|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,220 Year: 6,477/9,624 Month: 55/270 Week: 51/37 Day: 9/16 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 472 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong. All they can do is appeal to their own feelings, but without an absolute standard their feelings don't matter, because only an absolute standard can say that the feelings of humans beings ought to matter to every other human being. When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on?
Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given. Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given. Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given. Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
Thread copied here from the Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
In the same way that since there is no absolute standard of language, nobody can complain of misuse ? You can use any word to mean anything you want and nobody can complain ?
And if you do have a standard of morality that can be shown to be absolute, let’s see it. Because if you don’t all you are doing is denying that there is any valid basis for complaining about wrongs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong. All they can do is appeal to their own feelings, but without an absolute standard their feelings don't matter, because only an absolute standard can say that the feelings of humans beings ought to matter to every other human being. When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on? How would you set about proving which morals are based on absolutes and which are based on fallible human feewings? Murder (unlawful killing) is pretty unanimously deemed as immoral. Probably the closest thing you're going to ever get to in terms of absolute morality. Where things get tricky is determining what constitutes murder. One man's murder is another man's righteous execution. So even with moral absolutes nothing gets resolved. If morality was so obviously absolute then no one would ever violate them now would they? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9573 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
There obviously is no moral absolute so whatever point you're trying to make is moot. But if you think there is, let's have a look at an example.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6062 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller magic act had the perfect answer to your problem, but I cannot find it readily on YouTube. He once described the following.
Basically, religionists seem to love to present a scenario in which an atheist family suffers a home invasion attack where the atheist male head of the family is tied up and has to suffer seeing each and every member of his family being extremely brutally mistreated and then most brutally murdered in front of his eyes and at every single unimaginable act being told that since he is an atheist then there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what he is witnessing. Well FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PERVERTED PIECE OF SHIT!!!! The point that Penn Jillette was making is that there are things that are obviously wrong, such as harming other people that everybody would agree was wrong to do regardless of any stupid god ideas and the like. So then your entire attempt at a point to make is just ... nothing. Edited by dwise1, : Late at night, hit wrong button and posted prematurely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9488 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.1 |
Everyone else was much more polite in responding to this entitled, (probably) white, christian. The argument is crap. I will be very surprised if the poster attempts an actual defense of the argument.
That the poster has posted under an multitude of ID's shows me that I really shouldn't waste much time with the posts. I understand occasional changing of ID's but a constant change seems to me to be a bit dishonest. A lack of faith in ones own arguments. Destroy away folks. I may just get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy this one.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Come on Guido; at least try to make an intelligent argument.
Of course there is no need to appeal to any absolute moral standard regardless of whether someone is an atheist or theist. That's as completely silly as trying to argue there is some absolute moral standard in the Bible. Really kid, you can do much better than this absurdity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 636 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Gospel Preacher writes:
We can appeal to societal standards.
If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on? How does it work between two people who believe in different "absolute standards"? I bet they have no better basis for convincing the other person to agree with their version of "right" and "wrong" than people who accept the subjectivity of morality. Come to think of it, how do people who believe in an absolute morality figure out what those standards are and how to apply them to difficult real life situations? I bet it comes back down to "feelings".Hard as it is to fathom, Mr President, just because you’re the leader of the free world doesn’t entitle you to a free pass. Unfortunately, just a free press. -- Neil Cavuto
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Chiroptera writes:
The problem is that the argument seems to be about our response to "real life situations", and I agree that there is no absolute moral response to our actions in response to situations. It might be different for different people in different times and cultures. How does it work between two people who believe in different "absolute standards"? I bet they have no better basis for convincing the other person to agree with their version of "right" and "wrong" than people who accept the subjectivity of morality. Come to think of it, how do people who believe in an absolute morality figure out what those standards are and how to apply them to difficult real life situations? I bet it comes back down to "feelings". If our real life situations require any kind of moral response, the moral decision should simply be based on it whether it is loving or unloving. Any absolute standard is simply about whether the response is loving, lovingly neutral or unloving. I suggest that this standard is something that can be part of a Christian belief as well as for anyone of any religious faith or of no religious faith.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
GDR writes: Any absolute standard is simply about whether the response is loving, lovingly neutral or unloving. But again that is simply far too subjective; there is no standard based on loving. The Inquisitors loved their victims enough to torture then until the victims reached a state of grace where they recanted their transgressions and so were saved and died.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9573 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
Benefit or harm. That's it.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8640 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong. Yeah, we do. The whole body of law exists just for this purpose. And that body of law is determined by the secular society by experiencing, discussing, deciding and changing what morality is today. Relative morality has been, is, and will always be alive and well in humanity. Your absolutes, which you cannot follow even within/among your own cults, was rejected many millennia ago.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18584 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.4 |
Good point. Of course the same could be said for belief. Despite lack of evidence, (the only basic sound argument) Belief is determined by a body of society (currently still the majority) by experiencing, discussing, deciding, and slowly changing what belief is today.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024