not in fact exist he could never assess triangles in the real world - just as the theist fears that without god we can never judge anything to be good or evil
Both are wrong.
We can faithfully produce triangles, or any other shape, using simple geometric principles without reference to Platonic ideals. And we can make objective moral judgements by applying the tools our evolved minds possess to reason on the effects of our actions.
not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.
fiction allows our imagination to be free.
i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.
The only way absolute moral standards could exist is if there exists an absolute moral standard creator - Vander
Absolute moral standards do not exist..
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Let me try once more. In the op I argue from 3 perspectives that absolute morality is a delusion. Then I argue that without god as a perfect model our moral decisions do not reduce to subjective opinions.
morality is nothing more than how we worry about the way our actions affect the well being of conscious beings. As such there are many objective facts on which to base our decisions.
Similarly there is no such thing as an absolute perfect model of health. Exactly how strong fast flexible is a perfect 58 year old man exactly? What is the absolute standard for his perfect pulse blood pressure BMI blood count etc etc? The absence of an absolute standard does not stymie doctors from making objective judgements based on objective facts.
It is objectively true that treating women as possessions and sex slaves of men does not promote the well being of the greatest number of people. We do not need an absolute model of perfect morality to make that judgement. We can base it on objective facts.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
I'm not wasting time with petty semantic bickering.
Lots of substantial points in the OP if you are sincere about having a conversation on this topic.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Yes. Objective facts leading to objective judgements with no absolute standard of perfection involved.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
How can something be objective without some absolute as reference? - John_Mann
There is no such thing as a perfect or absolute standard of physical health. Despite this we constantly make objective statements about physical well-being.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Why evolution would bring so much waste in a particular unreal idea? - John_Mann
John please try to stick to the topic of the OP.
The evolutionary roots of belief in gods has been thoroughly covered in the forum many times.
This thread is about the failure of the argument for god from morality.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Interesting almost every (neo) atheist arguments always deals with the Sola Scriptura approach. Atheists quote Bible just like the Protestants - John_Mann
If you bothered to read the OP you will notice that I argue from nature and human nature.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John_Mann it's almost as if you commented without having first read the OP. You wouldn't do that would you?
If I'm wrong about that then it's puzzling why you are attacking a position that is the exact opposite of the one I presented.
The point of my OP is to present evidence that "absolute morality" is a myth invented by theists in pursuit of moral certainty.
Rejecting absolute morality does not reduce our moral decisions to subjective personal preferences. Secular morals are based on objective facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
You have already been corrected about your misguided opinions regarding ethology. You really need to get up to speed about that.
Around half of our genes are expressed in our brains. We have evolved complex means of living in social groups including a faculty for disgust, jealousy, reciprocity, anger, revenge and guilt. Survival is not just about being big and mean. In our species being "fit" involves an advanced ability to cooperate. This requires a brain that feels empathy, that can see the world through the eyes of another. We know from brain scans and from individuals who have suffered injury exactly what parts of the brain are involved in these functions.
You have yet to address the OP. Your work is all ahead of you.
