"...Except when my God is involved"

[JeffPT]

And I'm certainly a materialist but not a nihilist. I find value in a great many things personally, but I also understand that if I were to die tomorrow, the world would be very much unchanged. 

It's simple really for the Christian. I don't understand how you theists don't get it.   Sam Harris sums it up well....

Either the Bible is just an ordinary book, written by mortals, or it isn't. Either Christ was divine, or he was not. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the basic doctrine of Christianity is false. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordi-nary man, the history of Christian theology is the story of bookish men parsing a collective delusion.

Where do you see issues with this?  How can you be a Christian and see things wrong with SOME of the bible, but not all of it?  How do you decide which parts to believe and not believe?  If you can find even ONE thing that is wrong with it, does that not open the flood gates on possibly ALL of it being wrong?   

[Azdgari]

Wouldn't it be MiC?

Yes, it would.  My bad.

I appreciate the directness.  Let me equally forthright.
You may think this is a huge concession (maybe it is) but I agree with His moral precepts on probably the same grounds you do.  Murder, theft, adultery, just feel... icky.  Wrong, somehow.  I certainly don't read the ten commandments, slap my hand on my forehead, and go "Oh!  So murder is wrong!  Who'd a thunk it?"

So essentially, your agreement with moral precept X is determined by your own personal values.  Those personal values, being yours, are subjective.

So... no.  I don't "get" my morality from the bible.  The bible is a lot more than a rulebook, in my opinion.

I had not brought up the Bible.  I find that it distracts from this topic.

This next bit is important, though.

Were I a materialist, I feel I would have to logically conclude that those feelings carry no more weight than my feelings about choclate ice cream.  Sure, they're real enough, and sure, someone who shares those feelings I could convince that embezzling was  wrong, but there's no "ought" there.  There's nothing in material reality that in any way affects the "rightness" or "wrongness" of murder.  If Murder really is wrong, there's got to be something else out there that makes it wrong.  Morality is just arbitrary rules we have for acceptable ways to alter various patterns of matter, there is nothing else it can be.  Anyone who disagreed with me about various ethical positions is disagreeing about an opinion, nothing more.  In short, I'd have to commit myself to nihilism.  Fellow materialists could go on and on (and on, and on, and on, and on) about atrocities in the bible, atrocities commited in the name of the bible, and it'd get a big fat "meh" out of me.  Who cares?  Some people think it's ok to kill Jewish people, some think it's ok to kill heritics, some think it's ok to kill 'em all.  It's all an opinion, nobodies right or wrong.

Not objectively.  But requiring one's morals to be objectively right in order to act on them is not something that a consistent moral subjectivist would actually have to do.  This is what I was talking about in my last post to BibleStudent.

Were I a Christian (and hey!  I am!) or any sort of deist really, then I think there's a way out of nihilism.  But I think materialists must be nihilists if they are to be consistent.

Christianity's path out of nihilism is merely to refrain from thinking about it.  Logically, nihilism is no less true under Christianity than under any other belief system.  The rules of logic do not change when one becomes a Christian (or at least, they shouldn't).

What about you?  On what basis do you agree with me that Murder is wrong?  Or do you disagree, and agree with my hypothetical materialist, that murder isn't wrong after all?

I would agree based on my own moral authority, meager as it is.  Although meager, that authority is still adequate for the scope of my own thoughts and behaviours.

Now, I would ask you the same thing.  On what objective basis can you claim that murder is wrong?  Pretend that I am a believer in the Christian god's existence, but that I do not agree with its morality.  What would you say to me?

[truehyuga]

I told you you had a vision of god. You doubted immediately. Now you are asking for evidence. I feel like you are the Atheist.
Stop dodging. If God told you Murder was fine, you ought to do it weekly... would you? Why?
If you say no you are guilty of S.P.A.G., and are arbitrarily giving weight to your opinions to justify your morality, which, by your own definition, makes you nihilist.

Oi.

[spiritualatheist]

As long as God is involved it can be justified. Basically it boils down to this, " God says it. I believe it. "

[MathIsCool]

Great, now can you answer my question?

How does having a God make anything in that paragraph different?  How is being a Christian, or any sort of deist, let you get out of nihilism?

It allows for the existence of something outside of material reality that could be the anchor for moral values.  At the very least it -could be- that "thing" that's out there that makes murder really wrong, not just wrong in my opinion.

[MathIsCool]

And I'm certainly a materialist but not a nihilist.

Your previous post agreed with me when I said materialism necessarily led to nihilism.  Which is it?

[truehyuga]

I told you you had a vision of god. You doubted immediately. Now you are asking for evidence. I feel like you are the Atheist.
Stop dodging. If God told you Murder was fine, you ought to do it weekly... would you? Why?
If you say no you are guilty of S.P.A.G., and are arbitrarily giving weight to your opinions to justify your morality, which, by your own definition, makes you nihilist.

Oi.

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

[Gnu Ordure]

MathisCool (my bolding):

You may think this is a huge concession (maybe it is) but I agree with His moral precepts on probably the same grounds you do.  Murder, theft, adultery, just feel... icky.  Wrong, somehow.  I certainly don't read the ten commandments, slap my hand on my forehead, and go "Oh!  So murder is wrong!  Who'd a thunk it?"

Then I think you presume too much. You talk as if moral philosophy aka the study of ethics didn't exist, as if people hadn't thought about these matters in some depth for centuries. It's not just about feelings of ickiness (though feelings do play a part).

Here's a recipe for I concocted for another thread, which kind of fits here:

Recipe for a Good Person:

Place the baby in a large casserole dish on a firm base of Pro-socialism. Stuff with Natural Law (make sure you get Hobbes' brand, not Aquinas! this is a religion-free recipe), Utilitarianism, and Consequentialism. Sprinkle with the Golden and Silver Rules, and garnish with Libertarianism.

Finally cover the baby with the essential ingredient, a thick layer of the most pro-social substance in existence, Luurve. Don't worry about overdoing it, a child can't have too much Luurve.

Cook at Gas Mark 4 for 16 years. Add lashings of extra Luurve at regular intervals.

Gnu.

[MathIsCool]

So essentially, your agreement with moral precept X is determined by your own personal values.  Those personal values, being yours, are subjective.

Yes.  My opinions on 1+1=2 are also wholy mine, but in a similar way that doesn't affect the objective-ness of the statement "1+1=2", does it?

Not objectively.  But requiring one's morals to be objectively right in order to act on them is not something that a consistent moral subjectivist would actually have to do.  This is what I was talking about in my last post to BibleStudent.

That's a pretty anemic morality you got there.  If things are just your opinion, is that really enough weight to stop anyone else (who are just following their opinion, after all?) from doing what they want?  When you hear about catholic priests raping young boys, after you get through fiercely denouncing them and their evil religion, do you add "... but that's just my opinion.  Your mileage may vary." at the end?

Christianity's path out of nihilism is merely to refrain from thinking about it.  Logically, nihilism is no less true under Christianity than under any other belief system.  The rules of logic do not change when one becomes a Christian (or at least, they shouldn't).

Christianity's path out of morality is to assert the presence of a moral and just law-giver who anchors true morality to his good will.  If you're gonna play ball in the Christian neighborhood you play by Christian rules.

Now, I would ask you the same thing.  On what objective basis can you claim that murder is wrong?  Pretend that I am a believer in the Christian god's existence, but that I do not agree with its morality.  What would you say to me?

So you're a believer in the Christian God who disagrees with His morality?  Wow dude.  Let me see here, it'd go something like this...

As a believer, you understand that you are created and He is your creator.  You are His, wholely and completely, the same way a fictional character you create is entirely yours.  Just like when you create a fictional world you get to define the laws you wish, so to does He define our world.  His word thus literally defines goodness in a way you clearly do not comprehend.  To not agree with Him is to not agree with gravity.  How you dare judge your eternal, righteous and good God is beyond me, but you also know he is merciful and slow to anger, so my advice to you is to repent and beg forgiveness for your petty rebellion, or you will surely suffer the consequences your folly so richly deserves.
... or something like that.

[MathIsCool]

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

Sure, I admint I can't answer the question, just like I can't answer what purple smells like.  Congratulations, you asked a nonsensical question.  You totally cornered the dumb theist. 

[jetson]

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

Sure, I admint I can't answer the question, just like I can't answer what purple smells like.  Congratulations, you asked a nonsensical question.  You totally cornered the dumb theist. 

Stop acting like an ass.

[OnePerson]

Great, now can you answer my question?

How does having a God make anything in that paragraph different?  How is being a Christian, or any sort of deist, let you get out of nihilism?

It allows for the existence of something outside of material reality that could be the anchor for moral values.  At the very least it -could be- that "thing" that's out there that makes murder really wrong, not just wrong in my opinion.

So why does being outside of material reality make it a better anchor for moral values?

[BibleStudent]

So why does being outside of material reality make it a better anchor for moral values?

Because then it can be universal and applicable to all....and given by an authority who has dominion over the reality. There is then a source for the morality that we are accountable to. It also binds all of us to a single 'code' rather than arbitrary whims and opinions as to what is right and wrong. There is certainly more continuity, consistency, and a more rationale basis for what is believed to be 'best' for everyone.

Thinking out loud: what do you suppose the moral condition of the world would be if everyone subscribed to the same objective moral code (regardless of the source)?

[Operator_011]

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

Sure, I admint I can't answer the question, just like I can't answer what purple smells like.  Congratulations, you asked a nonsensical question.  You totally cornered the dumb theist.  

It seems a pretty straightforward question to me, MIC.

Let me try asking it:

If God told you Murder was fine, you ought to do it weekly... would you? Why?

^ If I were on the receiving end of that question a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice, to begin with.

I await your answer.

Thanks.


Eleven.

[truehyuga]

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

Sure, I admint I can't answer the question, just like I can't answer what purple smells like.  Congratulations, you asked a nonsensical question.  You totally cornered the dumb theist.  

Why can't you answer the question? What makes it nonsensical?
EDIT: Honestly, I'm the easy route. You either paint yourself stupid by answering into the area you trapped yourself in, or you follow this train.
Of course, the third option is to throw a temper tantrum or feign persecution. This tends to be the most used one.

[Whateverman]

So why does being outside of material reality make it a better anchor for moral values?

Because then it can be universal and applicable to all....and given by an authority who has dominion over the reality. There is then a source for the morality that we are accountable to. It also binds all of us to a single 'code' rather than arbitrary whims and opinions as to what is right and wrong. There is certainly more continuity, consistency, and a more rationale basis for what is believed to be 'best' for everyone.

Does there need to be a universal standard for green-ness, BibleStudent?

[Whateverman]

Thinking out loud: what do you suppose the moral condition of the world would be if everyone subscribed to the same objective moral code (regardless of the source)?

Speaking only for myself, it would depend entirely on that moral code.

[BibleStudent]

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

Sure, I admint I can't answer the question, just like I can't answer what purple smells like.  Congratulations, you asked a nonsensical question.  You totally cornered the dumb theist.  

Why can't you answer the question? What makes it nonsensical?
EDIT: Honestly, I'm the easy route. You either paint yourself stupid by answering into the area you trapped yourself in, or you follow this train.
Of course, the third option is to throw a temper tantrum or feign persecution. This tends to be the most used one.

The problem with the question is, either a 'yes' or 'no' answer will subject him to barrage of criticism.....much like I was subjected to much earlier in this thread for answering the Nazi hypothetical the way I did. If he says 'yes' then he will be called an 'insane' 'a**hole' like I was. If he answers 'no' then he is guilty of S.P.A.G.

Perhaps if you indicated that you were not interested in judging his character regardless of how he answered, he may be more inclined to give it to you.
 

[BibleStudent]

Does there need to be a universal standard for green-ness, BibleStudent?

I don't know what you mean by that?

[truehyuga]

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to admit by omission that you can't?

Sure, I admint I can't answer the question, just like I can't answer what purple smells like.  Congratulations, you asked a nonsensical question.  You totally cornered the dumb theist.  

Why can't you answer the question? What makes it nonsensical?
EDIT: Honestly, I'm the easy route. You either paint yourself stupid by answering into the area you trapped yourself in, or you follow this train.
Of course, the third option is to throw a temper tantrum or feign persecution. This tends to be the most used one.

The problem with the question is, either a 'yes' or 'no' answer will subject him to barrage of criticism.....much like I was subjected to much earlier in this thread for answering the Nazi hypothetical the way I did. If he says 'yes' then he will be called an 'insane' 'a**hole' like I was. If he answers 'no' then he is guilty of S.P.A.G.

Perhaps if you indicated that you were not interested in judging his character regardless of how he answered, he may be more inclined to give it to you.
 

I will judge his character if he answers yes or no, and I will judge him if he throws a tantrum.
His own descriptions of morality have led him down this road. He has to correct his premises or realize that "right" is meaningless under the definition of "whatever god says".
I welcome him to do either.

[MathIsCool]

It seems a pretty straightforward question to me, MIC.

Let me try asking it:

If God told you Murder was fine, you ought to do it weekly... would you? Why?

^ If I were on the receiving end of that question a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice, to begin with.

I await your answer.

Thanks.

Eleven.

Straightforward it is.  Sensical it isn't.
Truehyuga is positing a scenario wherein the all-good Christian God shows up and commands me personally to do some hideously immoral act.  Besides being incredibly unlikely, it's ultimately a pointless question.  I could avoid what he's really asking by saying something like "I suppose if God commanded me personally to kill weekly, and he showed how all my weekly victims deserved it, or how it was otherwise a "good" act, and he somehow convinced me that it really was the almighty himself (through a mechanism that I cannot conceive of and which was not mentioned in the original question), then I suppose I could."

But what he's really asking is if God showed up (through an as-yet undetermined mechanism) and commanded me to do an act (through an as-yet undetermined mechanism) which he has previously defined as evil, (such as murder) would I, in fact, Murder?  And the Christian God, by definition, never would do such a thing.  You might as well ask what I would do if a perfect truth-teller told a lie, or how I would react to an atheist that believed in God.  The question is inherently nonsensical and unanswerable.

If an entity showed up, claiming to be the Almighty himself, and told me to murder weekly, besides being off my rocker about this incredible event actually happening, I suppose I'd end up convinced it was some demon trying to deceive me.  If it somehow convinced me it really was the Almighty (maybe it magically overrode my mind?  I dunno) then considering it's apparently denying me my free will anyways, I'd probably go along with it.

Given the fact that here in the real world this event is probably not going to happen, can we go back to discussing whether morals are objective and whether materialists are by necessity nihilists?

[Whateverman]

Does there need to be a universal standard for green-ness, BibleStudent?

I don't know what you mean by that?

How can we be sure that an object is objectively green?

[HAL]

Truehyuga is positing a scenario wherein the all-good Christian God shows up and commands me personally to do some hideously immoral act.

If God said to do it , it would be moral though. How can you, a mere mortal, know what is moral in God's mind? You are missing this point.[1]

1.	conveniently

[truehyuga]

It seems a pretty straightforward question to me, MIC.

Let me try asking it:

If God told you Murder was fine, you ought to do it weekly... would you? Why?

^ If I were on the receiving end of that question a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice, to begin with.

I await your answer.

Thanks.

Eleven.

Straightforward it is.  Sensical it isn't.
Truehyuga is positing a scenario wherein the all-good Christian God shows up and commands me personally to do some hideously immoral act.  Besides being incredibly unlikely, it's ultimately a pointless question.  I could avoid what he's really asking by saying something like "I suppose if God commanded me personally to kill weekly, and he showed how all my weekly victims deserved it, or how it was otherwise a "good" act, and he somehow convinced me that it really was the almighty himself (through a mechanism that I cannot conceive of and which was not mentioned in the original question), then I suppose I could."

But what he's really asking is if God showed up (through an as-yet undetermined mechanism) and commanded me to do an act (through an as-yet undetermined mechanism) which he has previously defined as evil, (such as murder) would I, in fact, Murder?  And the Christian God, by definition, never would do such a thing.  You might as well ask what I would do if a perfect truth-teller told a lie, or how I would react to an atheist that believed in God.  The question is inherently nonsensical and unanswerable.

If an entity showed up, claiming to be the Almighty himself, and told me to murder weekly, besides being off my rocker about this incredible event actually happening, I suppose I'd end up convinced it was some demon trying to deceive me.  If it somehow convinced me it really was the Almighty (maybe it magically overrode my mind?  I dunno) then considering it's apparently denying me my free will anyways, I'd probably go along with it.

Given the fact that here in the real world this event is probably not going to happen, can we go back to discussing whether morals are objective and whether materialists are by necessity nihilists?

No we may not.
You said precisely what I knew you would, here:

is positing a scenario wherein the all-good Christian God

So now you've added another premise.
Now I have another question for you; How do you define good?
You claimed above that you knew right from wrong by feeling, but now you threw in the claim that God is all-good. So I need a definition from you if this is to continue, otherwise your former statement is worthless.

[BibleStudent]

Does there need to be a universal standard for green-ness, BibleStudent?

I don't know what you mean by that?

How can we be sure that an object is objectively green?

There is no purpose in establishing that an object is objectively green. You are incorporating a qualifying characteristic into something that does not require it.

[OnePerson]

So why does being outside of material reality make it a better anchor for moral values?

Because then it can be universal and applicable to all....and given by an authority who has dominion over the reality. There is then a source for the morality that we are accountable to. It also binds all of us to a single 'code' rather than arbitrary whims and opinions as to what is right and wrong. There is certainly more continuity, consistency, and a more rationale basis for what is believed to be 'best' for everyone.

Why does being outside material reality make it universal and applicable to all?  What makes something outside of material reality more consistent and rationale?  Why can't my moral code be the objectively correct one?

Thinking out loud: what do you suppose the moral condition of the world would be if everyone subscribed to the same objective moral code (regardless of the source)?

Depends on what moral code they follow.

[BibleStudent]

Why does being outside material reality make it universal and applicable to all?  What makes something outside of material reality more consistent and rationale?  Why can't my moral code be the objectively correct one?

If the source exists outside of the material reality but has no influence over the material reality, then what is the point of even discussing it? My answer, if you hadn't guessed, presupposes the existence of God and, therefore, represents why His objective morality would serve as a better anchor for moral values.

[Whateverman]

Does there need to be a universal standard for green-ness, BibleStudent?

I don't know what you mean by that?

How can we be sure that an object is objectively green?

There is no purpose in establishing that an object is objectively green.

I'm sorry, but that was the worst attempt at dodging a question I think I've ever seen.

You are coming up to a stop light, and want to know if it's legal to drive through the intersection...

EDIT: please answer the question.  How can you tell if the light is green?

[Ambassador Pony]

* Arguing with materialist subjectivist cop* "But being a subjectivist materialist, the colour of the light was just your opinion, you HAVE TO let me go"

*goes directly to lock up*

*repeat*