Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
Kenny wrote:
First of all there is no such thing as an atheist belief system, but geting past that;why must I smuggle in a theistic belief system in order to believe in OM? Why can't I smuggle in a secular belief system? Please explain.
Atheist's Belief system/belief set is the fact that an atheist believes there is no God. And anything that that particular atheist believes as a consequence of that belief that God doesn't exist.
I suppose you could try to smuggle in OM from a secular belief set, but that would be irrational too. What would the source of OM be in a secular system?
When I speak of OM, I'm talking about something that is right or wrong independently of whether anyone believes it to be so.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Danieltwotwenty wrote:You guys need to define terms.
Objective means to come from outside of the human experience, well to be truly objective it does.
So an objective morality would require a source, the theist has God as the objective source for morality as God is outside of the human experience.
The question for atheists is what is the source of their objective morality, but to be truly objective it must be outside of the human experience and unless they can account for the source, morality remains subjected to human individuals or groups of humans.
I've always considered Objective morality as something that is universal, something that cannot be left up to interpertation. Subjective morality as something that can be left up to interpertation.
Moral issues one might consider Objective: Rape, Stealing, Murder, etc.
Moral issues one might consider Subjective: Lying, taking something that isn't yours, killing.
The Theist would obviously have his God as his source for objective morality, the atheist would have a secular source such as the Golden Rule as his source for objective morality.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
RickD wrote:
I suppose you could try to smuggle in OM from a secular belief set, but that would be irrational too. What would the source of OM be in a secular system?
How 'bout the Golden Rule? Treat people the way you would want to be treated; and don't do to someone what you would not want to be done to yourself?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
RickD wrote:
I suppose you could try to smuggle in OM from a secular belief set, but that would be irrational too. What would the source of OM be in a secular system?
How 'bout the Golden Rule? Treat people the way you would want to be treated; and don't do to someone what you would not want to be done to yourself?
Ken
Ah,
Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself.
What happens if I'm a sadomasochist? Can I still do unto others as I would want them to do unto me?
Kenny,
Here's the golden rule:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Can you see anything in the golden rule that shows that it's subjective, not objective?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
RickD wrote:Ah,
Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself.
What happens if I'm a sadomasochist? Can I still do unto others as I would want them to do unto me?
A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.
RickD wrote:Kenny,
Here's the golden rule:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Can you see anything in the golden rule that shows that it's subjective, not objective?
I think subjectivety could be found in the Golden Rule. Example; 2 people, one finds cursing offensive, the other does not. If they both follow the Golden rule, is cursing okay?
Obviously for one person it is, but the other person it is not. Yes subjectivy could be found in the Golden Rule, but that doesn't stop someone from using it as their own personal basis of objectivite morality; and people do often disagree on what issues are objectivity moral. An argument could be made that when comparing what is written in the Old vs New Testaments, subjectivity could be found.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.
Kenny, did you really think about that one before you posted it? If one can find a different source for objectivity it necessarily entails it wasn't objective to begin with.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Kenny wrote:A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.
Kenny, did you really think about that one before you posted it? If one can find a different source for objectivity it necessarily entails it wasn't objective to begin with.
Are you suggesting that everyone must agree on the same source for moral objectivity?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Objective morality is morality whether one believes in it or not. So it doesn't matter what one thinks is the source of it.
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
Kenny wrote:A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.
Kenny, did you really think about that one before you posted it? If one can find a different source for objectivity it necessarily entails it wasn't objective to begin with.
Are you suggesting that everyone must agree on the same source for moral objectivity?
Ken
There can't be more than one source it defies logic, it's like saying God should be able to make a square circle because he is omnipotent, objectivity remains the same wether you follow it or not. If morality is subjected to different sources depending on what flavour you prefer, then as the sentence implies it is now subjective morality.
The question still remains, how does atheism account for OM existing?
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Atheists would probably reject objective morality outright, no? They usually say that our subjective morality is sufficient and is worth following.
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
Seraph wrote:Atheists would probably reject objective morality outright, no? They usually say that our subjective morality is sufficient and is worth following.
Not always true. Some believe murder and rape for example, are objectively wrong. But they need to show why they are objectively wrong. There is no rational reason for any objective morality without God.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Kenny wrote:A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.
Kenny, did you really think about that one before you posted it? If one can find a different source for objectivity it necessarily entails it wasn't objective to begin with.
Are you suggesting that everyone must agree on the same source for moral objectivity?
Ken
There can't be more than one source it defies logic, it's like saying God should be able to make a square circle because he is omnipotent, objectivity remains the same wether you follow it or not. If morality is subjected to different sources depending on what flavour you prefer, then as the sentence implies it is now subjective morality.
The question still remains, how does atheism account for OM existing?
So you believe your God is the only possible basis for objective morality? Even for those who worship another God? If so, what about those who worship another God and proclaim that their God is the only basis for moral objectivity? How can you prove you are right and they are wrong?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
kenny wrote:
A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.
Kenny,
If the golden rule doesn't work for everybody, that means it's not objective.
I think subjectivety could be found in the Golden Rule. Example; 2 people, one finds cursing offensive, the other does not. If they both follow the Golden rule, is cursing okay?
Obviously for one person it is, but the other person it is not. Yes subjectivy could be found in the Golden Rule, but that doesn't stop someone from using it as their own personal basis of objectivite morality; and people do often disagree on what issues are objectivity moral. An argument could be made that when comparing what is written in the Old vs New Testaments, subjectivity could be found.
Again Kenny,
The golden rule is subjective. Look at the golden rule:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Kenny,
Are you seeing it yet? It's really not that difficult to see. It just may be difficult for you to admit.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Seraph wrote:Atheists would probably reject objective morality outright, no? They usually say that our subjective morality is sufficient and is worth following.
Not always true. Some believe murder and rape for example, are objectively wrong. But they need to show why they are objectively wrong. There is no rational reason for any objective morality without God.
What about those who worship another God? Do you believe they have a basis for morail objectivity?
K
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
