I can see why it makes you angry but no I'm not trying to make you angry. I just think your worldview doesn't explain reality very well. If there are no absolutes Everything is just an opinion. So if you think I'm being obtuse or stupid is just your opinion and it has no meaning really.
Really? You really don't think it explains reality well? Alright, let's examine some facts for a minute.
1. Everyone has a different take on morality. If it came from evolved processes and is based on our culture and experiences, then what would it look like? Wouldn't it look like people in similar cultures and who go through similar experiences would have similar world views, yet different people who experience different things would have different views. Doesn't that EXACTLY explain how reality works?
2. If morality came from some form of god, wouldn't it all be exactly the same?
3. Isn't it true that extenuating circumstances can arise in just about ANY moral situation which would necessitate the flexibility of morality?
4. Which God do we follow? Lots of religions can claim their God is the ultimate responsible party for morality. What if it's not your God? What would you do?
Who really cares what is WRONG TO YOU?
I do. We've been over this. Like 50 times already.
Who are you anyway?
Is this a trick question? I'm not falling for no banana in the tailpipe.
If it's not objectively wrong then it's not WRONG period.
After everything I've said, this is what you have to say?
So all of your complaining about God and injustice in the world is just words on the internet. This is what I don't understand about Atheism how they claim the moral high ground while claiming morals don't exist, and I mean Transcendent objective morals.
All of my complaining about God and injustice IS just words on the internet. It's my opinion. Just like "torturing babies is wrong" is my opinion. But at least I can be flexible. Transcendent objective morals do not explain how this world works, at all. And guess what? The people who wrote the bible, the Koran, the Torah and all the other religious books put THEIR opinions on morality in those books too.
Morals do exist. They are a specific set of opinions that we use to help navigate our lives (different from opinions such as "blue is a nice color", only in that we don't use that opinion to run our lives).
We can claim the moral high ground because quite often atheistic morality is a lot better than Christian morality. I don't have to believe homosexuals are bad. I don't have to think women are inferior. I don't have to think that it's good to chop off a piece of a baby boy's penis at birth. Color me happy.
Don't believe me? Check this website and see what humanists think vs. what Christians and Muslims have.
http://considerhumanism.org/ads.phpBTW saying things are NOT objective is an ABSOLUTE claim and would have to be objectively true because truth has to be objective and absolute to be truth.
It's what I think Co.Inkadink. BTW, I like your name.
I'm not trying to tell you I'm absolutely correct. I'm trying to tell you that this is how life works, and you keep rejecting it because you don't like the implications. Sorry.
I'll answer your question.
YAY finally!
Torturing babies is always wrong every time in every situation but to save 10 million lives you might have to do something wrong, you might have to make a choice for the greater good, the greater good would be the 10 million lives saved "if such a ridiculous scenario could ever happen". But the torture of the baby would still be wrong.
Not so fast there hoss. Would God then deem it morally RIGHT to torture and kill the baby in order to save 10 million lives? Or would God deem it morally RIGHT to let the 10 million people die? Let me put it to you another way... If that situation arose, and you decided to torture the baby, would God punish you for it? On the other hand, if that situation arose, and you decided NOT to torture the baby, would God punish you for it? Are you going to get punished for it either way?
Furthermore, if that situation arose, and you tortured the baby, would God punish you more or less if you then went on and tortured the baby for the fun of it? The only way you could say that torturing babies is OBJECTIVELY wrong is to say that God would punish you equally for torturing the baby for fun, or for torturing the baby to save 10 million lives. Otherwise it's NOT objective. His law would have to be considered subjective as extenuating circumstances would call for changes to the punishment.
To me, torturing the baby for fun, versus torturing the baby to save 10 million lives is not the same level of wrong. I think I speak for a shit load of people when I say that. But for it to be objectively wrong, the punishment would have to be the same.
And if burning witches is bad only because YOU think it's bad all it takes is someone who thinks it's good or a majority of people and it magically becomes good according to your philosophy.
You just described EXACTLY what happened to people accused of witchcraft for hundreds of years. Even though there were probably many people who (like me) thought witchcraft was foolishness, it DID become "good" for multitudes of people because their CULTURE AND EXPERIENCES (including their RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES) told them it was good. You said before that my stance didn't fit with reality. Yes it does. You know it does. You just don't like it one bit. Sorry.
I don't think your view of reality lines up with true reality that is how the world works.
Then tell me how. Because all you have done is assert this and complain about the consequences of it. You've said crap like "If it's not objectively wrong, then it's not wrong period!" as if that is some sort of evidence. That's not evidence, it's just your belief. And it fails to take into account the notion that what is wrong to me, is wrong to me. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen a single word defending the idea that my view isn't based on reality. Can you tell me where it logically falls apart for you? Seriously, can you point to any flaws in it? Not reasons why you don't like it, but how it doesn't fit with what we see human beings doing every day? Show me an instance of how my view fails to explain how things actually work here on planet earth.
People form opinions on moral issues. When a group of them get together and have widespread agreement about some of them, then they make laws. This is how things work. You don't need to presuppose a Deity to understand that this is how things work. Take, for example, speeding. Is speeding OBJECTIVELY wrong? Is God up there with a radar gun? When people go really fast, they get hurt more often. At some point, people (each as individuals first, but then there is widespread agreement) got together and decided that it is wrong to go really fast because it puts peoples lives in danger. Now, some people may have disagreed, and then voiced said disagreement, but the majority of people believed speeding was wrong, so they enacted a law against speeding.
How does this fail to describe reality? Does there have to be an absolute moral law giver to understand how this works in reality? No, there doesn't.
If it works for you great but you have nothing to complain about when you see so called evil or injustice in the world.
How dare you say that? When I see day in and day out "theistic morality" causing people to use say condoms are worse than AIDS, and to condemn homosexuals, and to deny women's rights, and to spread lies about evolution, and to kill abortion doctors, and ram planes into buildings, and call for jihad's against other people's way of life... I could go on for days. You have no idea how bad religion is to this world do you? Not a freaking clue. Most of the wars around the world are based in some part on conflicts between groups that all think they each have the better invisible sky man, and a LOT of those have to do with believing that their morality was better than the other guys. But you don't get that do you. You're so caught up in thinking that God is real and he wants this and that, that you keep yourself blind to the fact that theistic morality is quite possibly the worst thing that ever happened to civilization.
Your objective stance just means you think you're morality is the same as some supernatural dictator, and that means you get to claim that it's better than everyone elses. But what you don't realize is that just makes you a dick to the rest of us. I know my morality is my opinion. I don't try to say mine is better. Not only do you try to say yours is better, you try to say yours is the only one that's right! Do you disagree with any of your God's moral views? No? What a shocker! Neither does a Muslim or a Hindu or any other practicer of religion in the world. All of you think your morality comes from God so that gives you some sort of rights over everyone else. I'm sorry, you should have lived 400 years ago, because there are a lot of people in modern times that aren't going to let you bring us back into that shit hole of a time period where religion controlled everything. Your line of thinking is what spawned the dark ages. "God is right and we have to do what God says, but interestingly enough, God wants exactly what I want," so saith the priest. No thanks. It took a long time to come out of that, and we aren't going to be pushed around by the bull shit anymore.
If Richard Dawkins is right Good Evil are meaningless and so are things like Love, Kindness, Integrity any virtue is no virtue at all, just an opinion. No matter how much it helps a society it's just words.
Label it how you will. Love, kindness, integrity and virtue are meaningful to me because evolution, culture and experiences taught me that they are worth valuing. It's the same thing for you, even though you won't admit it. I don't need a supernatural source to point to to say "I think blue is a nice color" or to say "I think torturing babies is wrong". It's the same thing. Opinions. Blue isn't an objectively better color, is it? Do you think God needs to weigh in on what color is objectively best? If there is a God, and you asked him what color was the best, and he said blue, would that make blue the only color that anyone should ever choose as the best color? Would it then be wrong to say green is the best color?
Can you form the opinion that blue is a nice color without God backing you up on it?
But look at your argument. You aren't arguing for truth over false here. You are basically saying you don't like the consequences. Since when do the consequences of the truth give a shit about what you think? Your entire line of thought here is just wishful thinking. You WANT there to be a place or a being to point to and say "see, look, you're doing it wrong", but that doesn't mean it's there.
Yes the position I addressed that "If there are no absolutes Everything is just an opinion" has been put forth by someone in this thread. ME.
I think it was Truth OT who said that the closest we can get to absolutes are mathematical. I think that's probably true.
My favorite OBTUSE, I've seen Shawshank Redemption may times too, I wonder why Atheists use that word so much I guess it's easier to insult than argue a point.
ob·tuse
? ?
–adjective
1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
I asked you if you were being obtuse (not quick to pick up on what I was saying.. over and over and over again) or just being intentionally stupid. When someone says something over and over again, and the other person doesn't pick up on it, is that not a good word to use? You gave a moral scenario, asked us what we thought about it, I basically responded that I think X was wrong because I think it's wrong and then you went on to another example and we did it again, and again. I was just calling you out on it. It honestly felt like you were just dicking around. It seems to be such an easy concept.
