What is the purpose of God?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, then you have no premise for your logic of objective morality either. So we are in the same boat. Logic is logic. Most people will come to the same conclusions if it is logical.

No, actually. Logicians know that everything depends on the premises. If your premises are true, and your logical structure-of-argument is well-formed, then it is rational to believe exactly the same thing for all persons.

You and I have been disagreeing on premises. But I have had this advantage: that to believe in morality is logically-consistent for Theists. To believe in any morality is logically-inconsistent for Atheists. And from a logical perspective, both of my claims about this are very easy to show.

I do it from the perspective of society.

Okay, but WHY would the perspective of society be right? How would we know if it were, or if it weren't? Muslim society today enslaves women and justifies killing infidels with impunity. Tossing homosexuals off high buildings while crowds cheer is a socially-celebrated practice in the Middle East right now. Are you really prepared to right your Atheism into the ground, and say that might be okay for them?

You see, only be reference to a higher, pre-existing code could we make any such judgment. But Atheism accepts no such higher code.

Exodus 31:15 is very clear. Anyone working on a Sabbath SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. There is no ambiguity there. Yet you bring up the difference between the old and the new testament to defeat the logic...[rest, see above, but another topic]

Just read the book. The instructions in Exodus were explicitly given NOT to all people, but to the Jewish nation. The Egyptians didn't get those laws, nor did the Assyrians, nor the Philistines, nor any other such tribe in the region. Just read the book...it says that quite explicitly. And likewise, they got dietary restrictions on things like the eating of certain animals.

Now, when Christ appeared, he revealed a new commandment: that neither days nor diet made a man good or evil. (Again, it's in the book...you just have to read it.) So let me put it to you this way: as a Christian, to which set of laws do you think I owe my primary allegiance?

Think hard, because it's a really tricky question...

Logic of survival of the most adapt does dictate that people should base their decisions of how society is going to react. If you disagree, that is your problem not mine. This is fundamentally logical. There is no fallacy in the logic that people will dislike you if you are dishonest.

Here again you're using the word "logic" incorrectly -- or at least informally. There's no "logic" involved in the idea of surviving. That is, no set of Atheist premises rationally requires you to do it. You might choose to do things that do NOT conduce to survival...smoking, using drugs, abusing your physical body by lack of exercise, promiscuity, abortion, and so on. These are non-survival behaviours that plenty of people embrace.

How do you know they're wrong?

You can look back and see what I said: I said that many Atheists are nice people: but their Atheism gives them no warrant to be nice at all. Moreover, and more importantly, it fails to make bad people good. There is no reason why an Atheist MUST NOT become Hitler, just as there is no reason an Atheist may not decide to become a...well, a nice Atheist, anyway.

I will say that only atheism gives a warrant to be nice. You have God on your side. You are the ones who have no warrant to be nice. We are a minority. We are always under scrutiny.

Not at all. There's no reason Atheism warrants "being nice." Au contraire, Atheism will let you be wicked, if you so choose. It has no opinion on that matter.

If you think it does, then I'd be most grateful if you would spell out the Atheists premises that mandate niceness, so I could see. I don't think they exist.

As for making bad people good, there are pedophile priests. Religion didn't help them, did it?

That's one reason not to advocate "religion." Besides "religion" is merely an Atheist construct, a blending-together of different belief systems for the Atheist propagandist purpose of dismissing them all as one, without further thought. People who have what Atheists call a "religion" call it by its real name -- Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, whatever -- and recognize these beliefs as all different. None of them has any stake in defending the whole lot, because they're not of-a-piece. That's just an Atheist fiction, really.

Okay, so some people who have a "religious" title did evil: so what's your point? The response is simple: God didn't "help" them because they didn't know God. Fair enough. Having fancy robes doesn't put a man into a real relationship with God. Nor does having an imaginary title. Either you really know God, or you do not. After that, "religion" doesn't matter one jot.

So if, as you say, you really have an Atheist "ethic," show why it should stop me from doing anything I personally decide I want to do. Go ahead.

Only if you show me how a religious person does not steal that money. You have a discriminatory tendency in you if you actually believe that religious people do not steal money from an employer. However, the atheists logic is that if you steal, there is a great likelihood that you will get caught. After you get caught, you and your family will be humiliated while you will spend time in jail, your family might be ostracized by the community due to your actions. This is a real possibility. So avoid it. For the theist, the same thing applies. He is not thinking of God to stop doing it. He is thinking of his family. If he is not thinking, neither the atheist nor the theist is thinking. They will both do it anyway, because they need the money.

See above, on "religious." You're simply wrong. I'm not defending "religion" at all. I don't honestly care about "religions."

Well then explain to me how a pedophile priest exists...

See above. [I cut for shortness, not to avoid the rhetoric, so don't get excited ]

he is a representative of God.

No, he may well be no more than a poser in a robe. Whether or not a person knows God is a different question.

Look, this is perfectly common sense. Putting on a turnip costume and sitting in a turnip patch will not make you a turnip. Putting on a fancy robe and strutting about with not make a man anything. In fact, I agree with you that all such posers deserve to be prosecuted to the extent of their crimes. And they should be charged with the additional crime of fraud, for having pretended to be what they clearly were not.

So we're not in disagreement on that at all.

You've proved my point. Atheism has no way of condemning -- nor even justifying the prevention of -- any evil at all. It cannot even really identify an evil, even when almost anyone will recognize it AS evil. It just can't justify a single moral precept: not even the most simple.

Then you are an even bigger bigot than I thought you were.

There's no warrant for name-calling. That's just silly.

I'm only saying exactly what Atheists claim is true. Meanwhile, a "bigot" is, by definition, someone who is irrationally intolerant to those who hold different opinions -- and I have no intolerance toward Atheists...I tolerate them all the time, and in fact, hold polite, rational conversations with them. All I'm affirming is EXACTLY what Atheism itself says, and what the vast majority of Atheists who speak to me repeatedly affirm: that there is no warrant for objective morality in Atheism. That's not bigotry: it's the truth according to Atheism!

How do you prevent a Hiter? What did you father do to stop him?

He fought a war, actually. But what would it matter what my father did either way? I'm me.

Hitler rose to power because the Germans actually believed that he was right. He managed to brainwash almost a whole country into believing killing Jews was the right thing to do. They faced the consequences for their actions. The whole world turned against them.

Ah. So if he had succeeded, according to you, he would have been right? If he'd won the Battle of Britain, or if Stalingrad had fallen, then you and I would be speaking German, and it would be okay to kill Jews, gypsies, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, dissenters, the handicapped, and so on? This is your conclusion?

And yes. I am in no position to condemn anyone.

I guess it is.

How did you prevent the killing of jews with your god and objective morality? You couldn't do shit. Where was your action till the bombing of the pearl harbour? How come we didn't see Christians rushing to stop Hitler from killing the Jews? So please. Stop this utter hypocrisy. You didn't do anything EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD. Jews were dying. All you probably did was condemn. That was enough. We condemn you!! God is happy with us!! We don't need to do shit to stop it!!!

FYI this whole paragraph would have been cut if you hadn't insulted atheists pointlessly again.

I didn't insult them. I wasn't a bit angry. I just said exactly what they say about themselves. So why are you upset at all? You shouldn't be. You yourself have said that under Atheism, there is no objective morality. So Atheistically speaking, there can be nothing objectively wrong about Hitler. That's not slander, it's simple logic. Relax. Don't take it personally.

Everyone is condemning everyone else these days. We condemn the ISIS. We condemn school kid killers. We condemn mass murderers. We condemn rapists. What the fuck does condemning anyone do? It is nonsensical posturing. If you think condemning someone makes you a better man, well, be happy. You are one. I am not. If you think you can stop bad people from doing bad things by condemning them ( brrrrrr, they are so scared) well, knock yourself out.

I think you're onto something here. There's no use in talking about condemning evil, and doing nothing about it. And there's a great deal of evil in this world that neither you nor I can change. So there's only one question:

Can God?

[sthitapragya]

No, actually. Logicians know that everything depends on the premises. If your premises are true, and your logical structure-of-argument is well-formed, then it is rational to believe exactly the same thing for all persons.

You and I have been disagreeing on premises. But I have had this advantage: that to believe in morality is logically-consistent for Theists. To believe in any morality is logically-inconsistent for Atheists. And from a logical perspective, both of my claims about this are very easy to show.

Sorry, but that is just a declaration you made. I have shown you how morality is logically consistent for athiests. For theists I have given you proof that it is not consistent. Your morals are not consistent with those of the seventh day adventists. You might claim your morals are logical and theirs are not. However, your whole logic is to believe that God has given objective morals. And Exodus 31:15 is clear on that. However, you as a christian have decided that it does not apply to you. You have not shown how that logic works. And that should be tough because you would have to deny the logic of God who says anyone working on a Sabbath shall be put to death. Yet, you interpret it to mean that it is okay to work on the Sabbath. How you came to that logical conclusion would be interesting to know, if you could share it. How "shall be put to death" logically can turn to "its okay go ahead and do it" is something I would love to know.

Okay, but WHY would the perspective of society be right? How would we know if it were, or if it weren't? Muslim society today enslaves women and justifies killing infidels with impunity. Tossing homosexuals off high buildings while crowds cheer is a socially-celebrated practice in the Middle East right now. Are you really prepared to right your Atheism into the ground, and say that might be okay for them?

Who said the perspective of society is right? I have maintained there is no right an wrong. Morals are subjective. And why should it affect atheism if tossing homosexuals off building is right for Middle Easterns? The fact is, they actually think it is right. They actually believe it is the moral thing to do. That is reality. What has atheism got to do with it? It is religious people doing shit. You should be the one answering why it is right for them in spite of them being theists? Not my problem, sir. This is your problem. Your shame. Theists are doing this shit. Not atheists.

You see, only be reference to a higher, pre-existing code could we make any such judgment. But Atheism accepts no such higher code.

What higher code? We don't have a higher code and make our own morals. You have a higher code and still ignore quite a lot of it. What kind of morality is that? You are the one who needs to answer why you don't follow what you believe to be objective morality simply because it is inconvenient.

Exodus 31:15 is very clear. Anyone working on a Sabbath SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. There is no ambiguity there. Yet you bring up the difference between the old and the new testament to defeat the logic...[rest, see above, but another topic]

Just read the book. The instructions in Exodus were explicitly given NOT to all people, but to the Jewish nation. The Egyptians didn't get those laws, nor did the Assyrians, nor the Philistines, nor any other such tribe in the region. Just read the book...it says that quite explicitly. And likewise, they got dietary restrictions on things like the eating of certain animals.

Then stop using Adam and Eve and all the other stuff in your defense arguments. You use the old testament when you want and don't use it when you want.

And if you say the book says that explicitly, tell me the verse where it says it. And it better be unambiguous. Because 31:15 is pretty unambiguous. So whatever verse it is should be clear in its meaning to the point of saying, "okay guys, 31:15 does not apply to you. Work on Sundays. You will not be put to death". Or words to that effect.

Now, when Christ appeared, he revealed a new commandment: that neither days nor diet made a man good or evil. (Again, it's in the book...you just have to read it.) So let me put it to you this way: as a Christian, to which set of laws do you think I owe my primary allegiance?

Think hard, because it's a really tricky question...

Again, the verse please. Also, I don't really care what laws you owe your allegiance to. You keep referring to both testaments as if you believed in them. So as far as I am concerned, they both apply to you. You however seem to be SUBJECTIVELY picking and chooses which parts of the first book apply to you and which don't. Since I cannot know your SUBJECTIVE mindset, I cannot say where your allegiance lies.

Here again you're using the word "logic" incorrectly -- or at least informally. There's no "logic" involved in the idea of surviving. That is, no set of Atheist premises rationally requires you to do it. You might choose to do things that do NOT conduce to survival...smoking, using drugs, abusing your physical body by lack of exercise, promiscuity, abortion, and so on. These are non-survival behaviours that plenty of people embrace.

How do you know they're wrong?

My friend. you are in the same boat. You don't use any logic either. You just follow God's orders because you are worried about judgment day. That IS survival.

Do you mean to say theists don't do the things you mention? Which is worse? Knowing something is wrong and doing it or not knowing something is wrong and doing it? You are asking such weird questions. Just think. How does anyone know that smoking is bad? Did God tell you that? Or doing drugs is bad? Do you actually believe these things are only moral issues? What about common sense?

The rest for tomorrow.

[Immanuel Can]

By the pace of your replies, I am going to guess you're responding on the fly. Perhaps we both need time to consider each other's messages.

So I'm going to agree with you that tomorrow is best.

Let's talk again then.

[Skip]

I missed the actual moment, but am relieved to see Hitler finally made it in here. I think it's illegal, or something, to have a discussion that somehow involves morality without dragging in poor old Hitler. What's Caligula, chopped liver?

[sthitapragya]

The remaining question is, which is morality? And that is not a decision that can be made merely by fiat. It does not matter whether or not I subjectively believe in it or not -- if it's real, it still will be real; and if it is not objectively real, then no amount of my subjective enthusiasm will make it so.

If it is real. There in lies the problem. You don't need any subjective enthusiasm to arrive at morals. Morals are decided from social mores and code of conduct which are arrived at over time by consensus of the community depending on their culture. And that is the reason why you have so many cultures with behaviour you do not find acceptable in your culture. people observe these cultures and adopt them because they can practically see positive and negative responses.

The selection of objective morals to obey from all those written in your book is also subjective. You might have justification for obeying some and not obeying some. But that does not change the fact that different people subjectively interpret objective morals differently, thus rendering the obeying of objective morals subjective. All your morals are subjective. Just as you claim I cannot separate the two emotionally, neither can you.

But again, the distinction above makes a profound difference. The act of belief may be "subjective" in one sense: but that does not render the principle or fact that one believes in any sense "subjective." It may well be objective.

If it were objective you would find it prevailing everywhere with some people deciding to disobey. Just as before 2100 years, everyone who believed in the old testament was bound to observe the Sabbath. But for the rest of the world, there was no such rule. It was not as if they chose to disobey God. God had simply not told them to observe the Sabbath. So if morals were objective, everyone in the world should have had the same objective moral which they collectively chose to disobey. They simply were not told. And I am talking about the majority of the world even then.

Moreover, not all beliefs are equal. Some are predicated on truths. Some are predicated on illusions or falsehoods. Some refer to evidence, and some to none at all. Some are predicated on logic, and some are illogically believed. Some refer to realities, and other merely to illusions. Some are, then, are merely subjective. But others are not. Vive la difference.

I don't know how you can qualify that statement. You will have to give examples of these specially the ones predicated on truths. This suggests that you believe in absolute truths.

The decision of a moral person to act amorally is also subjective.

Only in the trivial sense that all "decisions" are made by a "subject," and for reasons compelling to him. But not in the sense that it suggests we can conclude morality itself is subjective.[/quote]

But it still does not explain how for two groups of people who believe in the same God, the same objective moral has opposite meanings. It would necessarily mean that one of them has got the meaning wrong, with each claiming the other is wrong.

And again, you are still trying to equate objective morality with morality. You are stuck in your belief that objective morals are the only morals.

That's not much of an indictment if what one is "stuck on" happens to turn out to be the truth, though. It would be if one is embracing a belief that is merely subjective, and lacks a truthful object.[/quote]

I want to know this truthful object that you talk about so much. You seem to making claims to know some absolute truths. I am interested in knowing what they are.

I am saying that each one of the objective morals can be arrived at through common sense. You don't need any book to tell you that.

Hang on...are you suddenly saying that there ARE objective morals?

No. I am saying that these objective morals were arrived at by humans and written in a book as God's words. Those humans arrived at the same conclusions using the common sense and cultural mores applicable then. Let me re-phrase. Each one of the morals you claim are objective can be arrived at subjectively through common sense.

[Immanuel Can]

If it is real. There in lies the problem.

Agreed. That's the whole issue.

You don't need any subjective enthusiasm to arrive at morals. Morals are decided from social mores and code of conduct which are arrived at over time by consensus of the community depending on their culture. And that is the reason why you have so many cultures with behaviour you do not find acceptable in your culture. people observe these cultures and adopt them because they can practically see positive and negative responses.

I think we've been around this track before, but this would then imply that, say, incest, female-forced-circumcision, slavery and child-immolation have no real prohibition against them.

And if no behaviours are anything more than perspectively, provisionally and socially prohibited, that means any atrocity in the future is also possible, given that no moral argument can be made against anything a particular society decides it can tolerate...

Maybe I can ask you about a specific case: what do you do with the idea that the British used to rule India? Were they in any sense "wrong" for doing so, provided that they had the power to enforce their will, and the desire to do it? Because, of course, they had both...

If it were objective you would find it prevailing everywhere with some people deciding to disobey.

Actually, I think that is exactly what we DO observe. There are a bunch of rules everybody seems to instinctively "know," such as "Don't kill your children," or "Don't take other people's stuff," and though our grasp of why we all have these feelings is weak, we can observe the moral hesitation reflected in them across societies. But as you say, we also have quite a lot of people who are happy to push boundaries on these, as in the case of, say Yemeni Muslims who think kidnapping and paedophelia are something they want to try...and we don't quite seem to know how to tell them to stop...

Just as before 2100 years, everyone who believed in the old testament was bound to observe the Sabbath. But for the rest of the world, there was no such rule.

Interestingly, this is what I said to you in response to your Exodus quotation. You said I was being evasive, but I see now you know I was telling you the truth: it was a law specifically given to Jewish people. Nobody else was doing it. Nobody else was even told to. I completely agree. The text itself makes that very clear, actually.

Moreover, not all beliefs are equal. Some are predicated on truths. Some are predicated on illusions or falsehoods. Some refer to evidence, and some to none at all. Some are predicated on logic, and some are illogically believed. Some refer to realities, and other merely to illusions. Some are, then, are merely subjective. But others are not. Vive la difference.

I don't know how you can qualify that statement. You will have to give examples of these specially the ones predicated on truths. This suggests that you believe in absolute truths.

I did above, actually. Belief in unicorns is a subjective belief in merely subjective imaginings. Belief in gravity is subjective commitment to an objective scientific truth.

In fact, anybody who believes in science at all believes that some things are objectively "true" and some are not. In science, for example, water ordinarily freezes at 0 C. It's not really a matter of opinion, is it? And even when we find water freezing at a slightly different temperature, there are scientific accounts of that, such as the effect of altitude or pollutants in the water...its not as if belief has made any difference to the facts there.

The question is whether or not there are any principles of morality that are also objective. Is it really, ultimately and finally true that gratuitously murdering an innocent person is wrong, for example? Or can we conceive of a society in which recreationally killing the innocent would be just dandy? And the whole answer to that question hinges one the question of the existence of God.

The decision of a moral person to act amorally is also subjective.

Only in the trivial sense that all "decisions" are made by a "subject," and for reasons compelling to him. But not in the sense that it suggests we can conclude morality itself is subjective.

But it still does not explain how for two groups of people who believe in the same God, the same objective moral has opposite meanings. It would necessarily mean that one of them has got the meaning wrong, with each claiming the other is wrong. [/quote]
That's unproblematic. If I give two children a sum...say 5+9, perhaps one will say it's 14, another will say it's 13 and another will say it's 15. Their disagreement does not suggest maths have failed, but rather that two children's grasp of the correct maths have failed. And even if the one who said it was 15 yelled and screamed and claimed the rest of the world were on her side, that would not have any implication for the truth-status of the answer.

Why would we think, if there were such a thing as objective morality, the situation would be any different? Some people would "get it," and some people would be close but wrong, and some might be far wrong. But none of that would disagreement would argue against the possibility of one of them being right.

Now, where I would have to agree with you is in regard to subjective morality. For if "morality" is simply "what the subject makes up," in each case, or "what the society of a person makes up," then yes, you'd have a powerful argument that they were all just confused. In fact, then Aristotle and the Law of Non-Contradiction would back your play: namely, that since these different people or groups were actually contrary in their view of morality, that there could be no possibility, logically speaking, that all could be right.

But that's suppositional, really. You'd have to know first that subjective morality was all there was. And we don't know that.

I want to know this truthful object that you talk about so much. You seem to making claims to know some absolute truths. I am interested in knowing what they are.

As above.

Each one of the morals you claim are objective can be arrived at subjectively through common sense.

I'd be interested in seeing that worked out. Can you give me one of the usual "objective" moral precepts you might suppose we claim, and show how "common sense" can "arrive at it subjectively"? I'll let you pick. Or you could go with something like, "You must not commit adultery." It's up to you.

[Arising_uk]

Apart from the '10' commandments and the word of Christ, the rest is man's own bollocks to satisfy man.

This just sounds like a man picking and choosing his own bollocks.

[sthitapragya]

You don't need any subjective enthusiasm to arrive at morals. Morals are decided from social mores and code of conduct which are arrived at over time by consensus of the community depending on their culture. And that is the reason why you have so many cultures with behaviour you do not find acceptable in your culture. people observe these cultures and adopt them because they can practically see positive and negative responses.

I think we've been around this track before, but this would then imply that, say, incest, female-forced-circumcision, slavery and child-immolation have no real prohibition against them.

And if no behaviours are anything more than perspectively, provisionally and socially prohibited, that means any atrocity in the future is also possible, given that no moral argument can be made against anything a particular society decides it can tolerate...

Well, try any of the things you mentioned in the USA and see how that goes for you. You wouldn't dare. Not because you are afraid of God because that will come later but because your own neighbours and the law will show you exactly what happens if you try any of it.

But against your own argument, how do you explain religious countries which practice female-forced-circumcision, slavery and child-immolation? They are theists. They are supposed to have absolute morals. So where are the absolute morals of God? These problems are theist problems and not atheist problems. So don't try to even assume that atheism will bring these back. They already exist in theist countries which have absolute morals.

Maybe I can ask you about a specific case: what do you do with the idea that the British used to rule India? Were they in any sense "wrong" for doing so, provided that they had the power to enforce their will, and the desire to do it? Because, of course, they had both...

From the British perspective, what they did was good for them. From our perspective, it was bad for us.

If it were objective you would find it prevailing everywhere with some people deciding to disobey.

Actually, I think that is exactly what we DO observe. There are a bunch of rules everybody seems to instinctively "know," such as "Don't kill your children," or "Don't take other people's stuff," and though our grasp of why we all have these feelings is weak, we can observe the moral hesitation reflected in them across societies. But as you say, we also have quite a lot of people who are happy to push boundaries on these, as in the case of, say Yemeni Muslims who think kidnapping and paedophelia are something they want to try...and we don't quite seem to know how to tell them to stop...

Why should you tell them to stop? It is in their absolute morals, isn't it? Their absolute morals permit them to do it. Now tell me, are you trying to say that their absolute morals are wrong and yours are right? If so, is their God wrong considering the root of both your Gods is the same?

The short answer is, they do it because they have no fear of consequences from the law of the land, which is the real deterrent in this world. Not God. The law of the land which includes your social circle.

Interestingly, this is what I said to you in response to your Exodus quotation. You said I was being evasive, but I see now you know I was telling you the truth: it was a law specifically given to Jewish people. Nobody else was doing it. Nobody else was even told to. I completely agree. The text itself makes that very clear, actually.

My question is, why not? Every person on earth was God's creation. Whether they believed in him or not was immaterial. So why did this absolute moral not apply to the others like the Hindus, the Egyptians or the Chinese? Did God consider them outside his jurisdiction? Why did he not even suggest they be told? He is the God of the world, after all. And this is a jealous God who wanted everyone to worship him and him alone.

The question is whether or not there are any principles of morality that are also objective. Is it really, ultimately and finally true that gratuitously murdering an innocent person is wrong, for example? Or can we conceive of a society in which recreationally killing the innocent would be just dandy? And the whole answer to that question hinges one the question of the existence of God.

No. We cannot conceive of a society in which recreationally killing the innocent would be just dandy. It is not practical. It would lead to loss of value of human life and soon society would degenerate into lawlessness. That is common sense. And you really come up with ridiculous examples. This is what I mean by your bigotry. You actually seem to believe that an atheistic society would resort to such things. You are an atheiophobe.

But it still does not explain how for two groups of people who believe in the same God, the same objective moral has opposite meanings. It would necessarily mean that one of them has got the meaning wrong, with each claiming the other is wrong.

That's unproblematic. If I give two children a sum...say 5+9, perhaps one will say it's 14, another will say it's 13 and another will say it's 15. Their disagreement does not suggest maths have failed, but rather that two children's grasp of the correct maths have failed. And even if the one who said it was 15 yelled and screamed and claimed the rest of the world were on her side, that would not have any implication for the truth-status of the answer.

Are you comparing God's absolute morals with maths? God does not punish your for being bad at maths. If he plans to punish people, don't you think he should at least make his morals clear to the people? Someone who genuine misunderstands a moral can be punished for it by God. How does that work?

Why would we think, if there were such a thing as objective morality, the situation would be any different? Some people would "get it," and some people would be close but wrong, and some might be far wrong. But none of that would disagreement would argue against the possibility of one of them being right.

Of course they would. That is the nature of humans. To help and to argue. Some would correct the others to help them, others would simply argue. But at the end of the day, there would be no God to punish them if they got it wrong.

Now, where I would have to agree with you is in regard to subjective morality. For if "morality" is simply "what the subject makes up," in each case, or "what the society of a person makes up," then yes, you'd have a powerful argument that they were all just confused. In fact, then Aristotle and the Law of Non-Contradiction would back your play: namely, that since these different people or groups were actually contrary in their view of morality, that there could be no possibility, logically speaking, that all could be right.

But that's suppositional, really. You'd have to know first that subjective morality was all there was. And we don't know that.

Well, if there is objective morality then the just and loving God will simply punish them just because they got it wrong.

Each one of the morals you claim are objective can be arrived at subjectively through common sense.

I'd be interested in seeing that worked out. Can you give me one of the usual "objective" moral precepts you might suppose we claim, and show how "common sense" can "arrive at it subjectively"? I'll let you pick. Or you could go with something like, "You must not commit adultery." It's up to you.

Okay. Why should one not commit adultery? As a child grows up, it sees and hears things. They see and understand the effect adultery has on families. As they grow up and mature and understand consequences, before they reach the age of marriage, the concept solidifies in their mind that adultery is not a good trade off. Some abide by it. Others don't. The point you need to understand is, that those that abide by it are both theists and atheists. Those that don't are also both theists and atheists. Both know the consequences. The theist knows that God will punish him and he will possibly ruin his own family. The atheist knows that he will possibly ruin his own family. Still sometimes both given in. The arrival at the moral and the decision to abide by it or ignore it are all subjective.

[Dalek Prime]

Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

To make my bed, and wash my clothes and dishes. But he's too lazy and unreliable to even do that! :/

Hey God, when you get the chance, would you mind tidying up my place a bit? After all, you share it with me, and I never once ask you for rent money.

[Nick_A]

DP wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

To make my bed, and wash my clothes and dishes. But he's too lazy and unreliable to even do that! :/

Hey God, when you get the chance, would you mind tidying up my place a bit? After all, you share it with me, and I never once ask you for rent money.

You are confused. You are describing the jobs of a goddess. You don't want to be insulting do you?

[Dalek Prime]

DP wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

To make my bed, and wash my clothes and dishes. But he's too lazy and unreliable to even do that! :/

Hey God, when you get the chance, would you mind tidying up my place a bit? After all, you share it with me, and I never once ask you for rent money.

You are confused. You are describing the jobs of a goddess. You don't want to be insulting do you?

Any self-respecting goddess I know of would have a harem of male bitches waiting on her, whilst insulting their efforts.. You don't have a girlfriend, do you?

By the way, as an odd coincidence, though I'm male, my middle name, in Balinese and Sanskrit derivatives, means exactly that; Goddess.

[Immanuel Can]

Note: I've clipped the bits that just look redundant or rhetorical to me, but preserved as much of what look like the "meat" of your responses as I can. As always, the full text is above.

...this would then imply that, say, incest, female-forced-circumcision, slavery and child-immolation have no real prohibition against them.

Well, try any of the things you mentioned in the USA and see how that goes for you. You wouldn't dare. Not because you are afraid of God because that will come later but because your own neighbours and the law will show you exactly what happens if you try any of it.

But in Syria, Pakistan or Yemen, these things are just fine, eh? And how about bride-burning? In India, it kills one woman every hour (http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-burni ... 2r4j1.html). According to your view of morality, then, these things are all okay -- not in the US, because there one would be arrested, as you say -- but just fine and dandy if the local culture approves?

Hey, I'm just asking...it's your view, not mine.

But against your own argument, how do you explain religious countries which practice female-forced-circumcision, slavery and child-immolation? They are theists.

Very simply: they're not worshipping the right God, and thus their morals are out of sorts. Surely you didn't imagine all Theists are of the same kind, did you?

These problems are theist problems and not atheist problems.

Not so. If you clump Theists together, then surely it's fair to do the same for Atheists. After all, Atheism is the most simple and minimal of all creeds -- one precept, really: "no Gods." At least, that's what all the Atheists I've argued with on this board have assured me. So surely Atheists, far more than "religious people" or "Theists," are a single group with respect to their fundamental commitment.

But if you want to clump all forms of Theism together, then you owe it to clump Atheists as well: and then they have to explain the 148 million they killed in the last century, which were more than all the war dead in previous history combined. So I really don't think you want to group people unfairly and make what one subgroup does stand for what they all do. But it's up to you. Atheism will certainly lose at that game, just on statistics.

Maybe I can ask you about a specific case: what do you do with the idea that the British used to rule India? Were they in any sense "wrong" for doing so, provided that they had the power to enforce their will, and the desire to do it? Because, of course, they had both...

From the British perspective, what they did was good for them. From our perspective, it was bad for us.

Just to be clear, then, it wasn't in any sense "wrong" for the British to rule India? So long as they could do it, and felt it was "good" for them, then that's all that can be said?

Or are you willing to consider that there should be some weighing off between the perceived British "good" and the Indian "good'? Perhaps on the basis of something like an ultimate right to self-governance? Or am I asking too much of your view if I suggest that?

...But as you say, we also have quite a lot of people who are happy to push boundaries on these, as in the case of, say Yemeni Muslims who think kidnapping and paedophelia are something they want to try...and we don't quite seem to know how to tell them to stop...

Why should you tell them to stop? It is in their absolute morals, isn't it? Their absolute morals permit them to do it. Now tell me, are you trying to say that their absolute morals are wrong and yours are right?

Yes, that's right.

If so, is their God wrong considering the root of both your Gods is the same?

Mohammed thought he knew the Hebrew God, apparently. He also likely had some knowledge of a sect called the Nestorians, from whom he was able to recollect bits of the Torah. But he got them wrong. For example, he thought Ishmael was Abraham's favoured son, not Isaac. He had bits of the Exodus narrative, but again got the details wrong. By the time the Koran was compiled from the scattered recollection of Mohammed's admirers after Mohammed's death, (Mohammed himself was completely illiterate, as any Muslim will proudly tell you, and wrote nothing himself) the view of God represented by the Koran looked nothing like the Biblical view of God.

Muslims scholars admit this: but they claim it's because the original Hebrew and Christian manuscripts have been corrupted, and the Koran's view of God is right. However, they can produce no manuscript evidence for this alleged "corruption," and are in fact swamped by the historical facts when it comes to manuscript evidence.

So yes, the Muslims got it wrong. And their manifest hatred of Jews and Christians -- which you can see every day on the news -- is derived specifically from the fact that they know darn well they don't worship the same God we do.

Interestingly, this is what I said to you in response to your Exodus quotation. You said I was being evasive, but I see now you know I was telling you the truth: it was a law specifically given to Jewish people. Nobody else was doing it. Nobody else was even told to. I completely agree. The text itself makes that very clear, actually.

My question is, why not? Every person on earth was God's creation. Whether they believed in him or not was immaterial. So why did this absolute moral not apply to the others like the Hindus, the Egyptians or the Chinese?

It applies to everyone. But t's true that not everyone has an equal precision of knowledge about it. This is an interesting alternate interpretation of some overlaps between moralities in different societies, such as the nearly-universal prohibitions on theft, betrayal, incest and so on. It looks very much like every society has some handle on this truth...but not all have as much detail in their knowledge.

And if that's right, then it's very easy to understand how they could be responsible for whatever amount of moral "light" they have. Real morality all goes the same direction. Those who know more, have what the Bible calls "a greater condemnation" if they don't act on it; and it follows that those who know less have a lesser condemnation, but also not the same potential for knowledge. So God's fair about all that. Blessing and Judgment are meted out proportionally to knowledge.

But we all have some knowledge of God, and of His moral laws...and we're all responsible to act upon what we really do know.

The question is whether or not there are any principles of morality that are also objective. Is it really, ultimately and finally true that gratuitously murdering an innocent person is wrong, for example? Or can we conceive of a society in which recreationally killing the innocent would be just dandy? And the whole answer to that question hinges one the question of the existence of God.

No. We cannot conceive of a society in which recreationally killing the innocent would be just dandy. It is not practical.

Oh, that's surely not evident. When you kill someone, you get all their possessions. That's eminently practical.

It would lead to loss of value of human life

Let's camp on that for a minute: what is the "value" of a human life, according to Atheism? I'm very interested in that. Could you explain from Atheist premises how we can know a human life has "value"?

You actually seem to believe that an atheistic society would resort to such things...you are an atheiophobe.

I wish it were believable that they wouldn't. But history shows they very often do. In fact, statistics from the last century show there is a 52% chance that an Atheist leader will murder a sizeable number of his population (that is, over 200,000). I'd say that is a worry, wouldn't you?

"Phobic" is a relevant suffix only if it has already been conclusively demonstrated that something being feared is benign. If you think you can make that case for Atheism, I invite you to go ahead. But it's not "phobic" to worry if something is really bad. I do think 148 million dead at the hands of Atheists give me the evidence I need to justify at least a little concern about the moral consequences of Atheism. And if the record of correspondence between Atheism and homicide doesn't worry you, i think that maybe it should.

Are you comparing God's absolute morals with maths?

Yes. In this regard: that like maths, God's moral laws are real and binding. The answers are true and false, and apply to reality. And like the laws of maths, if you disobey them, bad things really ensue -- in maths, the bridges your engineers build collapse; and in morality, you do damage to your conscience and possibly to your personal life now, and then also put yourself on the wrong side of ultimate justice.

Real truth and real consequences: that's what maths and morality share.

Why would we think, if there were such a thing as objective morality, the situation would be any different? Some people would "get it," and some people would be close but wrong, and some might be far wrong. But none of that would disagreement would argue against the possibility of one of them being right.

Of course they would.

Sorry...you misunderstood my syntax. I didn't ask you if "they" would argue: I asked if you thought the fact that they disagree proves that it's impossible for either of them to be right.

Of course it does not, as you can see if you think about it a minute or two. If disagreement meant neither party could be right, then you couldn't possibly be right while arguing with me. And I presume you think you can be, no?

I'd be interested in seeing that worked out. Can you give me one of the usual "objective" moral precepts you might suppose we claim, and show how "common sense" can "arrive at it subjectively"? I'll let you pick. Or you could go with something like, "You must not commit adultery." It's up to you.

Okay. Why should one not commit adultery? As a child grows up, it sees and hears things. They see and understand the effect adultery has on families. As they grow up and mature and understand consequences, before they reach the age of marriage, the concept solidifies in their mind that adultery is not a good trade off. Some abide by it. Others don't. The point you need to understand is, that those that abide by it are both theists and atheists. Those that don't are also both theists and atheists. Both know the consequences. The theist knows that God will punish him and he will possibly ruin his own family. The atheist knows that he will possibly ruin his own family. Still sometimes both given in. The arrival at the moral and the decision to abide by it or ignore it are all subjective.

Thanks for this explanation. It helps me see, a bit. It also raises some questions, which I hope you may help me clear up.

I don't disagree that a Theist can know adultery is wrong, and still give in to it. I just can't really see why an Atheist would have to think it's wrong at all, even if he felt personally he didn't want to do it, for some reason of his own.

I would have to think, then, that your view as stated offers no singular perspective on the subject of adultery. Adultery is then not actually wrong, just...inconvenient to some. And if that's right, it sounds to me like you're saying it's fine for those who want to do it, and it's not for those who don't. So long as they are willing to take the consequences, the act itself has no intrinsic badness.

Have I understood your view correctly there? Because if I have, then your view has actually got no information that fits the formal classification of ethics or morality on adultery at all. Your statements are not, as we say in Ethics, "normative," meaning that they can't tell us what the moral "norms" ought to be for adultery. (I'm going to have to trust you here not to get upset at my wording; which you won't, if you know or look up the meaning of "normative." You'll see I'm not insulting you, I'm using the formal ethical category to try to classify what you are saying, so as to understand you aright.)

You might have...I don't know...statistical? information, or prudential advice? I'm not sure what your view is really offering the person who is deliberating between his impulses and the consequences of acting on them, or what information could guide common social projects like deciding whether or not to stigmatize adultery...what "normative" content is there in your view?

As a label, could we speak of it as a "moral" or "normative" view at all, or would we rather have to say it's a strictly "prudential" take on the question?

[sthitapragya]

...this would then imply that, say, incest, female-forced-circumcision, slavery and child-immolation have no real prohibition against them.

Well, try any of the things you mentioned in the USA and see how that goes for you. You wouldn't dare. Not because you are afraid of God because that will come later but because your own neighbours and the law will show you exactly what happens if you try any of it.

But in Syria, Pakistan or Yemen, these things are just fine, eh? And how about bride-burning? In India, it kills one woman every hour (http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-burni ... 2r4j1.html).

they are arrested for it. But remember, these are all THEISTS doing the stuff you have a problem with. So why are you asking me to explain? You need to explain what happened to their objective morality.

According to your view of morality, then, these things are all okay -- not in the US, because there one would be arrested, as you say -- but just fine and dandy if the local culture approves?

What do you get out of this kind of false goading? does it make you feel better? What does it do? I have already explained my morality to you. You know perfectly well it is not okay in my morality. Stop this insulting and bigotry.

And keep remembering that it is THEISTS with objective morals committing these crimes and it seems fine and okay to them. So these are questions you need to direct to your God and yourself and your objective morals and to the theist who does these things.

These problems are theist problems and not atheist problems.

Not so. If you clump Theists together, then surely it's fair to do the same for Atheists.

It is not I who started it. This whole discussion is about you clumping atheists together. And the only way I can get through your bigotry is by clumping theists together to show you that the morality of both remains exactly the same.

After all, Atheism is the most simple and minimal of all creeds -- one precept, really: "no Gods."

Exactly. And you seem to believe that God and morality go together. I have been trying to explain to you that theists and atheists are exactly the same except for their belief in God. You don't need God to derive morals.

You are the one trying to give this bigoted morality twist to atheists. And I think I have given sufficient explanations for it. So if you intend to continue this ranting of yours, I think we should stop talking to each other.

I would be disappointed because you were one guy who seemed to be able to stick to civil behaviour, but now I am getting tired of your bigotry driven insults.

You are not discussing objective and subjective morality. You are constantly making allegations. This is not a court. You are not a judge.

I don't think I deserve this kind of treatment.

If you think you can stop, let me know, otherwise, good bye and good luck.

[Immanuel Can]

they are arrested for it. But remember, these are all THEISTS doing the stuff you have a problem with. So why are you asking me to explain?

Because unless you wish to depart the question of ethics and morals entirely, and live as an amoralist, even an Atheist needs to say why he approves of the arresting of wife-burners. Otherwise, he simply cannot justify taking any view of it at all.

So where are you on that? Will you condemn the practice universally, or make a place for people to continue to do it? And how about slavery? Are you going to accept that even if it's wrong in modern India, it was actually right in the US South?

You need to explain what happened to their objective morality.

Easy. They were immoral; that's what happened.

Why would you think that "objectivity" was the ONLY qualification of genuine morality? Truthfulness is surely a second, righteousness a third, justice a fourth, and so on. The "morality" which allows wife-burnings, slavery, revenge rape, and so on is objectively wrong. That, say Muslims in Yemen who rape little girls is objectively immoral, even if they think it's objectively moral. It's no more a matter of their belief than the Law of Gravity is.

I think you're still struggling with what's called "an error of equivocation" between the observation that belief is a subjective act, and you're mistakenly transferring that to the conclusion that the object of that belief, in this case "morality" therefore also has to be subjective. But that is clearly wrong. For in science, all beliefs are also subjective, but some are beliefs in objectively true scientific facts, and some may be beliefs in mere theories or even errors. The data make the difference. Reality does not change with people's subjective willingness to recognize reality. People who jump off high buildings still crash to the ground and die, even if their subjective view is that they will not.

If morality is objective, it's flatly the same for everyone, just as the Law of Gravity is. Nobody has any right or power to change it on a subjective preference. Like the Laws of Nature, the principles of morality are established by God. But not the Hindus "gods," nor the Muslim "Allah." They are objectively unreal gods, and the "morality" people derive out of their suppositions of such gods are simply misguided.

We need not defend them; in fact, we cannot.

According to your view of morality, then, these things are all okay -- not in the US, because there one would be arrested, as you say -- but just fine and dandy if the local culture approves?

What do you get out of this kind of false goading? does it make you feel better? What does it do? I have already explained my morality to you. You know perfectly well it is not okay in my morality. Stop this insulting and bigotry.

No insult intended. I simply found your view incomprehensible on the terms you expressed it. I was requesting more information. You say it's not okay...but you have so far given no plausible account of why it MUST be regarded as "not okay."

However, your umbrage is irrational. For according to Atheism you would have no legitimacy in even being annoyed. After all, if I were "goading" you, it would not be "wrong," especially if my "society" did not think it was, according to you. So how could you be upset? Nothing "wrong" has happened, since there is no objective wrong...

So you say there's not objective morality...but still, you're objectively mad with a person from a different culture for "insulting" you, as you perceive it. It's almost like you think there's some sort of universal moral duty that people have not to do that....

But you can't believe that. You're a subjectivist, right?

So why are you mad?

You don't need God to derive morals.

You keep saying that, but in every case you try to adduce, you end up saying "Nothing's really wrong." I see nothing normative in your content at all. (At the risk of making you madder, I must point tout that now would be the time to look that word up, if you wish to avoid mistakenly thinking I'm insulting you: I can see you don't know it, from your response.)

I don't think I deserve this kind of treatment.
If you think you can stop, let me know, otherwise, good bye and good luck.

You are not being mistreated. I have not called you "bigot" or any other such thing, though that is a word you have repeated thrown at me without proof or warrant. And I have not told you to "be a man," either.

I've been inquisitive and unrelenting, but quite polite, actually, though you may feel otherwise. I admit I have, however, continued to question your account of the idea that you can have a grounded moral theory without reference to God. And that is unlikely to change until the explanations become consistent and plausible: because that's what it means to do philosophy.

Now, we can do philosophy, or I suppose that you can find it better to whip up an imaginary insult and, as we say, "take your ball and go home with it," I can't stop you doing that, of course.

You'll have to please yourself. No hard feelings on my side, whatever you may think.

[sthitapragya]

they are arrested for it. But remember, these are all THEISTS doing the stuff you have a problem with. So why are you asking me to explain?

Because unless you wish to depart the question of ethics and morals entirely, and live as an amoralist, even an Atheist needs to say why he approves of the arresting of wife-burners. Otherwise, he simply cannot justify taking any view of it at all.

So where are you on that? Will you condemn the practice universally, or make a place for people to continue to do it? And how about slavery? Are you going to accept that even if it's wrong in modern India, it was actually right in the US South?

You need to explain what happened to their objective morality.

Easy. They were immoral; that's what happened.

Why would you think that "objectivity" was the ONLY qualification of genuine morality? Truthfulness is surely a second, righteousness a third, justice a fourth, and so on. The "morality" which allows wife-burnings, slavery, revenge rape, and so on is objectively wrong. That, say Muslims in Yemen who rape little girls is objectively immoral, even if they think it's objectively moral. It's no more a matter of their belief than the Law of Gravity is.

I think you're still struggling with what's called "an error of equivocation" between the observation that belief is a subjective act, and you're mistakenly transferring that to the conclusion that the object of that belief, in this case "morality" therefore also has to be subjective. But that is clearly wrong. For in science, all beliefs are also subjective, but some are beliefs in objectively true scientific facts, and some may be beliefs in mere theories or even errors. The data make the difference. Reality does not change with people's subjective willingness to recognize reality. People who jump off high buildings still crash to the ground and die, even if their subjective view is that they will not.

If morality is objective, it's flatly the same for everyone, just as the Law of Gravity is. Nobody has any right or power to change it on a subjective preference. Like the Laws of Nature, the principles of morality are established by God. But not the Hindus "gods," nor the Muslim "Allah." They are objectively unreal gods, and the "morality" people derive out of their suppositions of such gods are simply misguided.

We need not defend them; in fact, we cannot.

According to your view of morality, then, these things are all okay -- not in the US, because there one would be arrested, as you say -- but just fine and dandy if the local culture approves?

What do you get out of this kind of false goading? does it make you feel better? What does it do? I have already explained my morality to you. You know perfectly well it is not okay in my morality. Stop this insulting and bigotry.

No insult intended. I simply found your view incomprehensible on the terms you expressed it. I was requesting more information. You say it's not okay...but you have so far given no plausible account of why it MUST be regarded as "not okay."

However, your umbrage is irrational. For according to Atheism you would have no legitimacy in even being annoyed. After all, if I were "goading" you, it would not be "wrong," especially if my "society" did not think it was, according to you. So how could you be upset? Nothing "wrong" has happened, since there is no objective wrong...

So you say there's not objective morality...but still, you're objectively mad with a person from a different culture for "insulting" you, as you perceive it. It's almost like you think there's some sort of universal moral duty that people have not to do that....

But you can't believe that. You're a subjectivist, right?

So why are you mad?

You don't need God to derive morals.

You keep saying that, but in every case you try to adduce, you end up saying "Nothing's really wrong." I see nothing normative in your content at all. (At the risk of making you madder, I must point tout that now would be the time to look that word up, if you wish to avoid mistakenly thinking I'm insulting you: I can see you don't know it, from your response.)

I don't think I deserve this kind of treatment.
If you think you can stop, let me know, otherwise, good bye and good luck.

You are not being mistreated. I have not called you "bigot" or any other such thing, though that is a word you have repeated thrown at me without proof or warrant. And I have not told you to "be a man," either.

I've been inquisitive and unrelenting, but quite polite, actually, though you may feel otherwise. I admit I have, however, continued to question your account of the idea that you can have a grounded moral theory without reference to God. And that is unlikely to change until the explanations become consistent and plausible: because that's what it means to do philosophy.

Now, we can do philosophy, or I suppose that you can find it better to whip up an imaginary insult and, as we say, "take your ball and go home with it," I can't stop you doing that, of course.

You'll have to please yourself. No hard feelings on my side, whatever you may think.

I have explained ad nauseum why atheists would disagree with things like bride burning. You simply ignore all my answers because you obviously want to believe that all atheists are immoral. You are a bigot. You will continue in this vein. I refuse to explain the same thing again and again for different examples of crimes committed by theists.

You however have no wish to explain why all the crimes you mentioned are committed by theists. All of them. You don't wish to explain why objective morality does not work for them. You want me to account for behaviour of theists. You don't raise questions. You make accusations. And obviously you have no wish to change your tack.

You want to prove that an atheist is immoral because of the unacceptable behaviour of theists with objective morality. You cannot seem to realize that you yourself prove that all morality is subjective by pointing out the subjective moral choice of theists from their own objective morals.