Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. - JM
For the second time - if you bothered to read the OP you will see my argument does not depend on scripture.
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.
Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. - JM
For the second time - if you bothered to read the OP you will see my argument does not depend on scripture.
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.
Sam Harris' metaphor for objective morality is the "Moral Landscape" where higher peaks represent better states of well-being and vice-versa.
He asks us to imagine the deepest possible valley that represents the worst possible state for the maximum number of conscious creatures. Morality is about moving away from that position. There will be numerous places in the landscape of equal height just as there are equally moral positions and states of well-being.
In this landscape there is no need to know how high the highest possible peak is: no absolute state of moral perfection. Just as we cannot define perfect human health but we can take steps to objectively improve our health relative the the worse possible state - nothing is more unhealthy than a corpse.
I found it to be useful metaphor. His book is well worth your time. Substituting "god says...." for difficult answers is not satisfying.
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 have no interest in Catholic dogma and superstition. We have no need of it. Objective secular morality is far superior.
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.
It's late but just one simple example - a fertilised egg might split days later and become two or more people. Where and when did the extra souls come from?
Most zygotes fail before implantation - where did all those souls go and why?
Sometimes two fertilised eggs will fuse creating a chimera. The person will develop normally. How many souls do they have? etc etc etc.
Objective facts expose Catholic dogma and ethical values as superstitious bollocks
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.
Catholics hold that life is sacred from conception. How do you disprove that objectively?
A detailed study of embryology shows conclusively that a new unique person does not exist the moment a sperm penetrates an egg. These objective facts - as opposed to RC dogma - should be part of the data on which we base a decision regarding stem cell research.
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.
Our minds simply have in-built absolute values of morality. - JM
No they don't. We have evolved a toolkit of moral instincts. There are no absolute moral values. My reasons for saying so are spelled out in the OP which you have so far totally ignored.
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.
Can you give an example of a difficult moral question (as in a question that has significant support on either side) that can be settled objectively without ultimate reference to authority, whether that be God or prevailing public opinion? - SBF
Depends what you mean by settled.
The typical religious objections to stem cell research can be answered using objective facts but it will never satisfy a superstitious Catholic.
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..