Posts by cofty

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

That is so true Konceptual99. It well illustrates why we need an objective basis for our moral decisions.

Often it is very difficult. I suspect that is why people are often happy to settle for "god says.... the end".

It is infantalising - deliberately so. Jesus said that christians must become like little children, The epistles frequently address its readers in those terms.

It's past time to outgrow simplistic answers to moral questions. It belongs to the infancy of our species. Science has a lot to offer in terms of objective facts that we ought to take into consideration when making moral decisions. Answers based on evidence-free dogma do not deserve a hearing unless they can be reworked in terms of real consequences. Making god sad doesn't count.

John - thanks for your response. I will respond shorty.

5

pre historic man..

by zeb in

a poster had a line about early man before humans... i recall a doco sorry cant remember details where neanderthal graves were found in spain.

these graves had been laid down with artefacts' and care by the way the deceased were positioned.

now the finders took material and from the graves and come up with dna.

cofty

Homo neanderthal cared for their aged and their sick and buried their dead with ritual.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

I will be delighted to answer the question in detail later this evening. I look forward to it.

You agreed that morality is about how our actions effect the well being of conscious beings. You advocate a top-down model based on an absolute standard. I propose a bottom- up method based on objective evidence.

If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions.

This is your opportunity to explain how this is so.

Please note, I don't accept that our differences are simply alternative opinions. There is a true and false answer. Let's see if we can get there.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

Thank you for those resources WOY.

I am currently reading The Blank Slate by Pinker where he surveys a lot of that evidence.

John you are still ignoring my question. How is your "top down" system of morality based on the character of a perfectly good god better than my "bottom up" morality?

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

Sorry - "Well being".

Stupid phone!

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

That's progress. Let's go back to my question now if we may. In what way is theistic morality better than based rationally on the we being of conscious creatures?

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

Until you see the evidence that "jungle rule" and "moral rule" can be the same thing you will continue to struggle with this. Your problem is a basic misunderstanding of evolution.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

Evolution explains very well why we should display empathy and cooperation. It is the winning strategy if we wish to benefit from living in successful social groups.

We are all descended from many generations of ancestors who had the capacity for what we now call morality or ethics. Rudimentary versions of these capcities can be found in other social species.

Survival of the fittest in our case includes moral intelligence. We all understand what contributes to our own well being and how that can be best achieved in cooperation with others.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

John your one-word dismissal of many of my most important arguments is not conducive to a useful conversation.

Let's try a different approach. My contention is that moral decisions can best be determined by wrestling with their likely effects of conscious creatures.

You insist that there is a greater source of moral authority grounded in the nature of a perfectly good god.

How does your position add anything helpful to my position? How is it better, or more useful, or more ethical?

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

But can't it be argued that none of these moralities exist in the absence of a God? Or that all morality in the absence of God is subjective? - Cold Steel

No it can't for the reasons I laid out in some detail in my OP.

The problem is, there has to be standards to determine morality.

No there doesn't as I have explained at length. Our actions can be measured against the effects they have on the well being of conscious creatures.

If you want to argue that homosexual sex is morally wrong you have to provide objective reasons that don't amount to "god says...."

Who says abortion is excluded from discussions about objective morality? I think this a perfect example of an issue where facts are essential to reaching a reasonable decision. However as soon as you throw in evidence-free assertions about souls you exclude yourself from rational debate.

Your assertion regarding pedophilia is groundless fear-mongering. The objective facts surrounding sexualisation of children is the strongest protection we have.

Secular Nazism and communism murdered many more

Nazism was a pseudo-christian cult. Communism was profoundly anti-rational and opposed to objective scientific research that conflicted with its ideology.

I am advocating a rational, post-enlightenment, objective morality based on evidence about reality and human nature.