teeny Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 But if you can't show to anyone that what you believe is factual and based on reality, how can it deemed to be true? Faith is pretending to know things you don't know. No faith is believing without evidence , I guess if you really wanted to God you would have sought him out and found him ! There is no proof that I tell you of , I can show you ways in which you can find God yourself . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Hardly, that premise hangs on agreeing that the human race wouldn't evolve to realise that genocide is wrong. Evolution cannot provide us with transcendent, objective moral values. Nor does social pressure explain this. Both fail miserably to explain how we have these moral (objective) values- you need to look in to what objective moral values means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) No faith is believing without evidence , I guess if you really wanted to God you would have sought him out and found him ! There is no proof that I tell you of , I can show you ways in which you can find God yourself . I care about what's true, nothing you have said regarding what you believe can be deemed to be true. You want to show me how to find something that you can't even prove to be true? So how can you say you value the truth? ---------- Post added 07-01-2015 at 16:42 ---------- Evolution cannot provide us with transcendent, objective moral values. Nor does social pressure explain this. Both fail miserably to explain how we have these moral (objective) values- you need to look in to what objective moral values means. Maybe you could post what you mean by objective moral values? Edited January 7, 2015 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Firstly, me describing myself as morally superior to the god of the bible does not presuppose the existence of objective morality, so for that reason your argument is not sound. A belief in subjective morality certainly enables me to claim to be morally superior, or inferior to others, it just means that I acknowledge that my view is a subjective one and I might be wrong. Morals can be subjective- I did not say they wern't. However, as vague as it may be to us; it still refers to a group of objective factors: (destructiveness vs. constructiveness / empathic vs. apathic / selfish vs. altruistic / and so on...) none of these concepts are subjective. They have clear defenitions which make it objectively measurable. So in other words, yeah ourpersonal judgement of morality is subjective, but the term morality does refer to real/objective charesteristics. However the point of the argument is that (and the moral argument is a strong case for this) that OBJECTIVE morals mean something totally different- e.g. that we as a human race would find it abhorrent if someone was to kill and torture 5 year olds- even if a group felt it was fine to do so. If morality is not objective, then why can’t people just pick and choose what morals they wish to follow, if any at all? Hence my point earlier abouth this thread, that it seems some people are making judgements on a 'higher moral ground'- so what grounds are they using to make these claims? It begs the question then that we all have some innate goodness and recognise right from wrong- doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Morals can be subjective- I did not say they wern't. However, as vague as it may be to us; it still refers to a group of objective factors: (destructiveness vs. constructiveness / empathic vs. apathic / selfish vs. altruistic / and so on...) none of these concepts are subjective. They have clear defenitions which make it objectively measurable. So in other words, yeah ourpersonal judgement of morality is subjective, but the term morality does refer to real/objective charesteristics. However the point of the argument is that (and the moral argument is a strong case for this) that OBJECTIVE morals mean something totally different- e.g. that we as a human race would find it abhorrent if someone was to kill and torture 5 year olds- even if a group felt it was fine to do so. If morality is not objective, then why can’t people just pick and choose what morals they wish to follow, if any at all? Hence my point earlier abouth this thread, that it seems some people are making judgements on a 'higher moral ground'- so what grounds are they using to make these claims? It begs the question then that we all have some innate goodness and recognise right from wrong- doesn't it? Could you give an example of an objective moral value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 From an atheists point of view 1. God does not exist 2. Moral values do exist and are based on genes and teachings from schools and parents and have evolved naturally 3. therefore God does not exist and no existence is necessary You can't use your conclusion as one of your premises bro! That's even worse logic than Mr Fisk was employing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Evolution cannot provide us with transcendent, objective moral values Transcendent, objective moral values do not exist, it is just another meaningless invention which is meant to prove the existence of an invented God. Edited January 7, 2015 by anfisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Evolution cannot provide us with transcendent, objective moral values. Nor does social pressure explain this. Both fail miserably to explain how we have these moral (objective) values- you need to look in to what objective moral values means. Ok, I want to play your game. Let me clarify that I do not, for a single second, accept your premise that "Objective moral values do exist". But let's just say hypothetically that I do, how does that prove the existence of god exactly? Bear in mind the deductive argument you put forward earlier was not valid. If you can do this you'll be halfway towards converting me to some form of deism (incidentally the only kind of god I've ever seen you put an argument for on this forum), I'll still be a long way from your Abrahamic nonsense though, which you never even seem to try to advocate. Edited January 7, 2015 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 that we as a human race would find it abhorrent if someone was to kill and torture 5 year olds- even if a group felt it was fine to do so. Thinking this is wrong would be subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Have you ever lied , have you ever hurt someone that's all sin But.. Sin is only committed by those who have faith in a divine law. The Bible also states that, so people with no faith have not sinned and only those that believe can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now