Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality - Page 4 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality
in Religion

1246


Arguments

  • @piloteer

    >Whether or not morality can be an authority because it's objective doesn't matter, because morality isn't objective,…

    You choose what doesn't matter to you, and I'll choose what doesn't matter to me.

    We are debating the nature of morality, thus, truths about morality, even philosophical ones, matter.

    >…..and I've seen a complete lack of ability from anyone on this thread to be able to provide any evidence that demonstrates how morality is objective.

    Comments that absolute usually mean the person making the comment has not thoroughly thought through the issue.

    >That's kinda the problem with claims of something being objective, you gotta prove it by providing convincing evidence.

    Evidence for concepts like “objective morality” will be logical. But logical evidence is often times better than empirical evidence. Do you have an idea what would satisfy you as evidence?

    >There are no such things as assumed truths, or untouchable foundational principles that are left alone for the sake of making people comfortable.
     
    >Everything deserves objective scrutiny, even "Gods laws". Leave us not forget that it was you who claimed that morality is objective, yet you've done nothing to even begin to prove it.

    Untrue. You're just not so good with fine points. My argument was that the atheist's morality is NOT objective, not that morality IS objective. You just want me arguing the point you want. I make my own arguments thank you. 
     
    Now I will say this, morality CAN be objective. But it also can NOT be objective. Whether morality is EVER objective is a different argument to the one I'm expounding here. If you want to make or challenge that argument, perhaps you should start a thread.
     
    >You've made a claim that something is objective, but until you can provide convincing evidence of that, it's not objective, it's just a basele claim. 

    OK. As my argument is not that morality IS objective, but that atheist's morality is NOT objective, I will leave it to the person making that claim to argue it.It just isn't me. 

    >I can say that I agreed with the idea that morality cannot be an authority if it's not objective, but that point is moot until somebody demonstrates that morality is indeed objective.

    That is why I asked you, what makes you think that morality would be authoritative if it was objective? 

    >That ship won't ever leave the dock until you or anybody else can prove that morality is objective. And yes, you're right, I am pretty popular. Probably because of my endless charm and intoxicating beauty. 

    Lol. I was born immune to charm, and delectable Mrs. Ethan has me covered on beauty, so I think I'll be safe.
    Zombieguy1987
  • "@ethang5

    Just like your immunity to charm, you're also immune to making consistent arguments. Now all of the sudden you're not arguing that morality is objective. Should all of us here just disregard these statements you've made?


    --- "The morality of a Christian though, is objective, and applies to everyone, regardless of what anyone thinks of it."----

    ----"Or maybe I'm saying Christians follow objective morality, and that objective morality applies to everyone. There exists only objective morality. Anything else is not morality."----

    -----"But I can make an argument for objective morality based on logic, reason, and truth.Morality is not relative. Not if you know the definition of objective. But you undercut your own argument. The law is violated everyday even with it being an authority."----

    Now that you're not arguing that morality IS objective, but that it CAN be objective, try and demonstrate when and where morality CAN be objective, then you'll have some more leverage for your claim that "the morality of a Christian is objective". 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @SilverishGoldNova The original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does NOT refer to rape, as rapists are to be killed in other parts of the Torah. Furthermore, I feel safer as a woman with the Bible, than I do with the Quran, which tells husbands to rape and beat their wives. Grow a pair, and stand up to the REAL rape apologists.
    Zombieguy1987SilverishGoldNova
  • @piloteer

    Reality is not how things seem to you. I do believe morality is objective, but that was not what I was arguing here.

    That would be like me saying your argument was that you are charming and reposting your comment that you were.

    That would be silly.

    As I told you, I argue what I like. I don't give one fig for what you want, and I don't feel obligated one bit to do what you want.

    My argument was that the atheist's morality cannot be objective. It is not even morality. I have demonstrated that.

    If you now want to switch to the different argument of whether morality is objective, answer my question. If you don't care to answer, then that indicates to me you don't care to discuss the issue.

    Now, tell me why you agree that only an authoritative morality would be objective or stfu.

    My point here has been made.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Suppose that I believe that killing is generally bad, because my personal moral compass says so. And you believe that killing is generally bad, because the Bible says so.

    Now explain to me why my belief is not a moral, while yours is a moral. What makes our beliefs principally different?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    >Suppose that I believe that killing is generally bad, because my personal moral compass says so. And you believe that killing is generally bad, because the Bible says so.

    Untrue. Don't state other peoples position for them. It's dishonest. Christians also believe that killing is generally bad, but that belief is corroborated by authority of the bible. Remember, no one was born a Christian. Every Christian was once an atheist.

    >Now explain to me why my belief is not a moral, while yours is a moral. What makes our beliefs principally different?

    Your belief is your opinion. Your opinion is not morality. It is not objective. My belief is objective, as such, it can be a moral standard for everyone. Your "morality", as your personal opinion, can apply only to you.

    My morality is objective, and therefore, authoritative. Yours is not.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1453 Pts
    edited February 13
    I asked you to explain why these things are as you claim they are, rather than reiterate how these things are. "Your belief is your opinion and mine is objective, because your belief is your opinion and mine is objective" - essentially what your argument comes down to.
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteerpiloteer 252 Pts
    edited February 13
    @ethang5

    Who's the adult at your house? I wanna speak with them. I don't think they made the best decision when they said that you could use the internet. We need to put a stop to this. NOW!!!!!
    Zombieguy1987
  • @piloteer

    When you run out of anything to say, stop posting.

    You obviously have the same opinion of your sense of humor as you do of your charm. You have neither.

    You dodged the question. My world view needs no dodging. Focus more on building your logic and less on trying to be funny.

    You're unintentionally already funny.


    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • @ethang5

    I will continue posting just to annoy you. Stop fooling yourself, you've convinced nobody of anything and you've only demonstrated that you're incapable of demonstrating that morality is objective. When I challenged you on that, you tried changing your argument and saying that you weren't arguing that morality IS objective, even in light of the fact that you stated several times that you are. I wasn't trying to be funny in my last post because it's laughable that you don't think that everybody knows your just a 12 year old kid on a debate site and you don't actually understand how to debate. That's why I need to speak to the adult in your house to let them know that their are adults here who are trying to have a conversation and you're getting in the way of it. That's all you've done here. 
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • @ethang5 ;

    Let us start from the very beginning. How do you define the words "objective" and "subjective"? What would separate an objective moral from a subjective moral?

    I feel that your definition of these words is very different from how most people define them, and that leads to the mutual misunderstanding.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    >Let us start from the very beginning.

    OK.

    >How do you define the words "objective" and "subjective"?

    Just as the dictionary defines them. Hopefully you don't have a problem with dictionaries.

    >What would separate an objective moral from a subjective moral?

    Neither one would qualify under the dictionary definition of the other.

    >I feel that your definition of these words is very different from how most people define them,...

    Why would you feel that way? I have used neither word in an unorthodox way. Feelings can be deceptive.

    >and that leads to the mutual misunderstanding.

    There was misunderstanding, but it wasn't mutual. I understood you fine.

    Now. With what part of my argument do you disagree?
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • @YeshuaBought Islam is probably the biggest cancer on the world today, and I've posted about that before. 
    Zombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer come here actively, and many of the things that I may have posted in the past (Such as belief in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1453 Pts
    edited February 18
    @ethang5

    No, I do not accept unspecified references; different dictionaries define these words differently. I want your definition of these words.

    1. Define "subjective" and "objective".
    2. Explain what "subjective moral" and "objective moral" is, based on that.

    You have just been running around in circles, dodging every direct question. Either let us start talking in concrete terms, or this discussion is obsolete.
    PlaffelvohfenpiloteerZombieguy1987
  • ethang5 said:
    @piloteer

    My argument was that the atheist's morality cannot be objective. It is not even morality. I have demonstrated that.
    Sorry but you haven't.

    The valid points you made were in favor of the truth of objective morality over the truth of suggestive morality. Here I would tend to agree with that, in that I think that morals can, and even maybe need to, be universal/objective (independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism), but I don't think they can be absolute (independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism). 

    For the moment, to me that's all you've done, you primarily made a case for an objective morality, then brushed it with hues of an asserted authoritative anchor in the christian god, specifically... Didn't quite made that case though. 

    But you did not demonstrate, that an atheist's morality cannot be objective. 

    Just so we don't talk past each other, which happens a lot online, I'm I right in assuming that you are a tenant of the Divine Command Theory and maybe familiar with the works of William Lane Craig et Al.?? 
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar

    >No, I do not accept unspecified references; different dictionaries define these words differently.

    So you want me to cite a specific dictionary? Or is your implication that dictionaries are not useful?

    >I want your definition of these words.

    And my definition is that used in the dictionary. What you want is unimportant to me.

    >1. Define "subjective" and "objective".
    >2. Explain what "subjective moral" and "objective moral" is, based on that.

    >You have just been running around in circles, dodging every direct question.

    Ethan never dodges. You have asked only one direct question and I have answered you directly. If you don't accept or like my answer, I am under no obligation to satisfy you.

    >Either let us start talking in concrete terms, or this discussion is obsolete.

    Lol. "Obsolete" is a strange word to use there. Are you sure you know what it means?

    Before I start jumping through your hoops and answering questions the way you like, tell me what your issue is with me. What are you questioning? With what do you disagree?

    If you think I must do it your way first, you are in for a surprise.
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    My argument was that the atheist's morality cannot be objective. It is not even morality. I have demonstrated that.

    >Sorry but you haven't.

    I have. It is self evident that the atheist's morality is subjective. Even the atheist admits this. He chooses his morality himself. That makes it subjective.

    >The valid points you made were in favor of the truth of objective morality over the truth of suggestive morality. Here I would tend to agree with that, in that I think that morals can, and even maybe need to, be universal/objective (independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism), but I don't think they can be absolute (independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism).

    Then I fail to see the problem you have with my argument. I did not mention absolutism. All I claimed was that the morality of an atheist cannot be objective. My conclusion from that is that the morality of an atheist is therefore not authoritative.

    >For the moment, to me that's all you've done, you primarily made a case for an objective morality, then brushed it with hues of an asserted authoritative anchor in the christian god,...

    It is paradoxically the atheist who keeps bringing up God. I haven't. All I need to show to prove my claim, is that the atheist's morality is not objective. I am making a case AGAINST the morality of the atheist, not making a case FOR objective morality.

    >specifically... Didn't quite made that case though.

    I was not trying to make a case for God, but my experience online has been that atheists always knee-jerk to the argument for/against God, no matter what the original theistic argument is. I have demonstrated that only objective morality can be authoritative, and that the morality of atheists is not objective. The existence of God is not necessary for my argument to be logically correct.

    >But you did not demonstrate, that an atheist's morality cannot be objective.

    Then you may not know the meaning of the word "objective". But any self appointed morality is subjective. And atheistic morality is self appointed. It must be.

    >Just so we don't talk past each other, which happens a lot online, I'm I right in assuming that you are a tenant of the Divine Command Theory and maybe familiar with the works of William Lane Craig et Al.??

    I've been online a long time and know a lot. But none of that is necessary. Just take and evaluate my reasoning as I gave it. Peg me if that helps you, but I won't assist you in doing so.

    If you want to assume me a proponent of anyone, you will be 100% correct every time in assuming me a proponent of His Wondrous Majesty, King Jesus Christ, the undisputed, unmitigated, Champion of the Universe.

    Yeah. That would be a very safe assumption.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    edited February 19
    Being an atheist means your morality is not determined by a book of nonsense like the Bible or Quran two deeply immoral books of nonsense  , religious people use and have used these dreadful books to justify atrocities carried out in their name since they were first cobbled together , historically to be religious one could  get away with deeply  immoral acts  and hide behind your favourite sacred book something Atheists do not need to do as their morality is not informed by books of nonsense 
    Zombieguy1987
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 248 Pts
    edited February 19
    ethang5 said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    --- All I claimed was that the morality of an atheist cannot be objective. My conclusion from that is that the morality of an atheist is therefore not authoritative.
    --- It is paradoxically the atheist who keeps bringing up God. I haven't. All I need to show to prove my claim, is that the atheist's morality is not objective. I am making a case AGAINST the morality of the atheist, not making a case FOR objective morality.
    --- I have demonstrated that only objective morality can be authoritative, and that the morality of atheists is not objective. The existence of God is not necessary for my argument to be logically correct.

    Of course it is. 

    The authority needed for your position, is the existence of God. How can Christian morality be authoritative if Jesus (god) does not exist?
    It's the atheist disbelief in god that according to you, makes his morality non-authoritative thus not objective... Its existence (god's) is central to your points about the authoritative nature of morality.

    Let me ask you this to clear some possible misunderstandings; Can any morality ever be authoritative without the existence of a supreme being (god)?  Simple question, yes or no, you can add nuance to your answer in order to be as precise as you need in what you mean.

    If you agree to answer that, we could proceed further... You can deflect, dodge or redirect the question but then I would assume you are debating in bad faith and to have conceded the debate. Same goes for me, I don't mind being pointed out on my possible argumentative mistakes, they do happen, but debating in good faith is essential in an honest debate. 
    DeeZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    The existence of God is not necessary for my argument to be logically correct.

    >Of course it is.

    No, it is not. You must not know my argument. If the atheist's morality is not objective, then it cannot be applied to anyone else. It is simply an opinion.

    >The authority needed for your position, is the existence of God.

    No sir. You aren't thinking. Even if there is no God, subjective moralities remain subjective and lack authority.

    >How can Christian morality be authoritative if Jesus (god) does not exist?

    My argument is not about Christian morality, it is about atheist morality. As an anti-theist, you gravitate towards your pet argument about there is no God. My argument so far has not called on God.

    >It's the atheist disbelief in god that according to you, makes his morality non-authoritative thus not objective...

    No sir. The atheist's belief has nothing to do with it. Objective morality cannot be affected by belief. The atheist's morality is non-authoritative because he chooses it himself. Anyone, Christian or no, who chooses his own morality has a subjective, nonauthoritative morality.

    >Its existence (god's) is central to your points about the authoritative nature of morality.

    That is the argument you want to go to, it is not currently my argument. I am saying nothing about the nature of morality. I am saying that what the atheist has is NOT morality. God or no God.

    >Let me ask you this to clear some possible misunderstandings; Can any morality ever be authoritative without the existence of a supreme being (god)?

    That is immaterial to my argument. My argument is not about morality. If you wish to start a new argument about objective morality, please settle the current argument.

    >Simple question, yes or no, you can add nuance to your answer in order to be as precise as you need in what you mean.

    I will not answer an irrelevant question that would contaminate my argument. You already believe I'm saying that it's the atheists disbelief in God that makes his morality lack authority. You are wrong.

    >If you agree to answer that, we could proceed further... You can deflect, dodge or redirect the question but then I would assume you are debating in bad faith and to have conceded the debate.

    You can assume anything you want. But I will make my own arguments, and I will correct you when you make incorrect assumptions about my argument.

    >Same goes for me, I don't mind being pointed out on my possible argumentative mistakes, they do happen, but debating in good faith is essential in an honest debate.

    I cannot control what faith you think I'm arguing with, and I don't really care. 

    My argument is about non-authoritative morality, not morality. If you cannot show a logical error in my argument, you should concede, and then you can ask me about other things, like authoritative morality or the nature of objective morality.
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    The existence of God is not necessary for my argument to be logically correct.

    >Of course it is.

    No, it is not. You must not know my argument. If the atheist's morality is not objective, then it cannot be applied to anyone else. It is simply an opinion.

    >The authority needed for your position, is the existence of God.

    No sir. You aren't thinking. Even if there is no God, subjective moralities remain subjective and lack authority.

    >How can Christian morality be authoritative if Jesus (god) does not exist?

    My argument is not about Christian morality, it is about atheist morality. As an anti-theist, you gravitate towards your pet argument about there is no God. My argument so far has not called on God.

    >It's the atheist disbelief in god that according to you, makes his morality non-authoritative thus not objective...

    No sir. The atheist's belief has nothing to do with it. Objective morality cannot be affected by belief. The atheist's morality is non-authoritative because he chooses it himself. Anyone, Christian or no, who chooses his own morality has a subjective, nonauthoritative morality.

    >Its existence (god's) is central to your points about the authoritative nature of morality.

    That is the argument you want to go to, it is not currently my argument. I am saying nothing about the nature of morality. I am saying that what the atheist has is NOT morality. God or no God.

    >Let me ask you this to clear some possible misunderstandings; Can any morality ever be authoritative without the existence of a supreme being (god)?

    That is immaterial to my argument. My argument is not about morality. If you wish to start a new argument about objective morality, please settle the current argument.

    >Simple question, yes or no, you can add nuance to your answer in order to be as precise as you need in what you mean.

    I will not answer an irrelevant question that would contaminate my argument. You already believe I'm saying that it's the atheists disbelief in God that makes his morality lack authority. You are wrong.

    >If you agree to answer that, we could proceed further... You can deflect, dodge or redirect the question but then I would assume you are debating in bad faith and to have conceded the debate.

    You can assume anything you want. But I will make my own arguments, and I will correct you when you make incorrect assumptions about my argument.

    >Same goes for me, I don't mind being pointed out on my possible argumentative mistakes, they do happen, but debating in good faith is essential in an honest debate.

    I cannot control what faith you think I'm arguing with, and I don't really care. 

    My argument is about non-authoritative morality, not morality. If you cannot show a logical error in my argument, you should concede, and then you can ask me about other things, like authoritative morality or the nature of objective morality.
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 248 Pts
    edited February 19
    @ethang5

    Ok then, let's say I've misconstrued your argument, a forum like this being what it is, all jumbled up, It's quite possible that I missed something important... Could you reiterate as concisely as possible your fundamental argument so I could address it properly? Is that fair?
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ethang5 said:

    No, it is not. You must not know my argument. If the atheist's morality is not objective, then it cannot be applied to anyone else. It is simply an opinion.
    That is not what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean. "Subjective" does not mean "cannot be applied to anyone else". It means that it depends on the perspective. Two or more people can have the same subjective moral. In fact, 100% humans in the Solar system can share certain morals, and those morals will still be subjective.

    I am asking you for, what, 4th time: write down your definitions of the words "subjective" and "objective". It is clear that you misunderstand what these words mean, and you conveniently refuse to ever define them properly.

    If you really want to, copy-paste one of the dictionary definitions. Does not matter. Give us, at least, something to go from, because as of now we are dealing with a black box essentially.
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    edited February 20
    @ethang5


    You refuse to define any of the terminology you use as in a clear guide as to the terms objective, subjective and authoritative , you further muddy the waters by making absurd statements such as “my argument is about non authoritative morality not morality “ ,morality in your opinion needs an authoritative source otherwise it’s what? Not  moral or valid or morally inferior?


    What would make an authoritative source of morality superior?  By the way you are not mentioning god nor am I but what if the authoritative source of morality says “ killing is right “ then using your logic this is indeed the case and if not why not? 

    If your source of morality is authoritative that makes you morally bankrupt which is why you keep avoiding using the term god as the authoritative source which is fine , so that being the case what’s the authoritative source that you avoid referencing?
     

    There is a clear guide to a universal and powerful objective morality that’s just as objectively true as math or science and the key term is Harm.


    Every living animal with a nervous system can and does experience harm it is marked by pain, fear , hunger,  thirst, sadness, frustration, . . . any negative emotion or feeling.  Humans can check both human-initiated intentional harm, which is under our control, and other types of unintentional harm, e.g., environment damage caused by human industrial development.


    Morality requires us not to do bad things we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things.  This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true.  This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.


     Morality evolves and is ever evolving any behavior that fails the function for which morality evolved which is our survivability is morally incorrect. 



  • @Plaffelvohfen

    >Could you reiterate as concisely as possible your fundamental argument so I could address it properly? Is that fair?

    The thread title:
    Being an atheist doesn't mean they lack morality.

    I agreed. But said that the theist is not saying the atheist lacks morality, but rather lacks an objective morality. And thus lacks an authoritative morality.

    This is because atheists have subjective morality. And a subjective morality cannot be authoritative.

    My conclusion was that atheists have opinions, which they call morality.

    That is it.
  • @MayCaesar

    >That is not what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean.

    I know. I did not define the words.

    >"Subjective" does not mean "cannot be applied to anyone else".

    I did not say that was the meaning, I said that was the consequence.

    >It means that it depends on the perspective.

    And any morality that depends on someone's perspective cannot have a moral obligation on anyone.

    >Two or more people can have the same subjective moral. In fact, 100% humans in the Solar system can share certain morals, and those morals will still be subjective.

    True.

    >I am asking you for, what, 4th time: write down your definitions of the words "subjective" and "objective". It is clear that you misunderstand what these words mean, and you conveniently refuse to ever define them properly.

    What is clear is that you think I misunderstand what the words mean. You think this because you mistook my consequences for definitions. Do you own a dictionary? Use it.

    >If you really want to, copy-paste one of the dictionary definitions.

    No. There is no need. There are even free dictionaries online. Use one.

    >Does not matter. Give us, at least, something to go from, because as of now we are dealing with a black box essentially.

    You aren't trapped. You just want me to do your bidding. Sorry I won't. You paste a definition from a dictionary, and we'll go by that.

    If you knew the meaning of objective, you wouldn't be having this problem in the first place. Educate yourself.
  • @Dee

    >You refuse to define any of the terminology you use as in a clear guide as to the terms objective, subjective and authoritative,

    Those are terms any beginner in philosophy and ethics would know. Your education is your responsibility.

    >you further muddy the waters by making absurd statements such as “my argument is about non authoritative morality not morality

    That you think that statement is absurd only shows your logical acumen.

    >“morality in your opinion needs an authoritative source otherwise it’s what? Not  moral or valid or morally inferior?

    It is not an "ought". Without authority, there is no reason why anyone ought to follow it and no one is immoral for not following it.

    >"What would make an authoritative source of morality superior?

    It would not depend on, or could changed by, anyone.

    >}By the way you are not mentioning god nor am I but what if the authoritative source of morality says “ killing is right “ then using your logic this is indeed the case and if not why not?

    There are thousands of people who have killed and you do not hold them as immoral. Killing can be immoral, but it can also be moral.

    Your question is a good one, and this is why the theist rejects the atheist being his own authority. For it would be him deciding that killing was OK when he felt like it, or would be able to convict an innocent person, say a police officer shooting a rapist if he did not like the officer.

    >If your source of morality is authoritative that makes you morally bankrupt....

    This is more than illogical, it is stupid. But there is no law against being stupid.

    >...which is why you keep avoiding using the term god as the authoritative source which is fine ,

    Lol. You are trying to saddle me with your bias. I can use God when needed. So far, I have not had to. You are itching for me to use God because as a militant anti-theist, that is where your passion is.

    >so that being the case..

    That is not the case. You will argue and prove points, not simply declare them. Sorry.

    >what’s the authoritative source that you avoid referencing?

    I have avoided nothing. Your suspicions are not truth. If I need to mention God, I will. But you have to put a logical dent in my argument first. You have failed to do so. I as yet don't even know what your issue with me is, other than that you suspect I'm a theist.
     
    >There is a clear guide to a universal and powerful objective morality that’s just as objectively true as math or science and the key term is Harm.

    That is nonsense. Please look up the word "objective". It will help you.

    >Every living animal with a nervous system can and does experience harm it is marked by pain, fear , hunger,  thirst, sadness, frustration, . . . any negative emotion or feeling.

    I know a lady right now who has diabetes. The doctor has to amputate her leg. Is that harm?

     >Humans can check both human-initiated intentional harm, which is under our control, and other types of unintentional harm, e.g., environment damage caused by human industrial development.

    My friend is being pressured to have an abortion. Is an abortion harm?

    >Morality requires us not to do bad things we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things.

    Says who? Hitler's moral code held no such requirement. What makes your code better than his? Who decided that "harm" would be the standard?

    Why could it not be loss? Or fear? Or death?

    >This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively.

    So do dogs, lies, and rain. So what? Many things exist objectively, who picked harm as the standard? Is punching holes in one's body "harm"?

    Is having a $100 in your bank account while a kid in Africa starves, " harm"?

    >Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true.

    No sir. Circular reasoning. Just because a thing is objective does not mean we are morally obligated to do it. What is objectively true is that harm is unpleasant. That we should not harm others is subjective. Harm itself is subjective.

    >This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

    Says who? Who decides on what harm is? Abdul thinks harm is a woman being allowed to drive. Tony thinks harm is allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

    What happens when Abdul or Tony tries to check what they clearly see as harm?

    >Morality evolves and is ever evolving.... 

    Not real morality. Moral wrong is always wrong no matter how subjective views change.

    >Any behavior that fails the function for which morality evolved which is our survivability is morally incorrect. 

    Then you view homosexuality as morally incorrect. Do you?

  • ethang5 said:

    And any morality that depends on someone's perspective cannot have a moral obligation on anyone.
    Why is that? And even if that was the case, that does not make it any less of a morality. You do not have to have a hardcore morality that "obliges" you to something, you can have a softcore morality that merely gives you the general prescription - but which is flexible enough to be bent when the situation requires it.

    I think you are projecting your religious morals on everyone else and expect everyone's morals to work the same way. I am sorry, this is not how the world works.
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    edited February 22
    @ethang5


    >Those are terms any beginner in philosophy and ethics would know. Your education is your responsibility.


    Well obviously that leaves you out as you cannot define them 



    >That you think that statement is absurd only shows your logical acumen.


    Which is superior to yours which I’ve demonstrated 




    >It is not an "ought". Without authority, there is no reason why anyone ought to follow it and no one is immoral for not following it.


    That word salad makes no sense 




    >It would not depend on, or could changed by, anyone.


    Oh right and wheres the guide book that decides this or do I just take your word for it?




    >There are thousands of people who have killed and you do not hold them as immoral. Killing can be immoral, but it can also be moral.


    Yes , but that misses the point which I made and you’ve attempted to side step , I said if the authoritative source of morality says killing is right it becomes right regardless because he / she /it  says so , this again makes you morally bankrupt and morally inferior to an atheist



    >Your question is a good one, and this is why the theist rejects the atheist being his own authority. For it would be him deciding that killing was OK when he felt like it, or would be able to convict an innocent person, say a police officer shooting a rapist if he did not like the officer.


    Yes some backward theists reject this notion but most accept that atheists are mostly just like them when it comes to making correct moral decisions and mostly don’t kill because they feel it’s ok but yet a believer will and do kill in the name of a fictional authoritative source again making them morally bankrupt and morally inferior to the atheist,   the theist has to rely on the words of a deeply flawed book interpreted through a preacher to decide what is right and wrong 





    >This is more than illogical, it is stupid. But there is no law against being stupid.



    Indeed you excel at being stupid and logic is an alien concept to you . Your so called source of authoritative morality could also be  the authoritative source of immortality so cannot be trusted can you demonstrate otherwise?








    >Lol. You are trying to saddle me with your bias. I can use God when needed. So far, I have not had to. You are itching for me to use God because as a militant anti-theist, that is where your passion is.


    Ah right , so this authoritative source of morality is not god just my bias , don’t use god then, so your claim so is based on nothing but your opinion and I dismiss it as such 




    Regards being a “militant anti -theist “ not true it’s just when I hear bible bashers holding forth on morality I correct them 


    >That is not the case. You will argue and prove points, not simply declare them. Sorry.


    Your failure to understand is hardly my fault 




    > I have avoided nothing. Your suspicions are not truth. If I need to mention God, I will. But you have to put a logical dent in my argument first. You have failed to do so. I as yet don't even know what your issue with me is, other than that you suspect I'm a theist.


    I haven’t got an “issue” with you but if one keeps mentioning an authoritative source of morality and that person refuses to say what the source is how can reasoned debate take part?


    Also if your dishonesty is such that you will not admit to being a theist then what is your source of morality? 

     


    >That is nonsense. Please look up the word "objective". It will help you.


    It’s not , clearly you need to define what you think objective morality means from a philosophical viewpoint for a start 



    >

    I know a lady right now who has diabetes. The doctor has to amputate her leg. Is that harm?


    Let’s do an opinion poll and find out shall we or is it just my opinion you seek?


    We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries.  But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.


     >

    My friend is being pressured to have an abortion. Is an abortion harm?


    Depends , I need more information




    >Says who? Hitler's moral code held no such requirement. What makes your code better than his? Who decided that "harm" would be the standard?

    Why could it not be loss? Or fear? Or death?


    We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries.  But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.


    Indeed , yes gassing Jews is no worse than feeding and housing them as to  which one is better  I guess the Jews about to be gassed would agree.


    No offense but you say some throughly stupid things don’t you?





    >

    So do dogs, lies, and rain. So what? Many things exist objectively, who picked harm as the standard? Is punching holes in one's body "harm"?>


    Harm works for me and others as a standard , you disagree go on so punch holes in your body



    >Is having a $100 in your bank account while a kid in Africa starves, " harm"?


    Again take a poll so we can get common consensus 



    >No sir. Circular reasoning. Just because a thing is objective does not mean we are morally obligated to do it. What is objectively true is that harm is unpleasant. That we should not harm others is subjective. Harm itself is subjective.


    No sir . We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries.  But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.


    >

    Says who? Who decides on what harm is? Abdul thinks harm is a woman being allowed to drive. Tony thinks harm is allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

    What happens when Abdul or Tony tries to check what they clearly see as harm?


    Read above .....again 



    >Not real morality. Moral wrong is always wrong no matter how subjective views change.


    What is “real” morality bet you cannot answer .



    >

    Then you view homosexuality as morally incorrect. Do you?


    Why would you assume that? Can you not think of ways homosexuals may ensure our survivability and why do you want my subjective views  on it ?

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 248 Pts
    edited February 21
    @ethang5

    The thread title: Being an atheist doesn't mean they lack morality.
    I agreed. But said that the theist is not saying the atheist lacks morality, but rather lacks an objective morality. And thus lacks an authoritative morality.
    This is because atheists have subjective morality. And a subjective morality cannot be authoritative.
    My conclusion was that atheists have opinions, which they call morality.
    See, you agreed that atheists do not lack morality. But then say their morality is in fact just opinions.
    So which is it? Morals or opinions? These are not interchangeable terms... 

    By analogy, if my neighbor calls his cat a dog, it doesn't make it so, right? I can't honestly agree with him that he indeed has a dog, but say that it's just a "subjective dog" and not an "objective" and "authoritative dog"...

    Whether a dog can be subjective or not, MUST be settled prior to debating what my neighbor actually has, here a cat or a dog.  No? 

    So before we can truthfully answer if atheists have morality, we MUST debate a priori, if morality can be subjective or not, we MUST know beforehand if "opinion" and "morality" are synonyms and interchangeable... Because if they are NOT synonyms and interchangeable, it would be illogical to agree that atheists have morality, since what they would have, would actually be opinions not morality...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar ;

    And any morality that depends on someone's perspective cannot have a moral obligation on anyone.

    >Why is that?

    Because people being obligated to follow another person's moral code is a form of fascism.

    >And even if that was the case, that does not make it any less of a morality.

    It makes it not authoritative.

    >You do not have to have a hardcore morality that "obliges" you to something, you can have a softcore morality that merely gives you the general prescription - but which is flexible enough to be bent when the situation requires it.

    I don't trust myself to reply here so I will instead say this. 

    You are a nice guy. Please go online and google the philosophy of morality. Come back after.

    >I think you are projecting your religious morals on everyone else and expect everyone's morals to work the same way. I am sorry, this is not how the world works.

    Again, I have said nothing about religion or God. Just look up what I suggested. I will wait for you.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Dee

    Those are terms any beginner in philosophy and ethics would know. Your education is your responsibility.

    >Well obviously that leaves you out as you cannot define them

    If I could define them, I would have done it for you right? Lol. OK.

    That you think that statement is absurd only shows your logical acumen.

    >Which is superior to yours which I’ve demonstrated 

    Yeah. OK.

    It is not an "ought". Without authority, there is no reason why anyone ought to follow it and no one is immoral for not following it.

    >That word salad makes no sense 

    To you, yes I know. But you did ask.

    It would not depend on, or could changed by, anyone.

    >Oh right and wheres the guide book that decides this or do I just take your word for it?

    It's called an education.

    There are thousands of people who have killed and you do not hold them as immoral. Killing can be immoral, but it can also be moral.

    >Yes , but that misses the point which I made and you’ve attempted to side step , I said if the authoritative source of morality says killing is right it becomes right regardless because he / she /it  says so , this again makes you morally bankrupt and morally inferior to an atheist

    An authoritative source could not say killing is right because morality depends on 1. Intent, 2. Relationship, and 3. Authority. Thus blanket declarations are illogical. Your logic is faulty.

    >Your question is a good one, and this is why the theist rejects the atheist being his own authority. For it would be him deciding that killing was OK when he felt like it, or would be able to convict an innocent person, say a police officer shooting a rapist if he did not like the officer.

    >Yes some backward theists reject this notion but most accept that atheists are mostly just like them when it comes to making correct moral decisions

    The question is not about the correct moral decision but about the authority to make moral decisions.

    >..and mostly don’t kill because they feel it’s ok but yet a believer will and do kill in the name of a fictional authoritative source again making them morally bankrupt and morally inferior to the atheist,

    >the theist has to rely on the words of a deeply flawed book interpreted through a preacher to decide what is right and wrong

    How do you know this? How do you know what process a theist uses?

    This is more than illogical, it is stupid. But there is no law against being stupid.

    >Indeed you excel at being stupid and logic is an alien concept to you

    Lol. OK.

    >Your so called source of authoritative morality could also be  the authoritative source of immortality so cannot be trusted can you demonstrate otherwise?

    Demonstrate your imagined possibility is not right? I don't need to.

    Lol. You are trying to saddle me with your bias. I can use God when needed. So far, I have not had to. You are itching for me to use God because as a militant anti-theist, that is where your passion is.

    >Ah right , so this authoritative source of morality is not god just my bias , don’t use god then, so your claim so is based on nothing but your opinion and I dismiss it as such

    Dismiss whatever you like, but I've made no claim about an authoritative source, do you know what you're dismissing?

    >Regards being a “militant anti -theist “ not true it’s just when I hear bible bashers holding forth on morality I correct them

    Lol. That sounds like you're an anti-theist militant.

    That is not the case. You will argue and prove points, not simply declare them. Sorry.

    >Your failure to understand is hardly my fault.

    I understand fine.

    I have avoided nothing. Your suspicions are not truth. If I need to mention God, I will. But you have to put a logical dent in my argument first. You have failed to do so. I as yet don't even know what your issue with me is, other than that you suspect I'm a theist.

    >I haven’t got an “issue” with you but if one keeps mentioning an authoritative source of morality and that person refuses to say what the source is how can reasoned debate take part?

    I have not mentioned a source. Your bias has made you confused. I have not needed to mention a source. You are a rabid anti-theist and are itching to get to attack God and cannot do that till I cite God. Calm down.

    >Also if your dishonesty is such that you will not admit to being a theist then what is your source of morality?

    I have not denied being a theist. You seem to think my being a theist should affect my argument. Your bias has confused you. I have not brought up religion or God. You keep doing so and then blaming me.

    That is nonsense. Please look up the word "objective". It will help you.

    >It’s not , clearly you need to define what you think objective morality means from a philosophical viewpoint for a start

    If you don't know what objective morality is, you are not intellectually equipped for this debate.

    I know a lady right now who has diabetes. The doctor has to amputate her leg. Is that harm?

    >Let’s do an opinion poll and find out shall we or is it just my opinion you seek?

    Just yours.

    >We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries. 

    Then it is a very poor standard to use for morality.

    >But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.

    Yet you cannot always say what harm is. How will you know whether it is intentional or not?

    My friend is being pressured to have an abortion. Is an abortion harm?

    >Depends , I need more information

    Thank you. That is exactly why a authoritative source would not just say killing is wrong. It depends whether killing is wrong.

    Says who? Hitler's moral code held no such requirement. What makes your code better than his? Who decided that "harm" would be the standard? Why could it not be loss? Or fear? Or death?

    We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries.  But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.

    Answer the question instead of repeating an illogical point. Why could not the standard be loss? Or fear? Or death? Who picked harm?

    >Indeed , yes gassing Jews is no worse than feeding and housing them as to  which one is better  I guess the Jews about to be gassed would agree.

    Who would agree or disagree should not matter. That is why theists reject subjective morality. With objective morality, wrong is wrong regardless of who disagrees.

    >No offense but you say some throughly stupid things don’t you?

    No offense taken. I am aware you aren't well educated.

    So do dogs, lies, and rain. So what? Many things exist objectively, who picked harm as the standard? Is punching holes in one's body "harm"?

    >Harm works for me and others as a standard , you disagree go on so punch holes in your body

    Harm "working for you" does not make it objective or authoritative. It doesn't work for many others.

    Is having a $100 in your bank account while a kid in Africa starves, " harm"?

    >Again take a poll so we can get common consensus

    Consensus is not truth. I'm asking you because you are the one proposing "harm" as the moral standard.

    No sir. Circular reasoning. Just because a thing is objective does not mean we are morally obligated to do it. What is objectively true is that harm is unpleasant. That we should not harm others is subjective. Harm itself is subjective.

    >No sir . We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries.

    Then you cannot use it as a moral standard moron. Stupid things remain stupid no matter how many times you repeat them.

    >But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality.

    So your moral standard works only when you can prove intentionality? How will you prove intent?

    Says who? Who decides on what harm is? Abdul thinks harm is a woman being allowed to drive. Tony thinks harm is allowing homosexuals to adopt children. What happens when Abdul or Tony tries to check what they clearly see as harm?

    >Read above .....again

    No. I like it that you can't answer.

    Not real morality. Moral wrong is always wrong no matter how subjective views change.

    >What is “real” morality bet you cannot answer .

    Real morality is objective morality. Morality that does not change as human opinions change.

    Then you view homosexuality as morally incorrect. Do you?

    >Why would you assume that?

    I did not assume. You said it. You said, "Any behavior that fails the function for which morality evolved which is our survivability is morally incorrect."

    Homosexuality fails the function of our survivability.

    >Can you not think of ways homosexuals may ensure our survivability and why do you want my subjective views  on it ?

    I know your views on it. Homosexuals cannot ensure our survivability, similar genders cannot procreate.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    My conclusion was that atheists have opinions, which they call morality.
    >See, you agreed that atheists do not lack morality.

    Yes I did.

    >But then say their morality is in fact just opinions.

    Shhhh! Atheists think it's morality.

    >So which is it? Morals or opinions? These are not interchangeable terms... 

    Atheists have opinions which they call morality. Is that still unclear to you?

    >By analogy, if my neighbor calls his cat a dog, it doesn't make it so, right?

    Or if he calls a him a she. Right, it doesn't make it so.

    >I can't honestly agree with him that he indeed has a dog, but say that it's just a "subjective dog" and not an "objective" and "authoritative dog"... 

    1. There is no need to derail the debate over our difference on what is an opinion.
    2. Dogs and cats are concrete things, morality is not.
    3. I don't care what the atheist calls his opinion. That is not my point. His cat will not bark.

    >Whether a dog can be subjective or not, MUST be settled prior to debating what my neighbor actually has, here a cat or a dog.  No?

    No. But this is interesting. What in the real world is analogous to a subjective dog?

    >So before we can truthfully answer if atheists have morality, we MUST debate a priori, if morality can be subjective or not,

    No. We only need to show that atheists morality IS subjective. And low! It is.

    >we MUST know beforehand if "opinion" and "morality" are synonyms and interchangeable...

    They aren't, but atheists, out of ignorance, conflate one for the other.

    >Because if they are NOT synonyms and interchangeable, it would be illogical to agree that atheists have morality, since what they would have, would actually be opinions not morality...

    Technically yes. But in debating deluded people, one must decide whether their delusion or the point of the debate is more important.

    I was ( and remain) more interested in speaking about the nature of morality rather than the atheist's confusion.

    If I prove my point, the atheist will see that what he calls morality really isn't. So I made the utilitarian choice.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @ethang5
    >But then say their morality is in fact just opinions.
      Shhhh! Atheists think it's morality.
    >So which is it? Morals or opinions? These are not interchangeable terms... 
      Atheists have opinions which they call morality. Is that still unclear to you?
    > we MUST know beforehand if "opinion" and "morality" are synonyms and interchangeable... 
     They aren't, but atheists, out of ignorance, conflate one for the other.
    >Because if they are NOT synonyms and interchangeable, it would be illogical to agree that atheists have morality, since what they would have, would actually be opinions not morality...
      Technically yes. 


    Atheists that call opinions "morality" are just wrong. Period. 
    What is now crystal clear, for everyone on this thread, is that you are being intellectually dishonest and worst, on purpose...

    This says a lot about you... 

    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ethang5 said:
    @MayCaesar ;

    And any morality that depends on someone's perspective cannot have a moral obligation on anyone.

    >Why is that?

    Because people being obligated to follow another person's moral code is a form of fascism.
    First you said that the morality depending on someone's perspective cannot have a moral obligation on anyone. Now you are saying that it can, as it constitutes a form of fascism. Which one is it?

    And how does moral not depending on someone's perspective affect this argument? An "objective" moral forced on someone would not be fascism, but a "subjective" would be? How come?

    I also fail to see where this argument comes from. I was speaking along the lines of "someone has a certain moral ruleset, and I adopt some of their morals, because they look attractive to me". I do not see any "fascism" in this.

    Why don't you think your arguments through a bit, before posting them?
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    @ethang5


    >If I could define them


    Yes if , get an education son 


    >I would have done it for you right? Lol. OK.


    But you cannot do it for yourself 






    > Yeah. OK.


    Just take it like a man 


    >It is not an "ought". Without authority,


    Nonsense 


    >To you, yes I know. But you did ask.


    But you couldn’t answer coherently 


    > It would not depend on, or could changed by, anyone.


    Where’s the guide book?




    >It's called an education.


    What a cop out , indoctrination ain’t an “education “ son it’s brainwashing 


    >There are thousands of people who have killed and you do not hold them as immoral. 


    How do you know that you idiot?


    >Killing can be immoral, but it can also be moral.


    No way ! 




    >An authoritative source could not say killing is right because morality depends on 1. Intent, 2. Relationship, and 3. Authority. Thus blanket declarations are illogical. Your logic is faulty.


    Hitler was an authoritative source you idiot and he said killing Jews was right , beaten again by your own genetic stupidity 


    These blanket declarations are illogical .Your logic is faulty 


    >Your question is a good one, and this is why the theist rejects the atheist being his own authority. For it would be him deciding 


    Yes I kinda know it’s not to right to murder my neighbor you Bible thumpers have to consult the Bible to give you the heads up ......oh dear oh dear 


    >The question is not about the correct moral decision but about the authority to make moral decisions.


    I’m perfectly fine about my moral decisions and my authority to do so without running to consult an authoritity 






    >How do you know this? How do you know what process a theist uses?


    Wow! So theists have stopped using the Bible as a guide welcome to Atheism buddy good move 


    >This is more than illogical, it is stupid. But there is no law


    Pity , because you’re abusing it 






    >Demonstrate your imagined possibility is not right? 


    I don’t need to ......beaten again buddy you need to work on your ....ahem cough , cough .....logic 






    >Lol. You are trying to saddle me with your bias. I can use God when needed. So far, I have not had to. 


    It’s not  bias when you’ve told the site you’re a believer in god and William Lane Craig is as an inspiration , you’re terrified to mention your source is god because you’ve no argument once you do......but I will play 


    >You are itching for me to use God because as a militant anti-theist, that is where your passion is.


    Newsflash buddy you’re the one on arguing with everyone about religion youre obsessed a religious loony  




    >Dismiss whatever you like, but I've made no claim about an authoritative source, do you know what you're dismissing?


    Yes I do a lunatic that takes the authority of something he’s not sure of because he himself doesn’t know what the authority is .....beaten again buddy 




    >Lol. That sounds like you're an anti-theist militant.


    Lol . That sounds like the religious nuts go to argument when they have nothing else 




    >I understand fine.


    You don’t you have to be told what’s right and wrong 


    >I have avoided nothing. Your suspicions are not truth. If I need to mention God, I will. But you have to put a logical dent in my argument first. You have failed to do so. I as yet don't even know what your is


    Your arguments have been destroyed, stop whining 


    >I have not mentioned a source. Your bias has made you confused. I have not needed to mention a source. 


    Exactly so it could be anything , maybe Mein Kampf? 


    No bias here either your attempt at avoiding mentioning your source yet bleating about it to others is hilarious 


    >You are a rabid anti-theist and are itching to get to attack God and cannot do that till I cite God. Calm down.


    You are a rabid anti atheist who is itching to attack all atheists because their morality is superior to yours 


     Why are you angry at and hate Allah?





    >I have not denied being a theist. You seem to think my being a theist should affect my argument. 


    You haven’t got an argument let me know when you do 


    >Your bias has confused you. I have not brought up religion or God. You keep doing so and then blaming me.


    Your hatred has you confused . Incorrect , I call you a coward for denying what you boast about on site as in your religious belief 






    >If you don't know what objective morality is, you are not intellectually equipped for this debate.


    I do , you’ve yet to define what you can’t 


    >I know a lady right now who has diabetes. The doctor has to amputate her leg. Is that harm?


    You’re obviously not cut out for the medical world are you , you said the doctor HAS to you fool 








    >Then it is a very poor standard to use for morality.


    Works for me 






    >Yet you cannot always say what harm is. How will you know whether it is intentional or not?


    When someone fires a gun at me I know they  want to harm me and intent is there , are you really this stupid ......wait don’t answer that 






    >Thank you. That is exactly why a authoritative source would not just say killing is wrong. It depends whether killing is wrong.


    Exactly , that’s why I make decisions depending on the circumstances without referring to someone else’s opinion 


    >Says who? Hitler's moral code held no such requirement. What makes your code better than his? Who decided that "harm" would be the standard? Why could it not be loss? Or fear? Or death?


    So Hitler never knew he was the authority? My code is better than his that’s why I didn’t murder millions , you really are thick mate 




    >Answer the question instead of repeating an illogical point. Why could not the standard be loss? Or fear? Or death? Who picked harm?


    Logical points you call illogical because you need some authority to tell you one from the other 




    >Who would agree or disagree should not matter. That is why theists reject subjective morality. With objective morality, wrong is wrong regardless of who disagrees.


    Really ? Unless of course its Christians who call the shots . Yes theists need to be told what’s right and wrong by referring to a work of fiction using their subjective opinions on what the Bible actually means which is why there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity you guys cannot make your minds up 





    >No offense taken. I am aware you aren't well educated.


    Interesting, but yet I’m still the one who doesn’t believe in zombies as in Jesus you fool  




    >Harm "working for you" does not make it objective or authoritative. It doesn't work for many others.


    Really? Ok it’s still morally correct for me and others , I know it doesn’t work for you and Hitler you have gone on a bit about it 




    >Consensus is not truth. I'm asking you because you are the one proposing "harm" as the moral standard.


    Humans need to breathe is not a truth as in consensus ( general agreement ) wow ! Thanks for the heads up 




    >Then you cannot use it as a moral standard moron. 


    Thank you Adolf for dictating to me your proffered method of defining morality 


    > Stupid things remain stupid no matter how many times you repeat them.


    Well stop repeating them then 




    >So your moral standard works only when you can prove intentionality? How will you prove intent?


    Who told you that?




    >No. I like it that you can't answer.


    But I did but the answer doesn’t suit your rabid anti atheist viewpoint so that’s not my fault 




    >Real morality is objective morality. Morality that does not change as human opinions change.


    Oh , you mean like in the Bible where the morality of god changes from the Old Testament to the new .....thankfully that’s not my morality 




    >Homosexuality fails the function of our survivability.


    Right , that’s why the Bible says kill them , I prefer to let them live that’s me and my morality again 




    >I know your views on it. Homosexuals cannot ensure our survivability, similar genders cannot procreate.


    Cool , go and slaughter them so if you’re so butt hurt ......oh wait butt hurt ......you’re not by any chance gay? You’re very homophobic buddy take it down a notch please 

  • Nothing wrong in being atheist. I'm still normal, I don't have to believe in something that does not exist. And yes, I have morality, though people like Stalin and Mao lacked morality.
    Zombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @Dee

    Unrelated but, why so much space in your post?? It's not very reader friendly. Just sayin'... ;)

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Its a glitch on my I pad that’s now sorted , who would be remotely interested in reading my posts anyway? ☺️



    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    >Atheists that call opinions "morality" are just wrong. Period.

    I'm sure that those atheists will submit to your royal judgement.

    >What is now crystal clear, for everyone on this thread,...

    How do you know what is crystal clear for everyone on this..... Oh wait....you're a progressive liberal....never mind.

    >is that you are being intellectually dishonest and worst, on purpose...

    I think you are just being an idiot.

    >This says a lot about you... 

    It says more about you, as you're the one who said it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • >Unrelated but, why so much space in your post?? It's not very reader friendly. Just sayin'... 

    >Its a glitch on my I pad (chortle) that’s now sorted , who would be remotely interested in reading my posts anyway? 

    The genius brigade. Lol.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    >First you said that the morality depending on someone's perspective cannot have a moral obligation on anyone. Now you are saying that it can,

    No I haven't homer. Read more slowly.

    >as it constitutes a form of fascism. Which one is it?

    I said forcing someone to obey one's opinion is fascism, not that subjective opinions are. The "it" in your question is equivocal.

    >And how does moral not depending on someone's perspective affect this argument?

    Subjective morals cannot have a moral obligation on anyone.

    >An "objective" moral forced on someone would not be fascism, but a "subjective" would be? How come?

    Ask who ever said so. It wasn't me. Do you have a reading problem?

    >I also fail to see where this argument comes from.

    After you look back over the thread and see I didn't say it, where it comes from might dawn on you.

    >I was speaking along the lines of "someone has a certain moral ruleset, and I adopt some of their morals, because they look attractive to me". I do not see any "fascism" in this.

    I said "forced". Do you know what that means?

    :Why don't you think your arguments through a bit, before posting them?

    Lol. Funny.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    @ethang5

    Oh dear everyone is on to your childish nonsense it seems , why are you so scared to debate? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    @ethang5

    Another user has also copped on to your evasion tactics when you’re simply asked to defend your position, you really need to calm down and attempt to make your case .....if you have one 
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 258 Pts
    @ethang5

    >The genius brigade .Lol

    Well that neatly leaves you out .......run along now and pray or maybe do something useful 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Dee ;

    If I could define them, I would have done it for you right? Lol. OK.

    >But you cannot do it for yourself 

    OK.

    >Just take it like a man 

    OK.

    It is not an "ought". Without authority,

    >Nonsense.

    To you, yes I know. But you did ask.

    >But you couldn’t answer coherently 

    OK. Moral philosophy to you is nonsense.

    It would not depend on, or could changed by, anyone.

    >Where’s the guide book

    It's called an education.

    >What a cop out , indoctrination ain’t an “education “ son it’s brainwashing 

    I'm not going to educate you jasper. Go and google moral philosophy so that at least you know what common terms like "ought" mean in the context of morality philosophy.

    there are thousands of people who have killed and you do not hold them as immoral. 

    >How do you know that you idiot?

    Common sense.

    Killing can be immoral, but it can also be moral.

    >No way ! 

    Way. That is why your question about a moral authority simply saying "killing is right" is idiotic.

    An authoritative source could not say killing is right because morality depends on 1. Intent, 2. Relationship, and 3. Authority. Thus blanket declarations are illogical. Your logic is faulty.

    >Hitler was an authoritative source you idiot...

    Hitler was just a man. His morality was subjective, not authoritative.

    >and he said killing Jews was right , beaten again by your own genetic stupidity 

    Lol. Someone is being beaten. True.

    Your question is a good one, and this is why the theist rejects the atheist being his own authority. For it would be him deciding 

    >Yes I kinda know it’s not to right to murder my neighbor you Bible thumpers have to consult the Bible to give you the heads up ......oh dear oh dear 

    Point so stupid I don't need to reply.

    The question is not about the correct moral decision but about the authority to make moral decisions.

    >I’m perfectly fine about my moral decisions and my authority to do so without running to consult an authoritity 

    Neither was Hitler. OK

    How do you know this? How do you know what process a theist uses?

    >Wow! So theists have stopped using the Bible as a guide welcome to Atheism buddy good move 

    You couldn't answer the simple question. OK.

    >This is more than illogical, it is stupid. But there is no law against stupidity.

    >Pity , because you’re abusing it 

    I always abuse stupidity. You're using stupidity, so you get tossed.

    Demonstrate your imagined possibility is not right? 

    >I don’t need to ......beaten again buddy you need to work on your ....ahem cough , cough .....logic 

    Do you also give yourself a crown as  declare yourself champeen?

    >Lol. You are trying to saddle me with your bias. I can use God when needed. So far, I have not had to. 

    >It’s not  bias when you’ve told the site you’re a believer in god and William Lane Craig is as an inspiration , 

    Post where I said so. Oh, you can't? You're already an idiot, you wish to add liar to that too? No problem.

    >you’re terrified to mention your source is god because you’ve no argument once you do......but I will play 

    You've been dodging, not playing. You've been lying too. If you aren't the one terrified, why are you dodging and lying?

    You are itching for me to use God because as a militant anti-theist, that is where your passion is.

    >Newsflash buddy you’re the one on arguing with everyone about religion youre obsessed a religious loony  

    You deleted my answer here so I know it stung you. Watch how confident I am. I will not repost my reply. I don't need to.

    Dismiss whatever you like, but I've made no claim about an authoritative source, do you know what you're dismissing?

    >Yes I do...

    Since I have not referred to God or religion, how can you dismiss a religious argument? D'oh!

    >a lunatic that takes the authority of something he’s not sure of because he himself doesn’t know what the authority is .....beaten again buddy 

    Lol. You don't know the meaning of authority in the context of philosophy, and you refuse to relieve your ignorance. OK

    Lol. That sounds like you're an anti-theist militant.

    >Lol . That sounds like the religious nuts go to argument when they have nothing else.

    Without mentioning God or religion? OK stupid.

    I understand fine.

    >You don’t you have to be told what’s right and wrong 

    Not since I was 3 years old.

    I have avoided nothing. Your suspicions are not truth. If I need to mention God, I will. But you have to put a logical dent in my argument first. You have failed to do so. I as yet don't even know what your issue is other than I'm a theist.

    >Your arguments have been destroyed, stop whining 

    When you wake up, let me know.

    I have not mentioned a source. Your bias has made you confused. I have not needed to mention a source. 

    >Exactly so it could be anything , maybe Mein Kampf? 

    My argument does not need me to mention a source. You are running away from my argument.

    >No bias here either your attempt at avoiding mentioning your source yet bleating about it to others is hilarious 

    I have asked no one for their source. What is hilarious is your poor reading comprehension.

    You are a rabid anti-theist and are itching to get to attack God and cannot do that till I cite God. Calm down.

    >You are a rabid anti atheist who is itching to attack all atheists because their morality is superior to yours 

    Lol. OK.

    >Why are you angry at and hate Allah?

    I don't know you or even know your name was Allah. Why would I hate you?

    I have not denied being a theist. You seem to think my being a theist should affect my argument. 

    >You haven’t got an argument let me know when you do 

    What? You plan on turning on your brain later?

    Your bias has confused you. I have not brought up religion or God. You keep doing so and then blaming me.

    Your hatred has you confused.

    Lol. OK.

    >Incorrect , I call you a coward for denying what you boast about on site as in your religious belief 

    And I call you a liar for claiming I have denied anything.

    If you don't know what objective morality is, you are not intellectually equipped for this debate.

    >I do....

    No you don't homer. That is why you're doing yo mama jokes and talking about Allah. You are lost.

    >you’ve yet to define what you can’t 

    If you know what objective morality is, why do you need it defined for you? D'oh!

    I know a lady right now who has diabetes. The doctor has to amputate her leg. Is that harm?

    >You’re obviously not cut out for the medical world are you , you said the doctor HAS to you fool 

    Did his having to tie up your PC? Why can't you answer?

    Then it is a very poor standard to use for morality.

    >Works for me 

    You and every two-bit dictator stinking up the world.

    Yet you cannot always say what harm is. How will you know whether it is intentional or not?

    >When someone fires a gun at me I know they  want to harm me and intent is there , are you really this stupid ......

    What if they shoot you from a mile away and you can't see them? What if they poison you? What if they shoot you as you sleep? Are you starting to see the inadequacy of your answer?

    >...wait don’t answer that 

    Too late. Your stupidity's nakedness has been exposed.

    Thank you. That is exactly why a authoritative source would not just say killing is wrong. It depends whether killing is wrong.

    >Exactly , that’s why I make decisions depending on the circumstances without referring to someone else’s opinion 

    So we agree on two things. 1. Your question was silly, and 2. Your morality is subjective.

    Says who? Hitler's moral code held no such requirement. What makes your code better than his? Who decided that "harm" would be the standard? Why could it not be loss? Or fear? Or death?

    >So Hitler never knew he was the authority?

    Please go and learn what authority means in moral philosophy.

    >My code is better than his that’s why I didn’t murder millions , you really are thick mate 

    Stop being stupid. Hitler thinks his code is better than yours because it allows him to murder millions. Why should you judge his morality on your standard? Who made you boss?

    Answer the question instead of repeating an illogical point. Why could not the standard be loss? Or fear? Or death? Who picked harm?

    >Logical points you call illogical because you need some authority to tell you one from the other 

    Authority has nothing to  with logic. Please go and learn what authority means in moral philosophy.

    Who would agree or disagree should not matter. That is why theists reject subjective morality. With objective morality, wrong is wrong regardless of who disagrees.

    R>eally ?

    Yes really.

    >Unless of course its Christians who call the shots . Yes theists need to be told what’s right and wrong by referring to a work of fiction using their subjective opinions on what the Bible actually means which is why there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity you guys cannot make your minds up

    OK. When you learn what subjective means, think it over again.

    No offense taken. I am aware you aren't well educated.

    >Interesting, but yet I’m still the one who doesn’t believe in zombies as in Jesus you fool  

    If you had gone to college, you would have studied the discoveries and ideas of all the great scientists and thinkers  who believed in Jesus. Too bad.

    Harm "working for you" does not make it objective or authoritative. It doesn't work for many others.

    >Really? Ok it’s still morally correct for me and others , I know it doesn’t work for you and Hitler you have gone on a bit about it 

    It isn't objective or authoritative. And it really isn't morality either. But OK.

    Consensus is not truth. I'm asking you because you are the one proposing "harm" as the moral standard.

    >Humans need to breathe is not a truth as in consensus ( general agreement ) wow ! Thanks for the heads up 

    Thanks. You should have known that.

    Then you cannot use it as a moral standard moron. 

    >Thank you Adolf for dictating to me your proffered method of defining morality 

    That isn't a definition genius.

    Stupid things remain stupid no matter how many times you repeat them.

    >Well stop repeating them then 

    Thanks. Your repetition was was getting old.

    So your moral standard works only when you can prove intentionality? How will you prove intent?

    >Who told you that?

    You did. But it was a question. How would you prove intent if it isn't someone shooting at you that is. Lol.

    No. I like it that you can't answer.

    >But I did but the answer doesn’t suit your rabid anti atheist viewpoint so that’s not my fault 

    OK.

    Real morality is objective morality. Morality that does not change as human opinions change.

    >Oh , you mean like in the Bible 

    There you go running to religion again. I can smell your fear.

    >...thankfully that’s not my morality 

    Real morality? Yeah, I know.

    Homosexuality fails the function of our survivability.

    >Right , that’s why the Bible says kill them,

    You really should get your money back from the bible school you attended.

    >I prefer to let them live that’s me and my morality again 

    And whether they fail the function of our survivability is lost on you. Can't keep track of the argument can you?

    Homosexuals cannot ensure our survivability, similar genders cannot procreate.

    >Cool , go and slaughter them so if you’re so butt hurt 

    You're the one who said only behavior that functions to ensure our survivability is moral. Did you lie?

    >......oh wait butt hurt ......you’re not by any chance gay?

    Now watch the progressive liberal use homosexuality as an insult. Liberal hypocracy.

    >You’re very homophobic buddy take it down a notch please.

    Watch him run away from his claim that only behavior that functions to ensure our survivability is moral.

    Run chicken, run.

  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited February 23

    @ethang5

    Thanks for the hate filled novel but I've no intention of reading your rabid anti atheist bile , you're really upset son calm down 

    Now quit bellyaching son it's all good.


    let's have a look at that objective morality you keep saying is superior straight from the users manual for moral guidance , I think I'm happy enough with my own flawed moral code for now .............,




    Hosea 13: 16 

    The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed into the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. 


    Psalms 137: 8-9 

    O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he (God) who repays you for what you have done to us—he (God) who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.



    Run rabbit , run rabbit , run run , run 



    Zombieguy1987
  • @ethang5
    Subjective morals cannot have a moral obligation on anyone.
    Why? I asked you this already, and you never explained.

    I am desperately trying to get you to answer a single question directly, but dodging and avoiding seems to be running in the family.
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • @Joeseph

    >Thanks for the hate filled novel but I've no intention of reading your rabid anti atheist bile,

    Then why are you posting to me?

    >you're really upset son calm down 

    How do you know I'm upset? And don't say my posts idiot, you just said you didn't read it. D'oh!

    >let's have a look at that objective morality you keep saying is superior 

    How will you do that without reading my posts?

    >straight from the users manual for moral guidance , I think I'm happy enough with my own flawed moral code for now .........

    Yet here you are on a religion board posting to a theist. You aren't happy. You are angry and afraid. Happy atheists are on atheists boards talking to people who share their beliefs.

    >Hosea 13: 16 

    The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed into the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. 

    Psalms 137: 8-9 

    >O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he (God) who repays you for what you have done to us—he (God) who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

    Here is one for you.

    The fool has said in his heart, there is no god.

    >Run rabbit , run rabbit , run run , run 

    The only one running is you. The thread is about morality. Here you are, posting off topic verses because you can't debate the topic.

    When you grow the IQ to debate the topic, let me know little attention whore.
    Zombieguy1987
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited February 23
    @ethang5

    Ethangs Objective Morality for Christians 




    Hosea 13: 16 


    The people of 

     must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed into the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. 


    Psalms 137: 8-9 

    O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he (God) who repays you for what you have done to us—he (God) who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.


    Stop sulking son your rabid anti atheism is truly scary


    Run rabbit , run rabbit , run,run run 


    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch