"...Except when my God is involved"

[OnePerson]

^Do you even know what you're arguing against anymore, or did you hallucinate imaginary arguments?

Honestly, I have no idea what you just posted.

This is not surprising. You are so predisposed to your ideologies that the point I just made probably sailed right over your head.

Read it again and tell me that your 'subjective morality' is based on something other than a whim.

Ok, let me teach you how to do this.

Step 1: Get a dictionary.
Step 2: Look up the word "subjective".
Step 3: Read the definition.
Step 4: Comprehend its definition.
Step 5: Now ask yourself "Does morality fit under the definition of "subjective"?"

Now was that so hard?

[BibleStudent]

Ok, let me teach you how to do this.

Step 1: Get a dictionary.
Step 2: Look up the word "subjective".
Step 3: Read the definition.
Step 4: Comprehend its definition.
Step 5: Now ask yourself "Does morality fit under the definition of "subjective"?"

Now was that so hard?

You're dodging. Please answer the question. Is your 'subjective morality' based on something other than a whim ?

[OnePerson]

Ok, let me teach you how to do this.

Step 1: Get a dictionary.
Step 2: Look up the word "subjective".
Step 3: Read the definition.
Step 4: Comprehend its definition.
Step 5: Now ask yourself "Does morality fit under the definition of "subjective"?"

Now was that so hard?

You're dodging. Please answer the question. Is your 'subjective morality' based on something other than a whim ?

Irrelevant question.  The argument is about the existence of subjective morality.

But to answer your question, moral codes are developed by culture, environment, genetics, how we were raised, etc.  Although they could change in certain situations on a whim.

[MockTurtle]

The irony is that you have thoroughly demonstrated that your argument for subjective morality is not based on knowledge or science…..

Why does a lack of a absolute morality suggest it is not based on knowledge or science?

In other words, the non-theist holds that the theist position is based on faith and other subjective assertions and not on reality and thus is irrational.

That is a bit of an overstatement.  Subjective assertions and experience are not necessarily irrational; in a sense, all experience and even mathematical analysis has a subjective component.  What makes the theist position irrational is that their method of separating fantasy from reality isn't effective.

That renders the rest of your argument a non sequitur.

[BibleStudent]

Irrelevant question.  The argument is about the existence of subjective morality.

How convenient. There have been more than a few instances in this thread where someone chimed in with nothing more than a statement about the irony of my position as respects the Nazi/Jew hypothetical. I do something similar and actually add some substance to the position by providing an argument and I'm 'off topic.' I see how this works.

But to answer your question, moral codes are developed by culture, environment, genetics, how we were raised, etc.  Although they could change in certain situations on a whim.

But they are still "opinions" as I have been reminded of on more than one occasion. Correct ? If so, and you hold firmly to your position, then how does it differ from my so-called "opinion" about God, creation, etc. Do you see the irony now ?
  

[BibleStudent]

Subjective assertions and experience are not necessarily irrational;

Are you serious? Do you know how many times I have been called "irrational" or "illogical" by the non-theist community for using subjective assertions and believing certain things by faith ? But now that we're talking about the non-theist position on morality being subjective and governed (if you will) by "opinions", now all of a sudden it isn't irrational ? Now that's some magical rationalizing right there.

[JeffPT]

Morality is just a word we use to describe our opinions regarding what is "right" or "wrong".  It does not exist as some sort of entity or concrete thing.   

You want to know what is truly ironic about your argument? The irony is that you have thoroughly demonstrated that your argument for subjective morality is not based on knowledge or science….  which you adamantly require of the theist to provide to substantiate their belief in God. In other words, the non-theist holds that the theist position is based on faith and other subjective assertions and not on reality and thus is irrational.

I can sort of understand you up to here.  You are right up to here.  I have not used science to argue for subjective morality.  I have used reason and logic, so far.  What empirical evidence could you or I present in defense of the notion that morality is or is not objective?  Let me try...

Would you, or would you not say that being charitable is part of one's moral world view?  I would say yes.  Well, guess what... Let me cut and paste this...

From... http://www.dancewithshadows.com/business/pharma/oxytocin-generosity.asp

A new study has suggested that those who give more to charity and are more kind to strangers have above-normal levels of the hormone oxytocin in the brain. This also means that tightfisted people have comparatively lower levels of oxytocin in their brain.

The study, conducted by Professor Paul Zak, a professor of economics and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California, the United States, and colleagues revealed a huge increase in generosity linked to higher levels of oxytocin.

In the study, Professor Paul Zaks team gave doses of oxytocin and a placebo to participants, who were then offered a decision on how to split a sum of money with a stranger who could accept or reject the split.

To their utter surprise, the researchers found that those given oxytocin offered 80% more money than those who were given a placebo.

INTERESTING!! What does that say?  That Oxytocin levels effect the level of one's generosity.  In other words, the more oxytocin you have in your brain, the more generous you are!  Is that not scientific proof that levels of generosity are completely subject to how much oxytocin we have? You wanted it, you got it.  We now have scientific proof that at least this aspect of morality is not from "on-high"  It is from hormone levels, and thus can vary depending upon how much or how little oxytocin we have.  I have now offered you one scientific study in support of my case that morality (at least one aspect of it) is not from any type of god.  Can you give me any science or knowledge information to back up your claim that it does? 

But it goes on to say something else relevant that I didn't know...

According to the study, there is even evidence that, in American society, the levels of oxytocin in the brain are increasing, as annual levels of charity in the United States have gone up by 187% since 1954.

Wasn't it you that said morality is in decline?  Yes, I think it was!   
 

Yet, you are doing the exact same thing in making your argument here…..for as soon as you point to science or concrete knowledge, morality becomes subjective by default. Now, that’s irony !!

This sentence I do not understand at all.  What are you talking about here?  You seem as confused as MathIsCool.  At least he admits massive confusion though. 

If science and knowledge, reason and logic all pointed directly to the idea that all morality was objective, then I would embrace that as truth.  It would be easy.  All you would have to do is prove that every single person on the planet will behave in exactly the same way when faced with every single moral decision that ever was.  That would be a great starting point in trying to prove that morality is objective.  If you can not make that claim, then how can you say that all of our morality is the same and that we got it from the same place?  You clearly can't do that.  So why not just give up this crazy fight.  Morality is subjective.  Deal with it.     

[OnePerson]

Irrelevant question.  The argument is about the existence of subjective morality.

How convenient. There have been more than a few instances in this thread where someone chimed in with nothing more than a statement about the irony of my position as respects the Nazi/Jew hypothetical. I do something similar and actually add some substance to the position by providing an argument and I'm 'off topic.' I see how this works.

Fine, we answered the question, didn't we?

But they are still "opinions" as I have been reminded of on more than one occasion. Correct ? If so, and you hold firmly to your position, then how does it differ from my so-called "opinion" about God, creation, etc. Do you see the irony now ?
  

Sorry, but you really have no idea what the positions you're arguing against are.

Opinions about God, creation, etc. and opinions about right and wrong aren't the same because those are concepts that talk about whether something actually exists in the universe.  "Right" or "Wrong", on the other hand, exist only inside our minds.

Are you serious? Do you know how many times I have been called "irrational" or "illogical" by the non-theist community for using subjective assertions and believing certain things by faith ? But now that we're talking about the non-theist position on morality being subjective and governed (if you will) by "opinions", now all of a sudden it isn't irrational ? Now that's some magical rationalizing right there.

That's probably because for you, everything has to be a solid black or white.  Your mistake is treating everything as the same.  That is why you claim that you will never lie no matter what the situation.

All you would have to do is prove that every single person on the planet will behave in exactly the same way when faced with every single moral decision that ever was.

You should rephrase this to "Every single person on the planet has the same moral code" or something, because he could just say that some people don't act morally.

[MockTurtle]

Subjective assertions and experience are not necessarily irrational;

Are you serious? Do you know how many times I have been called "irrational" or "illogical" by the non-theist community for using subjective assertions and believing certain things by faith?

The "and" in your claim makes a huge difference.  Subjective assertions that are evidence-based and potentially falsifiable may still be rational.   Take for example Euclid's postulates... as unproven statements they are subjective assertions, but they are the foundation of a model that results in reliable and verifiable predictions.  They also are subject to falsification by demonstrating a single contrary example.  This is very different from irrational belief based on faith.

[Wootah]

Subjective assertions and experience are not necessarily irrational;

Are you serious? Do you know how many times I have been called "irrational" or "illogical" by the non-theist community for using subjective assertions and believing certain things by faith?

The "and" in your claim makes a huge difference.  Subjective assertions that are evidence-based and potentially falsifiable may still be rational.   Take for example Euclid's postulates... as unproven statements they are subjective assertions, but they are the foundation of a model that results in reliable and verifiable predictions.  They also are subject to falsification by demonstrating a single contrary example.  This is very different from irrational belief based on faith.

Lol mockturtle. In essence your claim is that your shift is different from my shift and you won't acknowledge that that is the best you can do. The whole point really is to get you to acknowledge the 'and' you are so afraid of in your own reasoning.

[RaymondKHessel]

That's probably because for you, everything has to be a solid black or white.  Your mistake is treating everything as the same.   That is why you claim that you will never lie no matter what the situation.

Yes!!! EXACTLY! Thank you! Hit the nail on the head sir. That's what was confusing the hell out of me trying to understand biblestudent's conversational style and mentality... I just couldn't put my finger on it.

The bold part is the nut. Biblestudent, you seem to do that with A LOT of different things. But stuff has different values. A basic concept such as subjective morality is NOT the same as a very specific story, setting, "divine law of the universe".

Subjective assertions and experience are not necessarily irrational;

Are you serious? Do you know how many times I have been called "irrational" or "illogical" by the non-theist community for using subjective assertions and believing certain things by faith ? But now that we're talking about the non-theist position on morality being subjective and governed (if you will) by "opinions", now all of a sudden it isn't irrational ? Now that's some magical rationalizing right there.

Like THIS. A chain of experiences, REAL experiences, and the conclusions drawn by them, are not equatable to believing a specific story because you believe the person telling it is an authority figure. You're trying to pigeonhole all rational thought into one giant do or die scenario, and reality, and the human experience, just aren't set up that way.

What I'm saying is... Well...  For being a guy fluent in big-wordery and professing all kinds of "wisdom", your mind AND your brain appear to only function in binary. It's weird. And hard to follow. I'm obviously not alone in this. I think it's apparent to just about anybody that you've got one massive ego, but are you really going to suggest that all these different people, from all walks of life, all different lifestyles and countries and cultures... *WE'VE* got the problem that you're hard to understand? Are you willing in any way to concede that maybe you're not expressing yourself properly?

Sigh. i doubt it. I've totally got you pegged as a guy that never gives an inch. Learn to bend a little man. You might get further in a conversation, and spend less time trying to repeat the same things in different words.

[JeffPT]

But they are still "opinions" as I have been reminded of on more than one occasion. Correct ? If so, and you hold firmly to your position, then how does it differ from my so-called "opinion" about God, creation, etc. Do you see the irony now ?

You are entitled to your position on God.  Has anyone here tried to take away your right to believe in God?  Both of the claims about subjective morality and the existence of the Christian God deserve the same level if inquiry.  Reason and logic (and now part of it through science) will tell you that morality is subjective.  It is simply impossible (through reason and logic) to come to the conclusion that this world as it presents to us now is bound by a universal, objective morality.  It doesn't add up.  Reason, logic and evidence (or giant lack-there-of) will tell you that belief in the Christian God is bonkers.   

It's interesting, but God is also very subjective.  What you believe about your God is very different from what other people believe about their god.  Even among believers in your own faith; God is defined differently from person to person.  And even among believers, you have people who say "God wants X" and others who say "God doesn't want X".  How can you claim that morality comes from God, if you believers can't even agree what that morality is in the first place?   

While you are entitled to your belief in God, your belief is based off of faith and what I believe to be a massively misinterpreted reading of an ancient book, nothing more.  Any belief that makes faith a virtuous thing has something to hide.  It should be scrutinized more severely than any other belief.  It's like the book says... "I know this sounds crazy, and I can't prove it, but you HAVE to believe me!"  That's what faith is.  How people can fall for that is beyond me.



Listen man, I am really sorry to say this but God isn't real.  It's just not.  You are wasting time with your religious beliefs.  They are a cancer on you that you should try to get rid of.  I am not trying to convert you to any dogmatic version of atheism or to get you to buy into a time share or anything.  I am just saying there are millions of people out there who think... no KNOW, that the Christian God is not real. What you do with that information is up to you.  I just want you to think for yourself a little.  Open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.  Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  Look at both sides of the argument, because I am willing to bet that most of your life has been spent on one side, and not in exploration of the other.  Take it from someone who explored both sides.  The Christian God is fake.  100% fake.  While there may be some other version of god out there that we don't know about, the Christian version God is dead in the water. 

[RaymondKHessel]

<starts slow clap>

On FIRE I say! 

[BibleStudent]

INTERESTING!! What does that say?  That Oxytocin levels effect the level of one's generosity.  In other words, the more oxytocin you have in your brain, the more generous you are!  Is that not scientific proof that levels of generosity are completely subject to how much oxytocin we have? You wanted it, you got it.  We now have scientific proof that at least this aspect of morality is not from "on-high"  It is from hormone levels, and thus can vary depending upon how much or how little oxytocin we have.  I have now offered you one scientific study in support of my case that morality (at least one aspect of it) is not from any type of god.  Can you give me any science or knowledge information to back up your claim that it does? 

Let me see if I understand correctly. Morality is an "opinion" that can be produced by chemicals....correct?

According to the study, there is even evidence that, in American society, the levels of oxytocin in the brain are increasing, as annual levels of charity in the United States have gone up by 187% since 1954.

Wasn't it you that said morality is in decline?  Yes, I think it was!   

Yes, I did say that.....and one example of increased generosity does not prove me wrong.

 

[RaymondKHessel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122103223.html

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

"The homicide rate dropped 10 percent in the first half of this year as crime rates reached their lowest point nationally since the 1960s, the FBI reported Monday. "

This is the murder capital of the country, by the way.

Edit: Whoops. No it's not. It's NATIONALLY. Imagine my embarassment. 

[DVZ3]

Let me see if I understand correctly. Morality is an "opinion" that can be produced by chemicals....correct?

No, that morality can be "influenced" by chemicals or hormons rather.  But, not nearly as much as your brain has been "influenced" by religion over time and repetition of delusion.

[BibleStudent]

Yes!!! EXACTLY! Thank you! Hit the nail on the head sir. That's what was confusing the hell out of me trying to understand biblestudent's conversational style and mentality... I just couldn't put my finger on it.

The bold part is the nut. Biblestudent, you seem to do that with A LOT of different things. But stuff has different values. A basic concept such as subjective morality is NOT the same as a very specific story, setting, "divine law of the universe".

To all of you holding fast to the position that morality is subjective, please visit the following link.....the article was written by an atheist:

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/

[RaymondKHessel]

Yes!!! EXACTLY! Thank you! Hit the nail on the head sir. That's what was confusing the hell out of me trying to understand biblestudent's conversational style and mentality... I just couldn't put my finger on it.

The bold part is the nut. Biblestudent, you seem to do that with A LOT of different things. But stuff has different values. A basic concept such as subjective morality is NOT the same as a very specific story, setting, "divine law of the universe".

To all of you holding fast to the position that morality is subjective, please visit the following link.....the article was written by an atheist:

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/

So what if he's an atheist? He's not the pope, he's just a guy on the internet. And he certainly doesn't speak for me.

He has a point in terms of keeping a society functioning, and having the morals become laws that reinforce the morals in order to sustain  it. But I don't see where it changes the nature of the beast. Ancient Rome thought it was totally cool to pimp out 7 year old boys and hang cocks over their doors and own slaves and have prisoners kill each other for their amusement.
And this wasn't just a few radical weirdos. It was the cultural norm for a thousand years in one of the most radically advanced and powerfull empires in the history of mankind. I'd say that doesn't speak much for a hard-line stance here.

[OnePerson]

The guy in the article simply considers things that satisfy our needs as morally good.  It's still subjective morality.

[BibleStudent]

So what if he's an atheist? He's not the pope, he's just a guy on the internet. And he certainly doesn't speak for me.

Did I say he was speaking for you ? I was simply offering another person's viewpoint on the issue of objective/subjective morality....and he happened to be a non-theist. Geeez.

[RaymondKHessel]

So what if he's an atheist? He's not the pope, he's just a guy on the internet. And he certainly doesn't speak for me.

Did I say he was speaking for you ? I was simply offering another person's viewpoint on the issue of objective/subjective morality....and he happened to be a non-theist. Geeez.

My bad. You said it kind of like we should take his word as an authority or something. Thanks for clearing that up.

[BibleStudent]

Listen man, I am really sorry to say this but God isn't real.  It's just not.  You are wasting time with your religious beliefs.  They are a cancer on you that you should try to get rid of.  I am not trying to convert you to any dogmatic version of atheism or to get you to buy into a time share or anything.  I am just saying there are millions of people out there who think... no KNOW, that the Christian God is not real. What you do with that information is up to you.  I just want you to think for yourself a little.  Open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.  Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  Look at both sides of the argument, because I am willing to bet that most of your life has been spent on one side, and not in exploration of the other.  Take it from someone who explored both sides.  The Christian God is fake.  100% fake.  While there may be some other version of god out there that we don't know about, the Christian version God is dead in the water. 

My reply:

Listen man, I am really sorry to say this but God atheism isn't real.  It's just not.  You are wasting time with your religious non-theist beliefs.  They are a cancer on you that you should try to get rid of.  I am not trying to convert you to any dogmatic version of atheism Christianity or to get you to buy into a time share or anything.  I am just saying there are millions of people out there who think... no KNOW, that the Christian God atheism is not real. What you do with that information is up to you.  I just want you to think for yourself a little.  Open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.  Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  Look at both sides of the argument, because I am willing to bet that most of your life has been spent on one side, and not in exploration of the other.  Take it from someone who explored both sides.  The Christian God atheist belief is fake.  100% fake.  While there may be some other version of god atheism out there that we don't know about, the Christian atheistic version God is dead in the water.  

[jetson]

BS, you misunderstand atheism.  Atheism is not some dogmatic belief system that requires science to prove everything.  Atheism simply means that we don't believe there are real gods.  All gods are imaginary, that's it.

As far as morality, it's been beaten into the ground over the centuries, and the theists have lost ground every step of the way.  There is simply no way anyone can show that an objective morality exists.  Hell, if that were true, then you should have no problem at all getting at least all of the Christians to agree on that morality, and to follow it.  If you can do that simple task, with all of the believers in Jesus, then I will admit openly on this forum that there is an objective morality.  Deal?

If you're going to make such claims, at least show some pride in your own group of god lovers and prove to the world once and for all why Christianity is so awesome, you know, with it's nice morals and everything.

P.s.  You might want to avoid the Phelps family, they probably won't want to play nice...I'll give you that one as a bonus!

[BibleStudent]

My bad. You said it kind of like we should take his word as an authority or something. Thanks for clearing that up.

No problem.

[jetson]

My reply:

Listen man, I am really sorry to say this but God atheism isn't real.  It's just not.  You are wasting time with your religious non-theist beliefs.  They are a cancer on you that you should try to get rid of.  I am not trying to convert you to any dogmatic version of atheism Christianity or to get you to buy into a time share or anything.  I am just saying there are millions of people out there who think... no KNOW, that the Christian God atheism is not real. What you do with that information is up to you.  I just want you to think for yourself a little.  Open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.  Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  Look at both sides of the argument, because I am willing to bet that most of your life has been spent on one side, and not in exploration of the other.  Take it from someone who explored both sides.  The Christian God atheist belief is fake.  100% fake.  While there may be some other version of god atheism out there that we don't know about, the Christian atheistic version God is dead in the water.

Wow.  Very creative, and impressive!  

[OnePerson]

Listen man, I am really sorry to say this but God isn't real.  It's just not.  You are wasting time with your religious beliefs.  They are a cancer on you that you should try to get rid of.  I am not trying to convert you to any dogmatic version of atheism or to get you to buy into a time share or anything.  I am just saying there are millions of people out there who think... no KNOW, that the Christian God is not real. What you do with that information is up to you.  I just want you to think for yourself a little.  Open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.  Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  Look at both sides of the argument, because I am willing to bet that most of your life has been spent on one side, and not in exploration of the other.  Take it from someone who explored both sides.  The Christian God is fake.  100% fake.  While there may be some other version of god out there that we don't know about, the Christian version God is dead in the water. 

My reply:

Listen man, I am really sorry to say this but God atheism isn't real.  It's just not.  You are wasting time with your religious non-theist beliefs.  They are a cancer on you that you should try to get rid of.  I am not trying to convert you to any dogmatic version of atheism Christianity or to get you to buy into a time share or anything.  I am just saying there are millions of people out there who think... no KNOW, that the Christian God atheism is not real. What you do with that information is up to you.  I just want you to think for yourself a little.  Open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.  Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  Look at both sides of the argument, because I am willing to bet that most of your life has been spent on one side, and not in exploration of the other.  Take it from someone who explored both sides.  The Christian God atheist belief is fake.  100% fake.  While there may be some other version of god atheism out there that we don't know about, the Christian atheistic version God is dead in the water.  

We're usually the ones who do this...

[RaymondKHessel]

Don't think it's real, ask yourself "could this be real".  

<raises hand> Umm... I did that, for what it's worth. Right around the time I got to the unicorns and dragons, the answer was a resounding "NOT A CHANCE IN BIBLICAL HELL."

Actually, that's a lie. It was much earlier. The dragons and unicorns don't come in until after the one guy sacrifices himself to himself because he didn't like the extensions of himself that he had made... whatever that was about.

Pretty much at the point that a 600 year old man spent 100 years building a boat that carried 60,000 species of spider, 300,000 species of beetle, and 5,000 species of mammal. Now THAT came after the whole bit with the rib lady and the mud man and the enchanted foodstuffs and walking talking snakes that spoke ancient Aramaic... But BEFORE the bit about mutilating your cock and magical sheep fornication.

Umm... So anyways...

Where does that leave me?

edit: Should probably say, however, if the book had said something about quantum wormholes or pocket dimensions in the cargo hold, I'd have bought Noah's Ark hook line and sinker. Just for the record.

[BibleStudent]

BS, you misunderstand atheism.  Atheism is not some dogmatic belief system that requires science to prove everything.  Atheism simply means that we don't believe there are real gods.  All gods are imaginary, that's it.

No, I don't misunderstand atheism. I was just showing that I could use the same appeal from from a theist point of view. Actually, I would need to polish it up a bit in order for it to truly make sense but I think you get the point.

[BibleStudent]

We're usually the ones who do this...

I know. Where do you think I got the idea ?