Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

[BavarianWheels]

jlay,

Yes, I am jumping from ontological to epistemological. Once we establish that morality has an objective source, there is then the very real problem of trying to access this knowledge. I make an appeal to the Supreme Court because I am humble. I am the one that has never strayed from the fact that my account of morality could very well be wrong. The point is that you, a Christian who claims that truth is objective, is in direct opposition with a group of Christians appointed by other Christians whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong. Who are you to say that they are wrong? Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?

As judges in a secular society, aren't they SUPPOSED to check their Christianity at the court's doorstep...or would you have them start making decisions based on their religious beliefs?
.
.

If they know for a fact what is right and wrong, it isn't about religious "belief". It's about objective facts. Yes, I would want anybody with access to objective morality to apply that truth to the betterment of mankind.

I guess that's the whole point you're not getting here. Without religion (i.e. God) there is no objective morality. Society dictates it's own morality and thus it is subjective from society to society and from person to person.

No BW. That can't be right. What good is objective morality is society can just dictate it away? You can certainly come to the conclusion that there is objective morality without God because moral objectivity is used in proofs for God.

I think you're mixing something up here. OM is argued to exist BECAUSE THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD that created this universe. Without a higher power dictating morals, there is no objectivity. You ask, "What good is objective morality [if] society can just dictate it away?" The answer is, IF a higer power than society doesn't exist, then society is that higher power and thus dictates ITS morals...those morals being objective within that societies borders.
.
.

[humblesmurph]

Yes, I would want anybody with access to objective morality to apply that truth to the betterment of mankind.

Not saying you are lying, but I don't believe you here. You may not understand what you are implying.

You are assuming that OM, when applied, is going to benefit the betterment of mankind. Also, your opinion of this may greatly differ from the actual reality of the betterment of mankind.

Why are Supreme Court Justices not able to make the same secular application of fact that you have made?

You would obviously have to address them to know that. All I know is that I have never seen a unanimous position from the SC. That tells me that there is not agreement. Each Justice is able to look at the exact same evidence (facts). Yet can and do come to different conclusions. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons. But two big ones are worldview and politics. In fact there is a very good case that Roe v. Wade was ruled wrong based on the FACTS.

It is just a fact that Christians get morality wrong all the time. Not sure how being on the SC gains one better access? Christians fail to walk worthy of their calling. Sad fact. It is also true that people profess faith, when in fact they actually have none. SC justices often make rulings based not on fact, but on political position.
Another fact is that SC justices can ONLY rule on case law. There are several justices who would rule against abortion if it were before them today. If the case isn't before them, guess what?

It is your application of biological facts that renders all abortions acts of murder, therefore, wrong.

No HS, let's be honest here. Facts are facts. You made several statements that were in fact wrong. Not opinion, not interpretation, but facts. Therefore your position is based on wrong info. You are welcome to go back through the thread. Myself, Zoe, and maybe others pointed these issues out.

jlay, you are trying to pick a fight where none exists. I said "application" I didn't use the word opinion with regards to your facts. Your facts were 100% correct, we just interpret them differently. You and I will never agree on a woman's right to choose.

BTW, I fully understand the implications of the application of moral objectivity. I try very hard to do the right thing. If I could know for a fact what is right or wrong and have some reliable method for determining it, my life would be much easier. Yes, I am making assumptions regarding whether it would be good for mankind. My understanding of God is that He is a good God and only wants the best for mankind. I wouldn't know for a fact, I've never spoken to Him.

[humblesmurph]

I think you're mixing something up here. OM is argued to exist BECAUSE THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD that created this universe. Without a higher power dictating morals, there is no objectivity. You ask, "What good is objective morality [if] society can just dictate it away?" The answer is, IF a higer power than society doesn't exist, then society is that higher power and thus dictates ITS morals...those morals being objective within that societies borders.

BW, When I typed moral argument in my Google search, this came up first. http://www.existence-of-god.com/moral-argument.html

If you don't feel like reading, it basically states that the existence of moral objectivity is proof of God. In this particular argument, objective morality is assumed, or proven, to exist prior to proving God's existence. You and I are in agreement that chronologically, God must have come before OM because He made it, but the argument clearly shows that you can prove objective morality without invoking a creator. Do you disagree with the moral argument for God's existence?

[BavarianWheels]

I think you're mixing something up here. OM is argued to exist BECAUSE THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD that created this universe. Without a higher power dictating morals, there is no objectivity. You ask, "What good is objective morality [if] society can just dictate it away?" The answer is, IF a higer power than society doesn't exist, then society is that higher power and thus dictates ITS morals...those morals being objective within that societies borders.

BW, When I typed moral argument in my Google search, this came up first. http://www.existence-of-god.com/moral-argument.html

If you don't feel like reading, it basically states that the existence of moral objectivity is proof of God. In this particular argument, objective morality is assumed, or proven, to exist prior to proving God's existence. You and I are in agreement that chronologically, God must have come before OM because He made it, but the argument clearly shows that you can prove objective morality without invoking a creator. Do you disagree with the moral argument for God's existence?

I'll read the article and let you know...

Edit:

The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God’s existence. According to this argument, there couldn’t be such a thing as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, “If there is no God, then everything is permissible.” That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is permissible, proves that God exists.

Do I disagree? No. I'm in agreement as I've posted prior to this.

I don't read what you read, that being that moral objectivity can be proven without invoking a creator. I think it's clear that BECAUSE moral objectivity exists, God exists. OM or MO does not exist without God/Creator.
.
.

[zoegirl]

REad back over the CS Lewis portions: He makes two great points...

1) everyone seems to understand that this is a standard and
2) people don't adhere to the standard that they expect others to adhere.

Objective morality certainly does not guarantee that society will follow these or choose to make laws that follow them. (although most laws are premised on what is "fair" and what is "just") but it certainly does not guarantee that judges will follow the OM

[humblesmurph]

REad back over the CS Lewis portions: He makes two great points...

1) everyone seems to understand that this is a standard and
2) people don't adhere to the standard that they expect others to adhere.

Objective morality certainly does not guarantee that society will follow these or choose to make laws that follow them. (although most laws are premised on what is "fair" and what is "just") but it certainly does not guarantee that judges will follow the OM

Lewis makes a fine case for the existence of OM. I'm sure there many philosophers who refute it, but their opinion is not necessarily mine. Assuming Lewis is correct, the problem of knowing particulars of OM is what I am concerned with, not just it's existence.

My question is are the judges capable of strictly following the OM? If they are, then what would be the reason they don't? As jlay already said, to know for sure, I'd have to ask them. I was wondering if you had any guesses.

[humblesmurph]

I think you're mixing something up here. OM is argued to exist BECAUSE THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD that created this universe. Without a higher power dictating morals, there is no objectivity. You ask, "What good is objective morality [if] society can just dictate it away?" The answer is, IF a higer power than society doesn't exist, then society is that higher power and thus dictates ITS morals...those morals being objective within that societies borders.

BW, When I typed moral argument in my Google search, this came up first. http://www.existence-of-god.com/moral-argument.html

If you don't feel like reading, it basically states that the existence of moral objectivity is proof of God. In this particular argument, objective morality is assumed, or proven, to exist prior to proving God's existence. You and I are in agreement that chronologically, God must have come before OM because He made it, but the argument clearly shows that you can prove objective morality without invoking a creator. Do you disagree with the moral argument for God's existence?

I'll read the article and let you know...

Edit:

The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God’s existence. According to this argument, there couldn’t be such a thing as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, “If there is no God, then everything is permissible.” That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is permissible, proves that God exists.

Do I disagree? No. I'm in agreement as I've posted prior to this.

I don't read what you read, that being that moral objectivity can be proven without invoking a creator. I think it's clear that BECAUSE moral objectivity exists, God exists. OM or MO does not exist without God/Creator.
.
.

BW, we are misunderstanding each other. In a proof of god's existence, if OM is one of the premises, that premise must be self evident or provable without an appeal to the conclusion. Otherwise, it isn't a proof, it's just a circular argument. This isn't a theist atheist argument, ask some of your Christian cohorts I believe they would agree with me. The case that OM is self evident is made by CS Lewis. Again, we both understand full well that OM entails God, and God is the creator of OM. The point is that OM, according to the Moral Argument, can be proven without first proving God's existence.

[BavarianWheels]

The point is that OM, according to the Moral Argument, can be proven without first proving God's existence.

Ok...I think I've said, I don't agree. I don't see how OM is proven without God's existence if without God there is no OM. (are we going in circles?)
.
.

[humblesmurph]

The point is that OM, according to the Moral Argument, can be proven without first proving God's existence.

Ok...I think I've said, I don't agree. I don't see how OM is proven without God's existence if without God there is no OM. (are we going in circles?)
.
.

I'm not sure yet. Are you saying that in order to prove OM, you first have to prove God? We're talking logical proofs here, I'm not asking for miracles or anything.

[jlay]

jlay, you are trying to pick a fight where none exists. I said "application" I didn't use the word opinion with regards to your facts. Your facts were 100% correct, we just interpret them differently. You and I will never agree on a woman's right to choose.

Would it be correct if I said 2+2=5? But, I'm just interpreting the facts differently. I'm not sure you recall just what we are talking about in regards to facts. You made some statements regarding the abortion issue that were not merely interpretation. They were either wrong, or used faulty reasoning.

It is a biological fact that a fetus has all the genetic info it will ever have.
It is a biological fact that this genetic info is unique.
The conceived embryo, fetus, and pre-born child are all stages of a unique human life at some form of development.
It is a biological fact that pregnancy restricts the mother's immune system to protect the fetus.
It is a biological fact that every conception carried through to delivery results in the birth of a human. You yourself are a case study that confirms this.
It is a fact, that a person's humanism is not determined by how tall, small, dependent or handicapped they may be.

Please, please tell me how you are interpreting these facts.

If I could know for a fact what is right or wrong and have some reliable method for determining it, my life would be much easier.

Are you having trouble not telling the truth, killing people, or stealing? Are you honestly saying that you just aren't sure whether these things are objectively wrong, so you are having a hard time not doing them?

[humblesmurph]

jlay, you are trying to pick a fight where none exists. I said "application" I didn't use the word opinion with regards to your facts. Your facts were 100% correct, we just interpret them differently. You and I will never agree on a woman's right to choose.

Would it be correct if I said 2+2=5? But, I'm just interpreting the facts differently. I'm not sure you recall just what we are talking about in regards to facts. You made some statements regarding the abortion issue that were not merely interpretation. They were either wrong, or used faulty reasoning.

It is a biological fact that a fetus has all the genetic info it will ever have.
It is a biological fact that this genetic info is unique.
The conceived embryo, fetus, and pre-born child are all stages of a unique human life at some form of development.
It is a biological fact that pregnancy restricts the mother's immune system to protect the fetus.
It is a biological fact that every conception carried through to delivery results in the birth of a human. You yourself are a case study that confirms this.
It is a fact, that a person's humanism is not determined by how tall, small, dependent or handicapped they may be.

Please, please tell me how you are interpreting these facts.

If I could know for a fact what is right or wrong and have some reliable method for determining it, my life would be much easier.

Are you having trouble not telling the truth, killing people, or stealing? Are you honestly saying that you just aren't sure whether these things are objectively wrong, so you are having a hard time not doing them?

I balance the facts you raise against the rights of the woman. You say she has no rights, I'm not sure about that. Neither of us is going to have an abortion. The point about bringing it up, was that people disagree, not about who is right. You think you are correct, fine. I've been more than willing to let it drop.

Well, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and what percentage of my income should I give to charity are just a few moral dilemmas I ponder regularly. There are more but you get the point I'm sure. I'd be willing to bet that I steal, lie and kill less than the average person, including those who view morality as objective.

I've seen this before jlay. On an atheist forum there is this one poster who won't let things drop with a very nice Christian Apologists that frequents the forum. No matter what the Christian Apologists says, this atheist poster takes it as some sort of bashing of atheism or preaching faith. We needn't be like that with one another jlay. You'll find that I am a fair decent person...I believe. If you are unwilling to look past my atheism and pro-choice stance, then I guess ours will continue to be an antagonistic dynamic.

[zoegirl]

HS,

I would say, and perhaps this will be an unsatisfactory answer for you, that when we are trying to decide particulars, judges are working (although we hope they are mature and wise) within a finite and broken framework. If we know that people don't do what they should do, then why are we expecting them to have a perfect response in judgments?

[humblesmurph]

HS,

I would say, and perhaps this will be an unsatisfactory answer for you, that when we are trying to decide particulars, judges are working (although we hope they are mature and wise) within a finite and broken framework. If we know that people don't do what they should do, then why are we expecting them to have a perfect response in judgments?

I'm not expecting them to have perfect response in judgments. I'm asking how do you or I know when they have erred?

[DannyM]

1. More fudgery.

2. More fudgery.

3. What? Just answer the question.
-
-
-

[jlay]

You say she has no rights, I'm not sure about that

Really? Just where did I say that?

I'd be willing to bet that I steal, lie and kill less than the average person, including those who view morality as objective.

so you gamble too?
Sorry, i couldn't help myself. '

I've seen this before jlay. On an atheist forum there is this one poster who won't let things drop with a very nice Christian Apologists that frequents the forum. No matter what the Christian Apologists says, this atheist poster takes it as some sort of bashing of atheism or preaching faith. We needn't be like that with one another jlay. You'll find that I am a fair decent person...I believe. If you are unwilling to look past my atheism and pro-choice stance, then I guess ours will continue to be an antagonistic dynamic.

I don't see anything in such way. Just having a debate and discussion. Not sure I understand the, 'let it drop.' When I answer you, you have replied to me and view versa. That's kind of the format things take around here. Why should we look past who you are? We wouldn't expect you to look past who we are? Your worldview and my worldview are essential to the debate.
I assure you that Zoe is an excellent moderator, and if there were any bashing, we would know about it. Saying you are wrong, is not bashing. You saying I am wrong is not bashing. A good fiery debate is not bashing.
It's very simple. If you do not want to be confronted on atheism and pro-choice, simply don't bring them into the arena of debate. If someone else mentions them, you are not obligated to reply.

Back to the steal, lie and kill?
So, it sounds like you would say that you are a good person?
Have you lied? How much lying is too much?

Does God grade on a curve?