Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[olavisjo]

.

Which kinda explains your constand misrepresentation of our position. Can you accept that atheists don't have to think like you did? Can you also accept that the majority of atheists don't think like you did? Last I check almost none of us are moral nihilist, and minority are moral non-cognitivists.

I can accept that atheists don't have to think like I did, I used to be logically consistent and I would take things to their logical conclusion, but this is not a necessary trait of all atheists.

You are doing it again. No such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense, doesn't mean no such thing as right and wrong, nor does it mean no such thing as actually right and wrong. You are implying anything other than your vision of right and wrong is not actual or not real. Stop it.

It's like me telling you that because morality is subjective, and you don't believe in subjectivism, you don't actually believe anything is actually wrong, and I really struggle to understand why you can't see that what the Nazis did was actually wrong.

This is a good example of an atheist who is not logically consistent.

If moral subjectivism were true then what the Nazis did was actually not wrong or right.

• Subjectivism claims that there is no objective fact of the matter over whether a specific action is right or wrong; therefore it does not claim that anything makes an action right or wrong--including personal approval.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... oral2.html

[instantc]

This is the part of secular morality that I disagree with, "you are free to do whatever you can get away with by stealth or brute force". Non-believers seem to have no problem with this. As you say it is 'unnecessary'...

But this is just a description of how reality works, welcome to life Olavisjo. If your own conscience is not in the way and nobody else can intervene to whatever you are doing, then you are, in fact, free to do that.

This does not change in Christianity. Even if God is watching you with a judgmental face, as long as he doesn't intervene, which we know he doesn't like to do, you are still free to do that thing you were doing. There's even a place for you in the paradise, as Jesus had previously compensated in advance for every evil act your mind desires.

[10CC]

.

Which kinda explains your constand misrepresentation of our position. Can you accept that atheists don't have to think like you did? Can you also accept that the majority of atheists don't think like you did? Last I check almost none of us are moral nihilist, and minority are moral non-cognitivists.

I can accept that atheists don't have to think like I did, I used to be logically consistent and I would take things to their logical conclusion, but this is not a necessary trait of all atheists.

You are doing it again. No such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense, doesn't mean no such thing as right and wrong, nor does it mean no such thing as actually right and wrong. You are implying anything other than your vision of right and wrong is not actual or not real. Stop it.

It's like me telling you that because morality is subjective, and you don't believe in subjectivism, you don't actually believe anything is actually wrong, and I really struggle to understand why you can't see that what the Nazis did was actually wrong.

This is a good example of an atheist who is not logically consistent.

If moral subjectivism were true then what the Nazis did was actually not wrong or right.

• Subjectivism claims that there is no objective fact of the matter over whether a specific action is right or wrong; therefore it does not claim that anything makes an action right or wrong--including personal approval.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... oral2.html

So when you were an "atheist" you were also an axe murdering child rapist were you?

[Artie]

Everything exists until shown not to? God and the Golden rule too? Or is it just your opinion that you have no opinion on a god/gods existence? This type cognitive signals from you says much more about your ability to deliver than you think.

You have the burden of proof. You know what to do. Define your claim and your argument. You clearly have no peer reviewed scientific journal(s) to show this rubbish Golden rule exists (other that just just wishful thinking, like gods). You can not define things into existence.

Get working on it or concede.

Another irrational post. The Golden Rule exists.

"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality[2] that essentially states ... the following:
(Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

NoisForm has already provided you with documentation.

[olavisjo]

.

But this is just a description of how reality works, welcome to life Olavisjo.

Yes, this is how reality works for the non-believer, she can get away with things. But, in theism there will be a judgement day where all transgressions will be judged.

Without a judgement day, all moral systems fail.

[Artie]

Yes Artie, they are. For example, one can recognize the golden rule as morally good, and yet he may choose to never follow it for selfish reasons.

Oh. You don't see the difference between societies and single individuals. It is true that single individuals might for any number of reasons choose not to follow the Golden Rule. Sometimes these individuals end up in jail and worse because their behavior isn't tolerated by those who do follow the Golden Rule. Of course we could discuss why some single individuals don't follow the Golden Rule but that could be anything from upbringing to physical brain trauma. But we were discussing societies not single individuals. Evolution works on populations.

[instantc]

Yes Artie, they are. For example, one can recognize the golden rule as morally good, and yet he may choose to never follow it for selfish reasons.

Oh. You don't see the difference between societies and single individuals. It is true that single individuals might for any number of reasons choose not to follow the Golden Rule. Sometimes these individuals end up in jail and worse because their behavior isn't tolerated by those who do follow the Golden Rule. Of course we could discuss why some single individuals don't follow the Golden Rule but that could be anything from upbringing to physical brain trauma. But we were discussing societies not single individuals. Evolution works on populations.

There seems to be great deal of confusion in your post as usual. I'm not talking about the distinction between a society and an individual. I am talking about the distinction between a moral value that a society/individual holds and the way they in fact behave. You keep making your evolutionary descriptions of people's behavior as always, but I was asking about people's values. I'm not interested in how our behavior has evolved, I am interested in how our values came to be what they are.

[Bust Nak]

I can accept that atheists don't have to think like I did, I used to be logically consistent and I would take things to their logical conclusion, but this is not a necessary trait of all atheists.

You are implying atheism logically necessitate either moral nihilism or non-cognitivism - an implication that you cannot back up.

This is a good example of an atheist who is not logically consistent.

If moral subjectivism were true then what the Nazis did was actually not wrong or right.

Incorrect, it is an example of a theist who indulge in ambiguity. I suggest you use the word "objectively" or "inherently" rather than "actually." It would be correct to state "if moral subjectivism were true then what the Nazis did was not objectively wrong or right" or "if moral subjectivism were true then what the Nazis did was not inherently wrong or right.

If moral subjectivism were true then it would be you who is denying what the Nazis did was actually wrong, because you would be denying the actuality that the Nazis were subjectively wrong.

• Subjectivism claims that there is no objective fact of the matter over whether a specific action is right or wrong; therefore it does not claim that anything makes an action right or wrong--including personal approval.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... oral2.html

He is denying "transcendental cosmic standard of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' existing independently of human minds." You are once again interpreting "there is no right or wrong the way olavisjo believe there to be" to mean "there is no actual right or wrong" as if your beliefs must be "actual." And I will call you out every time you do that.

[Artie]

But this is just a description of how reality works, welcome to life Olavisjo.

Yes, this is how reality works for the non-believer, she can get away with things. But, in theism there will be a judgement day where all transgressions will be judged.

Without a judgement day, all moral systems fail.

So without the threat of a judgment day nothing would stop you from going around murdering people is that what you are trying to tell us? This is precisely why some religions evolved. To command people like you to not murder other people using the threat of a judgment day to enforce the command. Of course no moral people would need to be commanded not to murder.

[Artie]

There seems to be great deal of confusion in your post as usual. I'm not talking about the distinction between a society and an individual. I am talking about the distinction between a moral value that a society/individual holds and the way they in fact behave.

Example?

You keep making your evolutionary descriptions of people's behavior as always, but I was asking about people's values. I'm not interested in how our behavior has evolved, I am interested in how our values came to be what they are.

Define what you mean by values.