What if God disappeared?

[Celsus]

Assuming God (and especially BibleGod) exists then what would happen if it disappeared? Would all morality vanish too?

Do you agree with this video?

[scourge99]

Thus far, I have not met an atheist who has given me a premise as a logical basis for morality so much as those who consider the value of morality to be a premise in itself. True, such things are possible: the value of life/progress/personal gratification would all be premises that would logically support some form of morality from a secular point of view.

And those are but a few options available to an atheist.

I agree, but there is still the matter of my original point. None of these are actually shown to be true. Nor have we shown any of them to be evidenced at all. They are merely being presented as premises, and are therefore logically equivalent to presenting God's existence as a premise.

No one that I know states as a premise that the purpose of life is X therefore it must be true and everything follows the premise. You are attempting some very strange equivocation with someone who claims there is a God therefore God is true. Reality doesn't warp itself to what one's beliefs are. Reality simply is and whatever meaning you draw from it you should be able to support via reality. There is no other choice (as explained further below). You seem to be under the false impression that because someone might have an unsubstantiated belief or claim then one can substitute God in this scheme as well and somehow get away without the uncertainty that they have.

This is all fair enough, but to insist that we reject the idea of God based on a lack of evidence (which has been an extremely common claim for atheists on this site) then present these things, which are not evidenced themselves creates a contradiction.

If you don't like the evidence or the reasons of them then reject them. You are under no obligation to believe anything. You think they were invented randomly in a vacuum? Someone just woke up and said "I think a worthy pursuit is happiness/advancement of knowledge"?

On what grounds do we accept some premises, but not others?

On the only grounds we have to compare and contrast ANYTHING: reality!!!

With regard to the statement that the physical universe is not evidenced, you write:

We accept many things without evidence but we tend to require a greater burden of proof for beliefs of consequence. Perceived reality must be accepted because there is no other alternative--at least none I am aware of. I cannot deny that which I experience.

First, the idea that the physical universe exists is a belief of enormous consequence and, by your reasoning here, has an incredible burden of proof.
As to there being no other alternative, that is not true. The idea that reality is illusory is an alternative. It is simply one that most find unpleasant.
In any case, there is no logical way to get from a failure to see a practical alternative to a logical claim that something is true.Suggesting as much is based on the same sort of appeal to consequences fallacy that characterizes Pascal's Wager.

This is one of those problems with being self aware. Sometimes we can wrap ourselves up in so much thought we end up thinking ourselves into a mental abyss. Luckily I have the remedy for getting out of the abyss.

You either have something that is manifesting or you don’t. If it manifests you have something to examine. If it is not manifesting then you have nothing. There is either something there or there is nothing there. If you have something, then you can examine it. If you don’t have anything then you have nothing. Reality is the only game in town; it is the only thing manifesting, it is the only thing which you can examine.

Don't agree? OK. Then reject reality......... but you can't! It doesn't go away! OK, so you don't reject reality you just reject that anything is real within it. Opps that doesn't work either! Even if you believe everything is an illusion you still seem to have to interact with this illusionary world to keep your illusionary body alive! (I wouldn't recommend not trying to keep your illusionary body alive, FYI) How much of reality does one accept but then on the other hand reject to fit their preconceived beliefs?

On the other hand, I don't proclaim reality with preconceived notions. Reality presents itself and then I fold that knowledge gained from reality back in on itself to see what I can conclude about what it is I am experiencing. I wasn't born with the knowledge of ANY of this, I learned it from experiencing reality and can traverse the evidence and reasoning for such a claim. This is done using a method and reasoning that reality shows is extraordinarily more accurate than any other to date. And if reality presents new evidence or a better form of reasoning then my beliefs will change.

But what you cannot do is get off the hook by claiming that reality is uncertain therefore you are justified in claiming whatever thing your imagination can think up of as true. If you experience reality and claim things about it then how did you arrive at those claims? Why would you use a method for analyzing reality that is demonstrably inferior to others? Every means of reasoning you have is BOUNDED by reality. There is no reasoning "outside" of reality.

2. That their perspectives on the world are not based in non-rational assumptions. (This is similar, but significantly different in my view.)

Atheists must be acting on some premise. Last time I checked most don't sit around denying existence or self defined purpose. In fact, atheists live life much to the same extent theists do within society just without the supernatural beliefs.

I completely agree. This is, in fact, very similar to what I was trying to claim.
I have often heard individuals claim that they do not accept anything without evidence. My statement above was meant to counter that, and present something much more like what you have described.
Also in line with what you have described is my rejection of the idea that atheists don't simply have a non-belief regarding God's existence. Again, many claim that, after considering the matter, they do not have any belief in the matter. They apparently have disregarded it and created some form of mental vacuum around the thought. I am trying to argue that, much more like you present, that real life doesn't allow any of us to do that. Rather than just sitting around denying things, atheists (like everyone else) take their views about life, ethics, God's existence, etc, into the world with them as the make choices about how to behave. This is not to say that this point is at all exclusive to atheists. I believe that all people do this, in spite of the fact that some atheists on this site deny doing so.
If you do agree with these clarifications, however, then it seems that I have no argument with your claims here.

I don't believe in unicorns. However, I reserve the possibility that unicorns may exist. I am an a-unicornist. The key issue with the above example is the difference between belief and knowledge. I don't believe there are unicorns but I don't absolutely know there are not. Nothing is technically impossible because absolute certainty is impossible. However, when I claim I know something its always with the caveat that absolute certainty is impossible and new evidence or reason can change my mind. So, with that said, I know that I have 10 fingers and I know that I am not in Antarctica. Why? Because these are things which I can demonstrate to a very strong certainty based on current knowledge. This is why some atheists (strong atheists) claim to know specific Gods do not exist. Because in their experience the evidence is so contradictory to certain claims of Gods that it would be comparable to me claiming that I have more than 5 fingers on my right hand.

But you do say this:

Obviously some opinions are far less reasonable then others.

By what standard do we determine this?

Depends on the claim.

Let me illustrate:

But there are others: happiness, enlightenment, altruism, species/society advancement, curiosity. I nor anyone else can prove that one purpose is superior to any other because there is no basis on which to do such except by the results they achieve.

What you wish and what you desire define your purpose.

This is the basic concept of hedonism, which has some serious issues, in my view.
Specifically, if that is the case, on what logical grounds to we argue that the Nazis were wrong? They were working for a racially pure society, and believed that to be a noble pursuit. You and I might find it repugnant, but that is the purpose they chose. If we can't prove that our purpose is superior to theirs, how to we claim that we are right and they are wrong?

Don't equivocate societies cumulative morality with personal morality. If you want to ask me personally why I find genocide wrong or disagreeable and on what basis I have to do something about it, then ask. But its an entirely different question to ask the same question of a society as a whole.

Don't forget to differentiate between moral and sound reasoning. The Nazis can have sound reasoning but still be morally wrong. What is morally wrong is simply what the society (or whoever has the power in a society) decide it is. The current moral zeitgeist finds genocide extremely morally reprehensible where in biblical times it was quite common and expected.

As to your other question: "On what basis can we force our morals on other people?". On the basis that as a society we find it disagreeable and have the power and will to stop it.

We all feel that such things are wrong, and should be stopped, even when the culprit claims that he was only trying to get his desires in life.

Some desires may be innate or common, yes. Where a theist might attribute that to God I find it more rational to attribute it to natural things such as instinct, evolution, upbringing, and/or cultural teachings.

[Jester]

What is it with you calling anything useful utilitarian?
Granted some things will carry on even if there useless while harmful things would be eventually eliminated, as best as can be done, as they would kill the host or not be repeated.
Is being a drunken slop bad because being a drunken slop is bad or is being a drunken slob bad for you and others because it causes harm? Is it the thing that is wrong or is it the results that make it wrong?

We are talking about what makes something "wrong", and the idea that it cannot be said to be so just because people consider it harmful to our purposes.
Trying to say that something is "bad for you and others because it causes harm" doesn't tell us what harm is, or why that is bad. If harm is something bad by definition, it is a tautology. If harm is something that obstructs our purposes (that is, it brings "results" which most humans don't like), then this is a utilitarian argument.
I don't argue that something is a utilitarian view simply because it happens to be useful. I argue that it is presenting utilitarianism to say that something is good specifically because it is useful. This is what you seemed to be presenting.

After reading your post a number of times I kept wondering what your point was and what you think isn’t being addressed.
All I could come up with was:

You see to want some morality, what ever that might be, how we should live or moral behavior to have� objective weight�. Why you think it needs objective weight or what that would even mean has yet to be disclosed. But we might wonder how an objective morality, whatever that might actually mean, would serve all peoples all the time at ever age and into the future with problems we have yet to encounter.

Yes, it is the issue of objective weight that was central to my point. And it means just that. It is the idea that something is ethically right or wrong based on a support other than opinion - that there is something "just wrong" about murdering someone quite apart from any notion about benefit to societies or personal feelings, and that there is something "just right" about sacrificing one's life to save others, beyond a series of so-called benefits that the hero will never see.

If there are no such things, then I really don't see any point at which it makes sense to demand ethics of a person. You can say "don't steal, or you might get caught and thrown in jail". But you can't say "even if you don't suffer any consequences, it's still wrong". Yes, I know that you propose consequences other than the legal, but the core issue remains.

You desire some quality as “objective weight�. I am not sure what you mean by objective weight but I do wonder what objective weight you attribute to God and how you could demonstrate or understand God enough to make your claims.

God has the ability to grant objective reality to ideas by definition, and supports ethics as valid beyond opinion. One can argue that God does not exist. One cannot, however, argue that, if God exists, objective ethics would not. It is a matter of definition.

I don’t see where you have even set the ground for your questions and it looks to me like you are trying to presuppose, impose or project an already acceptable, at least by you, referent such as God by which you use as a standard when God is more of a begging the question then an objective reality in which you can find an objective morality.

My claims about definition are accurate, and were part of the understanding of God well before my birth.
As to the matter of begging the question, I understand that you do not accept the existence of God. I have not proposed this line of reasoning as a reason to conclude God's existence as valid. This would only be a begging the question argument if I were doing so, however.
Rather, I was speaking about the logical qualities of ethics based on two premises (one in which God exists, and one in which he does not). Which one an individual personally accepts is not actually relevant on this point.

You ask for a standard that you can’t provide and depend upon God to provide for you and assume God has provided it. I can’t help but think you are not really asking

I don't know what standard you feel that I haven't provided. If you simply mean that I have not proved God's existence, that is true, but this is hardly the place for that discussion. If you merely mean a standard assuming God exists, there are ethical guidelines within the Bible.
But I may not be really asking at that. I can't say that I expect a secular objective standard of ethics to be presented. I believe that none exist. I'd say that I was asserting this while leaving the floor open for the presenting of such a standard. Granted, I haven't given a lot of detail about what that may be, but that really is the job of the presenter - to show that his/her standard is objective. My trying to detail it out for such a person would:
1. Unnecessarilly limit the range of counter arguments (which would be a false dichotomy fallacy). And:
2. Require me to believe that such a standard existed (I can't outline the concept because I am arguing that there is no concept which fits the requirements. I can only give the requirements and respond to the concepts mentioned by others.)

[scourge99]

God has the ability to grant objective reality to ideas by definition,

how so?

and supports ethics as valid beyond opinion.... One cannot, however, argue that, if God exists, objective ethics would not. It is a matter of definition.

Yes we can argue it. See the Euthyphro dilemma.

Conclusions of the dilemma:
1) God gets his morality from another source. In which case God doesn't give us morality he is simply a messenger of it.
2) God arbitrarily decides morality. Thus there is no objective morality, only a morality that God decides. Objective morality does not exist because morality for us is simply what God decides it is.
3) We can't know God's morality from our limited perspective so we are limited in what we can claim is truly moral or immoral. IOW, we can't fully know objective morality.
4) We can't answer the dilemma but I just know God grants objective morality.

Pick your poison.

[Jester]

I agree, but there is still the matter of my original point. None of these are actually shown to be true. Nor have we shown any of them to be evidenced at all. They are merely being presented as premises, and are therefore logically equivalent to presenting God's existence as a premise.

No one that I know states as a premise that the purpose of life is X therefore it must be true and everything follows the premise.

I did not argue that anyone is claiming that "everything follows the premise". We were discussing premises that would support secular ethics. I was pointing out that these premises are themselves unsupported. If you are instead arguing that there are morals, which are not supported by a central premise, then each of them need to be likewise supported. Thus far, they have not been.

You are attempting some very strange equivocation with someone who claims there is a God therefore God is true. Reality doesn't warp itself to what one's beliefs are. Reality simply is and whatever meaning you draw from it you should be able to support via reality.

Then we must support, via reality, that secular ethics are valid.
The problems others have had in the past is supporting ideas that the popular goals of humanity (such as survival and prosperity) are never supported, but merely declared as premises.

You seem to be under the false impression that because someone might have an unsubstantiated belief or claim then one can substitute God in this scheme as well and somehow get away without the uncertainty that they have.

I didn't say that someone could substitute God. I said that such beliefs were logically equivalent to proposing God as a premise. I did not mean to argue that this justified God, but to point out that people who propose an unsubstantiated belief about ethics, if they argue with those who propose God as a premise, are doing the thing they criticize in others.

This is all fair enough, but to insist that we reject the idea of God based on a lack of evidence (which has been an extremely common claim for atheists on this site) then present these things, which are not evidenced themselves creates a contradiction.

If you don't like the evidence or the reasons of them then reject them. You are under no obligation to believe anything. You think they were invented randomly in a vacuum? Someone just woke up and said "I think a worthy pursuit is happiness/advancement of knowledge"?

I am aware that I am allowed to reject ideas that I find to be illogical. That was not my point. Rather, my point was the inconsistency of those who demand proof of God's existence, while insisting that they need not support their claims about ethics.
And, no, I don't think that people came to believe in ethics in a vacuum. Nor, incidentally, do I believe that people came to believe in God in a vacuum. As you mention above, belief does not make reality. The fact that people came to believe in ethics is not support of them.

On what grounds do we accept some premises, but not others?

On the only grounds we have to compare and contrast ANYTHING: reality!!!

What part of the objective study of reality tells you that ethics are valid?

With regard to the statement that the physical universe is not evidenced, you write:

We accept many things without evidence but we tend to require a greater burden of proof for beliefs of consequence. Perceived reality must be accepted because there is no other alternative--at least none I am aware of. I cannot deny that which I experience.

First, the idea that the physical universe exists is a belief of enormous consequence and, by your reasoning here, has an incredible burden of proof.
As to there being no other alternative, that is not true. The idea that reality is illusory is an alternative. It is simply one that most find unpleasant.
In any case, there is no logical way to get from a failure to see a practical alternative to a logical claim that something is true.Suggesting as much is based on the same sort of appeal to consequences fallacy that characterizes Pascal's Wager.

This is one of those problems with being self aware. Sometimes we can wrap ourselves up in so much thought we end up thinking ourselves into a mental abyss. Luckily I have the remedy for getting out of the abyss.

You either have something that is manifesting or you don’t. If it manifests you have something to examine. If it is not manifesting then you have nothing. There is either something there or there is nothing there. If you have something, then you can examine it. If you don’t have anything then you have nothing. Reality is the only game in town; it is the only thing manifesting, it is the only thing which you can examine.

Don't agree? OK. Then reject reality......... but you can't! It doesn't go away! OK, so you don't reject reality you just reject that anything is real within it. Opps that doesn't work either! Even if you believe everything is an illusion you still seem to have to interact with this illusionary world to keep your illusionary body alive! (I wouldn't recommend not trying to keep your illusionary body alive, FYI) How much of reality does one accept but then on the other hand reject to fit their preconceived beliefs?

This is still logically equivalent to Pascal's Wager. Let my try to summarize your argument here:

1. Reality as we basically understand it may or may not exist
2. If it does exist, we can observe it, and learn more about it. (ie, there is great reward in noticing it, and great consequence in ignoring it).
3. If it does not exist, there is nothing that can really be done, and it seems that we are stuck interacting with the illusion anyway. (i.e. there is no great reward for ignoring it or consequence for accepting it).
4. Therefore, we may as well assume that reality exists.

And Pascal's Wager:
1. Either God exists or he does not
2. If it is true, heaven and hell are real (i.e. there are great rewards for following it, and great consequences for ignoring it)
3. If there is no God, there is no heaven or hell (i.e. there are no great consequences either way).
4. Therefore, we may as well believe in God.

These are both appeal to consequences fallacies. I understand that you are also trying to argue that one must accept something as real because it seems to be impossible to act as if it is not real. This is also a problem. There are many scientific proposals that are outside of our ability to visualize. This does not mean, however, that the proposal is automatically false, or should be rejected as false. The fact that a scitzophrienic has to deal with his hallucinations as real, and we have to interact with our dreams while sleeping, does not make such things real. Again, reality does not bend itself to fit what we do, or can bring ourselves to, believe.

On the other hand, I don't proclaim reality with preconceived notions. Reality presents itself and then I fold that knowledge gained from reality back in on itself to see what I can conclude about what it is I am experiencing.

The preconceived notion here is that at least some of the information you are receiving through your senses is accurate.

I wasn't born with the knowledge of ANY of this, I learned it from experiencing reality and can traverse the evidence and reasoning for such a claim.

Nor, claim most atheists, was anyone born with a belief in God. Does that mean that people's experiences of God are proof of them before we demonstrate the validity of those experiences?
It is the same here. You are using your senses to validate themselves. You claim that what they tell you is basically accurate because this is what they tell you. You have no means of checking them which does not rely on your senses.
All this is to say that people don't believe in reality due to some kind of logical or scientific process. It is an article of faith, to use religious terminology (or a matter of blind trust, if you prefer).

But what you cannot do is get off the hook by claiming that reality is uncertain therefore you are justified in claiming whatever thing your imagination can think up of as true.

I completely agree here. If I ever try to argue that God exists on the grounds that you have no evidence of reality, feel free to call me on the non-sequitur argument. I can promise you, however, I have never made, and will never make, that argument.

If you experience reality and claim things about it then how did you arrive at those claims? Why would you use a method for analyzing reality that is demonstrably inferior to others? Every means of reasoning you have is BOUNDED by reality. There is no reasoning "outside" of reality.

For the record, I believe that reality exists. I merely acknowledge my complete lack, in spite of years of searching, of evidence for its existence. I feel that I have to make a call one way or the other, and made it. As such, I have no argument with you doing the same. I do, however, have an argument with any who claim that there is such evidence (or, more accurately, those who claim that they don't accept any idea without evidence), as that is simply untrue.

I have often heard individuals claim that they do not accept anything without evidence. My statement above was meant to counter that, and present something much more like what you have described.
Also in line with what you have described is my rejection of the idea that atheists don't simply have a non-belief regarding God's existence. Again, many claim that, after considering the matter, they do not have any belief in the matter. They apparently have disregarded it and created some form of mental vacuum around the thought. I am trying to argue that, much more like you present, that real life doesn't allow any of us to do that. Rather than just sitting around denying things, atheists (like everyone else) take their views about life, ethics, God's existence, etc, into the world with them as the make choices about how to behave. This is not to say that this point is at all exclusive to atheists. I believe that all people do this, in spite of the fact that some atheists on this site deny doing so.
If you do agree with these clarifications, however, then it seems that I have no argument with your claims here.

I don't believe in unicorns. However, I reserve the possibility that unicorns may exist. I am an a-unicornist.

Yes, I've heard this reasoning (with the exact example of the unicorn) many times. My point above is that, whether or not you acknowledge that you could be wrong, you still go out into the world and operate under the assumption that unicorns don't exist, as do I. One can try to say that they have no belief on the matter of God but there are at least two problems with that:
1. You have to live as if God exists, or as if he doesn't. There is no neutral ground where your actions reflect neither assumption.
2. Refusing to make a claim on a subject prevents one from making a case in support of any conclusion. That is to say, you can't truly debate God's existence if you don't have a position on the matter. "Yes", "no", "probably", and "probably not" are positions. "I don't yet have enough information to say 'yes', but don't say 'no'" is not a position. Specifically, it defines itself wholly negatively, telling the opponent only what one does not believe. Considering an idea, and rejecting it, is to decide (at least tentatively) that it is false.

You actually hint at this second point in this line:

However, when I claim I know something its always with the caveat that absolute certainty is impossible and new evidence or reason can change my mind.

Changing your mind would mean that you had a position to begin with.
This is what reasonable scientists (as well as all reasonable people) do, form conclusions while admitting that they are subject to change with the arrival of new information and/or theories.

Let me illustrate:

But there are others: happiness, enlightenment, altruism, species/society advancement, curiosity. I nor anyone else can prove that one purpose is superior to any other because there is no basis on which to do such except by the results they achieve.

What you wish and what you desire define your purpose.

This is the basic concept of hedonism, which has some serious issues, in my view.
Specifically, if that is the case, on what logical grounds to we argue that the Nazis were wrong? They were working for a racially pure society, and believed that to be a noble pursuit. You and I might find it repugnant, but that is the purpose they chose. If we can't prove that our purpose is superior to theirs, how to we claim that we are right and they are wrong?

Don't equivocate societies cumulative morality with personal morality. If you want to ask me personally why I find genocide wrong or disagreeable and on what basis I have to do something about it, then ask. But its an entirely different question to ask the same question of a society as a whole.

Very well. Given that, I'd like both. Please let me know what your personal reasons are for believing that they were wrong, as well as general societies reasons. Can either of them be shown to be inherently logical?

I'm assuming not, personally. Not only from my previous thought on the matter, but also from this:

Don't forget to differentiate between moral and sound reasoning. The Nazis can have sound reasoning but still be morally wrong. What is morally wrong is simply what the society (or whoever has the power in a society) decide it is. The current moral zeitgeist finds genocide extremely morally reprehensible where in biblical times it was quite common and expected.

So, it is wrong in this society, but since it was desired in WWII Germany, then racial killing was morally acceptable (commendable, actually) at that time, whereas those who protected the Jews at the risk of their lives were being morally repugnant?
I do not mean to be obtuse. A society, like an individual, can decide anything it wants about morality. Most societies throughout history have believed things that would offend you and I. How, then, can we believe that our morals are right and theirs are wrong, unless we are arguing that these statements are merely a matter of corporate opinion, without any real objective weight? If we are, we're back to my original claim (which was exactly that, regarding secular ethics).

As to your other question: "On what basis can we force our morals on other people?". On the basis that as a society we find it disagreeable and have the power and will to stop it.

This would be the "Might Makes Right" argument.
I have some personal issues with it, of course. Mostly, however, I don't see how it at all opposes my stance that there is no objective value to secular ethics - but rather just a lot of people with a common opinion and the power to force those who disagree to stop behaving in ways that contradict their opinions.
I don't mean to mock. Apologies if it seems that way. I do, however, feel that this statement is a valid response.

We all feel that such things are wrong, and should be stopped, even when the culprit claims that he was only trying to get his desires in life.

Some desires may be innate or common, yes. Where a theist might attribute that to God I find it more rational to attribute it to natural things such as instinct, evolution, upbringing, and/or cultural teachings.

That seems to me to be a very plausible reason why people might believe something. It is not, however, a defense of their truth or a valid response to the thief who justifies himself thusly. The claim "I was just getting the things that my instincts and upbringing conditioned me to want" is still perfectly valid in this case.

God has the ability to grant objective reality to ideas by definition,

how so?

By definition. Unless you are arguing that the Bible does not claim that God has the ability to make objectively real things (such as the Earth and stars), then this is a perfectly reasonable claim.

and supports ethics as valid beyond opinion.... One cannot, however, argue that, if God exists, objective ethics would not. It is a matter of definition.

Yes we can argue it. See the Euthyphro dilemma.

Actually, the fourth option is the only one which would be a problem.

Let me run through them:

1) God gets his morality from another source. In which case God doesn't give us morality he is simply a messenger of it.

This does not mean that such a morality isn't valid. If God recognized it, it was either real, or he gave it reality after "hearing about" the idea.
Some of this contradicts other claims about God in the Bible (such as the idea that he created all basic things in the universe), and should be rejected as a possibility on those grounds, however.

2) God arbitrarily decides morality. Thus there is no objective morality, only a morality that God decides. Objective morality does not exist because morality for us is simply what God decides it is.

This is no more reasonable than to conclude that the Earth isn't objectively real because God's decision to make it was arbitrary, that an artist's painting isn't a real object because the artist's idea was arbitrary, or that a law isn't a real law because it was decided upon arbitrarily by the local government.
This is actually not unlike Thomas Aquinas' false-dilemma response to the matter.

3) We can't know God's morality from our limited perspective so we are limited in what we can claim is truly moral or immoral. IOW, we can't fully know objective morality.

This is the argument that something can't be treated as real because we don't fully understand it. Anyone who professes a support of the scientific method should see the problems with this.

4) We can't answer the dilemma but I just know God grants objective morality.

Here is an honest-to-goodness logical fallacy.

Pick your poison.

Looks like I picked poison numbers two and three. I'm certainly amenable to continuing along those lines, if you wish to do so.

Okay, off to start my weekend. Have a great time, whatever you end up doing.

[elucidate]

Assuming God (and especially BibleGod) exists then what would happen if it disappeared? Would all morality vanish too?

Do you agree with this video?

Biblical morality would disappear. Morality has many levels. I both agree and disagree with the video. I think some of the premise of it is correct, but it places at lot of emphasis on "feelings."

[scourge99]

This response is beastly but there was too much good stuff to pass up.

Okay, off to start my weekend. Have a great time, whatever you end up doing.

Sorry for taking so long. I’ve been hammered with other posts. I’m enjoying this one immensely. Its nice to finally dialogue with someone of such endurance and intellect. They are few and far between.

I agree, but there is still the matter of my original point. None of these are actually shown to be true. Nor have we shown any of them to be evidenced at all. They are merely being presented as premises, and are therefore logically equivalent to presenting God's existence as a premise.

No one that I know states as a premise that the purpose of life is X therefore it must be true and everything follows the premise.

I did not argue that anyone is claiming that "everything follows the premise". We were discussing premises that would support secular ethics. I was pointing out that these premises are themselves unsupported. If you are instead arguing that there are morals, which are not supported by a central premise, then each of them need to be likewise supported. Thus far, they have not been.

If an atheist does not believe that some or all ethics are universal and objective then it is impossible to support any type of universal objective morals. All I can say in broad terms is that some morals are better supported or more reasonable based on what we know than others. For example, the golden rule is easily supported based on reciprocity.

You are attempting some very strange equivocation with someone who claims there is a God therefore God is true. Reality doesn't warp itself to what one's beliefs are. Reality simply is and whatever meaning you draw from it you should be able to support via reality.

Then we must support, via reality, that secular ethics are valid.

What I was complaining about is that you appear to be conflating beliefs of subjective morality with a belief in God in order to validate your belief in God.

To me morality appears to be subjective. My belief is that morality is what we make it. Morality is simply whatever one wants it to be or concludes that it is based upon their experiences—subjective morality does not necessitate amorality, though it can. So I have morals (things I believe are right and wrong) and claim those should be followed despite the fact that I understand they may not be universally agreed upon. Nonetheless I can present reasoning and evidence on why I find some of them valid.

But you seem to be arguing that because my morality is self defined then it is also valid that you self define a God. The problem is this makes your God subjective just like my morals. Are you claiming knowledge of your God is subjective as well? That God can’t or isn’t the best answer for most people based on their experiences? Which is fine. Perhaps your God can only be reasonably believed by you and some select others. Which is where the debate on God always enters: on what basis does one claim their God is real? Why should I or anyone else believe in your God? Like my beliefs on God, I have no problem discussing my reasoning for my perspective on morals.

The problems others have had in the past is supporting ideas that the popular goals of humanity (such as survival and prosperity) are never supported, but merely declared as premises.

Never supported? But they are! They just aren’t universally objective or have yet to be proven as such. I’ll use an example to put this in a different frame of reference. Happiness like morality is subjective. What makes one person happy may not make the next person happy. But this doesn’t mean that what I believe makes me happy applies to everyone else and therefore makes everyone else happy, though it can. I can only demonstrate why I believe it does for me and perhaps why it should for others but that doesn’t make it universally true. Like your position on God, you can claim that something, X, makes you happy. But it has no greater truth value simply because it does.

You seem to be under the false impression that because someone might have an unsubstantiated belief or claim then one can substitute God in this scheme as well and somehow get away without the uncertainty that they have.

I didn't say that someone could substitute God. I said that such beliefs were logically equivalent to proposing God as a premise.

And I strongly disagree because you have yet to show that atheists who knowingly define their purpose subjectively are claiming it as universally objective. That is, claiming “this is my opinion� is not the same thing as “God exists so that implies X, Y, and Z.� It would be equivalent if one were to say “based on my best knowledge I believe God exists but I will change my beliefs if the facts change�. And then we can discuss why in the world that person thinks God existing is the best answer based on their knowledge. Your whole argument relies on your belief that it is valid for people to establish premises in a vacuum because of subjective conclusions on human purpose.

I did not mean to argue that this justified God, but to point out that people who propose an unsubstantiated belief about ethics, if they argue with those who propose God as a premise, are doing the thing they criticize in others.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. That is, just because some atheist you met before has faulty reasoning doesn’t mean it justifies utilizing his faulty reasoning to justify your beliefs.

I don’t claim that I know unequivocal truth when it comes to purpose. I don’t think there is a purpose based on the evidence (unless you consider that we are living beings whose only purpose is to not die and reproduce; natural purpose). What we are left with is only what we desire. Those desires give you purpose but it doesn’t make them universally objective. It just means that it is what you personally want. I want to be happy, I want to gain knowledge, and I want to know truth. I don’t claim these are universally objective as you claim God is, so your comparison isn’t justified in any sense to me.

This is all fair enough, but to insist that we reject the idea of God based on a lack of evidence (which has been an extremely common claim for atheists on this site) then present these things, which are not evidenced themselves creates a contradiction.

If you don't like the evidence or the reasons of them then reject them. You are under no obligation to believe anything. You think they were invented randomly in a vacuum? Someone just woke up and said "I think a worthy pursuit is happiness/advancement of knowledge"?

I am aware that I am allowed to reject ideas that I find to be illogical. That was not my point. Rather, my point was the inconsistency of those who demand proof of God's existence, while insisting that they need not support their claims about ethics.

And the difference is I believe morality is subjective based on my knowledge.

On what grounds do we accept some premises, but not others?

On the only grounds we have to compare and contrast ANYTHING: reality!!!

What part of the objective study of reality tells you that ethics are valid?

What do you mean by valid? I believe morality is subjective. Morality and ethics to me are terms used to describe subjective personal beliefs and aligning group beliefs. Morality and ethics are only useful as a means of identifying personal beliefs on right and wrong and aligning group beliefs of right and wrong with a society.

This is still logically equivalent to Pascal's Wager. Let my try to summarize your argument here:

1. Reality as we basically understand it may or may not exist
2. If it does exist, we can observe it, and learn more about it. (ie, there is great reward in noticing it, and great consequence in ignoring it).
3. If it does not exist, there is nothing that can really be done, and it seems that we are stuck interacting with the illusion anyway. (i.e. there is no great reward for ignoring it or consequence for accepting it).
4. Therefore, we may as well assume that reality exists.

Here you are just trying to put forward a false analogy. You want to claim X and Y are both similar enough so that you can apply known faults with X onto Y. But then you don’t explain how Y has those faults! You just want to assume that because X and Y are similar in some aspects (appeal to consequences) then they must both share other traits (E.G., Pascal’s wager is a false dichotomy so believing in perceived reality must be too). I’m not buying it. Don’t tell me its Pascal’s wager. Tell me why exactly believing in perceived reality is a poor choice! Tell me why your alternative is so much better!

As for the appeal to consequences: I don’t know what consequence there is if I ignore reality. If my physical body dies perhaps I go to some heaven. But then again perhaps I go to the worst of worst hells. Perhaps if I killed myself 1 second earlier I would have gone to heaven but now that I’ve waited I’ll go to hell. The possibilities are endless but nonetheless a zero sum game since we can know nothing about it. Based on what I know it appears that people who die…. simply cease to exist.

You don’t have to play the game of reality, but it’s the ONLY known game in town.

These are both appeal to consequences fallacies.

No its not because I don’t claim that reality is true. If I were to claim that reality is true because of the consequences then it would be an appeal to consequences. I simply claim that reality is without knowing exactly whatever it is.

Once again, it’s the only game in town. You don’t have to play or you can end your life. But what do you lose by not playing? It is your call.

I understand that you are also trying to argue that one must accept something as real because it seems to be impossible to act as if it is not real. This is also a problem. There are many scientific proposals that are outside of our ability to visualize. This does not mean, however, that the proposal is automatically false, or should be rejected as false. The fact that a scitzophrienic has to deal with his hallucinations as real, and we have to interact with our dreams while sleeping, does not make such things real. Again, reality does not bend itself to fit what we do, or can bring ourselves to, believe.

I have NOT said ANYTHING is impossible. In fact I have been quite clear that ANYTHING is possible. However, I have stipulated that based on what we know some things align better with what we know than others and therefore these things are more reasonable to believe in. Additionally we have found a method (scientific method) that is unsurpassed in its power to discover and verify “truth� within reality. If you have a new method or better reason then the world awaits your contribution.

You are putting forth the same argument strategy I get from some theists. They attempt to smooth the playing field by trying to put materialist beliefs on equal ground with esoteric or transcendental beliefs. The strategy is to place as much skepticism on material reality as possible and then suddenly sneak in and introduce some vague “other belief� next to it as though they are both equally valid. But the real kicker is they never talk directly about these “other beliefs� specifically by comparing and contrasting them directly. The “alternative belief� will always be talked of independently of materialist belief because if the two are ever compared and contrasted side by side then it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that despite all the skepticism that is inherent in material reality it is miles ahead in regards to any other claim.

On the other hand, I don't proclaim reality with preconceived notions. Reality presents itself and then I fold that knowledge gained from reality back in on itself to see what I can conclude about what it is I am experiencing.

The preconceived notion here is that at least some of the information you are receiving through your senses is accurate.

Is there any reason to think it is not accurate? If it isn’t, where does that lead us? How are you sure and what makes you so much more confident in some other method?

I wasn't born with the knowledge of ANY of this, I learned it from experiencing reality and can traverse the evidence and reasoning for such a claim.

Nor, claim most atheists, was anyone born with a belief in God. Does that mean that people's experiences of God are proof of them before we demonstrate the validity of those experiences?

How can anyone experience God? Experiencing God is like saying you experience gravity. Gravity is a theory, you can’t experience it. What you can do is observe an object falling and believe that it is falling because of something known as the theory gravitation. Likewise, you may have an observation of something amazing or similar to your beliefs of what God is or would do, but that doesn’t mean it is God. You merely attribute God to it.

So no, no one can experience God. You can only experience things which you theorize is God. And while we are discussing experiences: you have a penchant for being skeptical of physical reality and our senses. Granted that we know that people can be mistaken due to delusion, bias, brain damage and malfunction, drugs, etc, how are you so sure that your experience of God is divine and not simply natural or an illusion? Furthermore, how do you know it was your God? Remember, you can only observe events that you attribute to a theory. So you can’t observe God, you can only observe a man or a feeling that you attribute to God.

It is the same here. You are using your senses to validate themselves.

I concede that one or all of my senses may all be 100% wrong or some other really weird unexplainable repeating phenomenon. But what am I to do if they are? (even though I have no reason except conjecture to presume that they are deceiving me)

The real question is how does believing in your “alternate reality� make any of that valid? All you are repeatedly doing is showing that there is skepticism for perceived reality, but that doesn’t put your claim of transcendental reality on any better footing because it is still based on nothing more than your imagination (and perhaps an unexplained experience). As I said before, this is just repeated attempts to place skepticism on perceived physical reality in hopes of clearing the way to posit some other alternate explanation as equally valid despite the fact it is counter or unsubstantiated by the only thing we provably experience: perceived physical reality.

You claim that what [your senses] tell you is basically accurate because this is what they tell you. You have no means of checking them which does not rely on your senses.

All my senses provide me with is feedback from perceived physical reality. Furthermore, they give me consistent and accurate feedback of perceived physical reality as can be demonstrated.

All this is to say that people don't believe in reality due to some kind of logical or scientific process. It is an article of faith, to use religious terminology (or a matter of blind trust, if you prefer).

As Bernee has so wisely said:

I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith. This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. This is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments. The faith you claim - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence. The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.

But what you cannot do is get off the hook by claiming that reality is uncertain therefore you are justified in claiming whatever thing your imagination can think up of as true.

I completely agree here. If I ever try to argue that God exists on the grounds that you have no evidence of reality, feel free to call me on the non-sequitur argument. I can promise you, however, I have never made, and will never make, that argument.

Then what are you claiming? All you have done is highlighted the skepticism and uncertainty that any knowledgeable atheist understands. Perceived physical reality has yet to be trumped by any claim of the transcendental or esoteric. Those who claim to know the esoteric and transcendental shy away from discussing these ideas because they know they are subjective and personal and thus entirely inadmissible in debate. I think the following statement sums things up concisely: The difference between science and religion is that science finds answers and religion asserts them.

If you experence reality and claim things about it then how did you arrive at those claims? Why would you use a method for analyzing reality that is demonstrably inferior to others? Every means of reasoning you have is BOUNDED by reality. There is no reasoning "outside" of reality.

For the record, I believe that reality exists. I merely acknowledge my complete lack, in spite of years of searching, of evidence for its existence.

But that’s an infinite regress. If you have reality then you won’t accept evidence for reality unless it comes outside of reality? Ok how do you know that the evidence that comes outside of reality is valid as well? You would then regress to find evidence for the evidence of outside reality outside of outside of reality??? Repeat ad infinitum.

I feel that I have to make a call one way or the other, and made it.

As expected you vaguely refer to this “other� theory. I challenge you to present it side by side with perceived physical reality.

As such, I have no argument with you doing the same. I do, however, have an argument with any who claim that there is such evidence (or, more accurately, those who claim that they don't accept any idea without evidence), as that is simply untrue.

That because what you ask for is probably impossible. It would be like asking “what is north of the north pole?� and then claiming a compass is inaccurate because someone can’t answer the question. We experience what we experience. It is demonstrably accurate and consistent. Perhaps more exists, which is quite likely given our ever expanding knowledge. But I don’t see how you can claim anything outside of reality as true or even worthy of belief. I don’t see how you can reject perceived physical reality because of the possibility of deception when everything that we know points otherwise.

I have often heard individuals claim that they do not accept anything without evidence. My statement above was meant to counter that, and present something much more like what you have described.

As you have discovered there is limits to that claim, like all claims. Simply because a claims has limits doesn’t mean it is any less truthful.

1. You have to live as if God exists, or as if he doesn't. There is no neutral ground where your actions reflect neither assumption.

not all beliefs have consequences or are always of consequence. This refutes your claim.

2. Refusing to make a claim on a subject prevents one from making a case in support of any conclusion.

I’m talking about a beliefs, not claims. People can believe whatever they want. They are under no obligation to support their beliefs, though I highly recommend it.

You actually hint at this second point in this line:

However, when I claim I know something its always with the caveat that absolute certainty is impossible and new evidence or reason can change my mind.

Changing your mind would mean that you had a position to begin with.
This is what reasonable scientists (as well as all reasonable people) do, form conclusions while admitting that they are subject to change with the arrival of new information and/or theories.

I’ve never claimed I don’t operate under the assumption that unicorns, Gods, and all manner of things I have yet to consider do not exist. But what I don’t do is say “I absolutely cannot be convinced of X.�

Let me illustrate:

But there are others: happiness, enlightenment, altruism, species/society advancement, curiosity. I nor anyone else can prove that one purpose is superior to any other because there is no basis on which to do such except by the results they achieve.

What you wish and what you desire define your purpose.

This is the basic concept of hedonism, which has some serious issues, in my view.
Specifically, if that is the case, on what logical grounds to we argue that the Nazis were wrong? They were working for a racially pure society, and believed that to be a noble pursuit. You and I might find it repugnant, but that is the purpose they chose. If we can't prove that our purpose is superior to theirs, how to we claim that we are right and they are wrong?

Don't equivocate societies cumulative morality with personal morality. If you want to ask me personally why I find genocide wrong or disagreeable and on what basis I have to do something about it, then ask. But its an entirely different question to ask the same question of a society as a whole.

Very well. Given that, I'd like both. Please let me know what your personal reasons are for believing that they were wrong, as well as general societies reasons. Can either of them be shown to be inherently logical?

logical = it obeys the rules of logic. Not committing any type of logical fallacy or violating any rules of logic. I don’t believe any of the Nazi’s beliefs were illogical with this use of the word.

But one of my many objection: Personally I find genocide immoral because I don’t believe racial extermination is reasonable, effective or beneficial.

As for society, I think society today finds genocide unacceptable because cumulatively we believe that people should only be killed for a few reasons such as self defense, heinous crimes, and other capital offenses, not merely for one’s religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. (I concur)

Don't forget to differentiate between moral and sound reasoning. The Nazis can have sound reasoning but still be morally wrong. What is morally wrong is simply what the society (or whoever has the power in a society) decide it is. The current moral zeitgeist finds genocide extremely morally reprehensible where in biblical times it was quite common and expected.

So, it is wrong in this society, but since it was desired in WWII Germany, then racial killing was morally acceptable (commendable, actually) at that time, whereas those who protected the Jews at the risk of their lives were being morally repugnant?
I do not mean to be obtuse. A society, like an individual, can decide anything it wants about morality. Most societies throughout history have believed things that would offend you and I. How, then, can we believe that our morals are right and theirs are wrong, unless we are arguing that these statements are merely a matter of corporate opinion, without any real objective weight? If we are, we're back to my original claim (which was exactly that, regarding secular ethics).

If cumulatively people believe that racial killing is acceptable than cumulatively it is morally permissible. You don’t need to go back very far in history to find examples of widespread racism and its effects on morality.

How can we believe our morals are right? Because we believe they are right. How can we believe their morals are wrong? Because we believe they are wrong. It is really that simple. Having subjective morals does not necessarily imply amorality, though it can.

I am having this exact same discussion with another atheist who claims that subjective morality must necessitate amorality (which I disagree with). If you don’t mind browsing that thread, a lot of this topic has already been covered by my posts there. At worst you get a better idea of my position: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=30

As to your other question: "On what basis can we force our morals on other people?". On the basis that as a society we find it disagreeable and have the power and will to stop it.

This would be the "Might Makes Right" argument.
I have some personal issues with it, of course. Mostly, however, I don't see how it at all opposes my stance that there is no objective value to secular ethics - but rather just a lot of people with a common opinion and the power to force those who disagree to stop behaving in ways that contradict their opinions.
I don't mean to mock. Apologies if it seems that way. I do, however, feel that this statement is a valid response.

No offense taking.
The simple fact is that I'm not claiming that a society’s ability to force you to do something means it is universally correct and right. All I am saying is that what a society deems correct and right from their subjective perspective is what they deem right and correct from their subjective perspective. I find it a non-sequitor that you believe this should somehow inhibit a society from forcing those within the society to comply.

We all feel that such things are wrong, and should be stopped, even when the culprit claims that he was only trying to get his desires in life.

Some desires may be innate or common, yes. Where a theist might attribute that to God I find it more rational to attribute it to natural things such as instinct, evolution, upbringing, and/or cultural teachings.

That seems to me to be a very plausible reason why people might believe something. It is not, however, a defense of their truth or a valid response to the thief who justifies himself thusly. The claim "I was just getting the things that my instincts and upbringing conditioned me to want" is still perfectly valid in this case.

Who claims morals are truth? Morals are subjective; no objective universal truth necessary.

God has the ability to grant objective reality to ideas by definition,

how so?

By definition. Unless you are arguing that the Bible does not claim that God has the ability to make objectively real things (such as the Earth and stars), then this is a perfectly reasonable claim.

Then pick your poison of the dilemma:
“Does God freely decide what is good? There are two possible responses, and neither one really resolves the dilemma.
The first answer is: Yes, God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree. If this is the case, then God has no higher standard to answer to, and therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary. Although God once decreed that murder and theft are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily, so then murder and theft would be right. (morality is subjective)
The second answer is: No, God cannot change what is right and wrong. Killing and stealing are inherently bad, so God, being inherently good, cannot command them. Yet if right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do with the process. God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore irrelevant to morality (except to the extent that he could tell us things which we could not figure out for ourselves.)
In summary, either such acts as murder are not inherently wrong (because God can set the rules whichever way he wants to) or God is powerless over the meaning of morality.�
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... ro_dilemma

and supports ethics as valid beyond opinion.... One cannot, however, argue that, if God exists, objective ethics would not. It is a matter of definition.

Yes we can argue it. See the Euthyphro dilemma.

Actually, the fourth option is the only one which would be a problem.

Let me run through them:

1) God gets his morality from another source. In which case God doesn't give us morality he is simply a messenger of it.

This does not mean that such a morality isn't valid. If God recognized it, it was either real, or he gave it reality after "hearing about" the idea.
Some of this contradicts other claims about God in the Bible (such as the idea that he created all basic things in the universe), and should be rejected as a possibility on those grounds, however.

but it still doesn’t make it objective or universal. Its just a bold faced assertion that even surpasses God.

2) God arbitrarily decides morality. Thus there is no objective morality, only a morality that God decides. Objective morality does not exist because morality for us is simply what God decides it is.

This is no more reasonable than to conclude that the Earth isn't objectively real because God's decision to make it was arbitrary, that an artist's painting isn't a real object because the artist's idea was arbitrary, or that a law isn't a real law because it was decided upon arbitrarily by the local government.
This is actually not unlike Thomas Aquinas' false-dilemma response to the matter.

Aquinas response relies on a vague notion to “god’s nature� which only creates further issues rather than resolving them.

“The claim that God would not command evil because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?" Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies. If, on the other hand, God did not create his own nature, then either someone else created it (in which case the dilemma applies to the creator of God's nature) or the morality contained in God's nature is inherent in some way (in which case God is not truly the author of right and wrong).�

3) We can't know God's morality from our limited perspective so we are limited in what we can claim is truly moral or immoral. IOW, we can't fully know objective morality.

This is the argument that something can't be treated as real because we don't fully understand it. Anyone who professes a support of the scientific method should see the problems with this.

This was a cop-out I left for theists. Another take on it is “God works in mysterious ways�.

4) We can't answer the dilemma but I just know God grants objective morality.

Here is an honest-to-goodness logical fallacy.

I agree.

[Jester]

This response is beastly but there was too much good stuff to pass up.

I know the feeling, and am glad you've enjoyed the discussion. I have as well, so thanks for your contributions. Much as I spend my time arguing, I'm very pleased to read what you've written.

But, on to the arguing:

If an atheist does not believe that some or all ethics are universal and objective then it is impossible to support any type of universal objective morals. All I can say in broad terms is that some morals are better supported or more reasonable based on what we know than others. For example, the golden rule is easily supported based on reciprocity.

If an atheist does not believe in objective ethics, then I can agree that my argument would not apply, as that is all it really addresses.
To such a person, then, I would point out that there is no arguing things on ultimately moral grounds from this perspective. Perhaps we can all agree on some rules of conduct which benefit us in general. There are endless examples, however, of behaviors which benefit either the group or the individual, while harming the other. (Sacrificing one's life for others would benefit the group at the cost of the individual, for instance, while theft would benefit the individual at the cost of the group.) In these cases, we cannot logically argue that individuals should behave in the way that is best for the group, because ethics are, from the current perspective, simply ideas that have been agreed upon. Any individual who feels that stealing is acceptable, so long as he doesn't get caught, cannot be said to be immoral on these terms. His opinions are as valid as those who would disagree unless there are objective ethics.

What I was complaining about is that you appear to be conflating beliefs of subjective morality with a belief in God in order to validate your belief in God.

Then let me clarify.
I did not mean to do this. I understand that a subjective understanding of ethics does nothing to validate God's existence. I did point out that a reference to God is needed to support objective ethics, but this does not validate God's existence either. I meant only to refer to God insofar as it related to the topic, none of this was meant to somehow prove that God exists.
So, apologies for the poor wording on my part.

Okay getting back to arguing:

To me morality appears to be subjective. My belief is that morality is what we make it.

I hope it isn't too dramatic of me to pull out the tired old example of the Nazis here. This was a group of people who felt that racial killing was morally commendable. If we are to say that morality is what we make it, then we have to allow that the Nazis' opinions about ethics are no more or less valid than our own subjective understanding. If, however, we are going to say that what they did was wrong, something which they should not have done regardless of what they felt about it, then we are stuck claiming that there is some real standard of morality.
Perhaps this is closer to what I am getting at. I don't believe, for the briefest of moments, that believers in a subjective morality are any less repulsed by the Holocaust/Shoah than I am. This leaves me with a quandary, however. Is this repulsion coupled with the idea that such ethics were okay for the Nazis, but not for us? Regarding those people who hid Jews from the authorities, was and is the opinion that they were immoral to do so as valid a subjective opinion as your and my ideas about ethics? What of the neo-Nazis and other hate groups today? I can't seem to put any of these thoughts together with the fact that the atheists I've known seem to behave as if they believe deeply in their morals as valid. I viscerally reject the idea that atheists are any less ethical than religious individuals, but am stuck wondering about the fact that these issues don't seem to line up.

But you seem to be arguing that because my morality is self defined then it is also valid that you self define a God.

I'm not sure how I communicated that, but wanted to go on record as saying that this is not my position. I only meant to reference God when I thought I was talking about claims of objectivity, and point out parallels. I didn't mean to argue that it was acceptable to self-define a god.

The problems others have had in the past is supporting ideas that the popular goals of humanity (such as survival and prosperity) are never supported, but merely declared as premises.

Never supported? But they are! They just aren’t universally objective or have yet to be proven as such. I’ll use an example to put this in a different frame of reference. Happiness like morality is subjective. What makes one person happy may not make the next person happy.

I'm not sure I follow your example yet. It seems to be the argument that morals are supported insofar as they are things that people think and care about, but not necessarily in any universal or objective way.
If this is the case (but let me know if it's not) I agree completely. I simply don't see any logical reason to say to another person "don't do that". We can argue psychology, and how that person will feel guilty, etc. Ultimately, however, we're back to admitting that we aren't any closer to being the authorities on what others should or shouldn't do than even the most repulsive of criminals.

I didn't say that someone could substitute God. I said that such beliefs were logically equivalent to proposing God as a premise.

And I strongly disagree because you have yet to show that atheists who knowingly define their purpose subjectively are claiming it as universally objective.

I don't know if you do this personally. I probably assumed more than I should. Most atheists I know, however, do make claims on moral grounds. They, like anyone else, get angry when someone wrongs them, and don't generally feel that the other person's opinion is as valid as their own. You know the situation: "I know he thinks it's okay to act like a jerk, but it's not". Without a claim regarding ethics, I don't see how movements, including atheist movements, get off the ground. It's very hard for me to picture Martin Luther King Jr. saying "some people believe that we're inferior to white people. That opinion is as valid as ours, but we think that you ought to change your opinion to our subjective ethics." It is equally hard to imagine any great reformer doing as much.

Your whole argument relies on your belief that it is valid for people to establish premises in a vacuum because of subjective conclusions on human purpose.

I agree that we have not established God's existence in this debate. I have tried (and, I hope, succeeded) to refer to objective ethics with the qualifier "if God exists" so as not to put it forth as an accepted premise. This is to say that I meant only to discuss the posibillities, not to pretend to be able to settle the matter of God's existence as a side point.

I did not mean to argue that this justified God, but to point out that people who propose an unsubstantiated belief about ethics, if they argue with those who propose God as a premise, are doing the thing they criticize in others.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. That is, just because some atheist you met before has faulty reasoning doesn’t mean it justifies utilizing his faulty reasoning to justify your beliefs.

I completely agree, and didn't mean to argue otherwise. Apologies for the confusion there.

Okay, cutting a bit here (not because you weren't interesting, but because my responses would have been too redundant).

Okay, regarding the existence of reality:

This is still logically equivalent to Pascal's Wager. Let my try to summarize your argument here:
...

Here you are just trying to put forward a false analogy. You want to claim X and Y are both similar enough so that you can apply known faults with X onto Y. But then you don’t explain how Y has those faults! You just want to assume that because X and Y are similar in some aspects (appeal to consequences) then they must both share other traits (E.G., Pascal’s wager is a false dichotomy so believing in perceived reality must be too). I’m not buying it. Don’t tell me its Pascal’s wager. Tell me why exactly believing in perceived reality is a poor choice! Tell me why your alternative is so much better!

Let me try that again.
I'm not arguing what is "better", nor was I trying to imply anything about false dichotomies. An appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.
I'm commenting on fact, not what you and I would consider to be better or worse. The fact is that, whatever we may personally believe is "better", there is no evidence that reality actually exists. Pointing out that one can't actually live under the assumption it does not, or that this would be a very unfortunate thing if reality were illusory are neither one logical responses. The parallel to Pascal's Wager is that an appeal to consequences is preoccupied with what someone wants to be true (or fears might be true), rather than what is true.
Until the focus is on what is true, we aren't discussing the matter logically. Once it is, however, we are forced to admit our complete lack of evidence.

Of course you do have this to say:

These are both appeal to consequences fallacies.

No its not because I don’t claim that reality is true. If I were to claim that reality is true because of the consequences then it would be an appeal to consequences. I simply claim that reality is without knowing exactly whatever it is.

Once again, it’s the only game in town. You don’t have to play or you can end your life. But what do you lose by not playing? It is your call.

You may not be making that direct written claim, but I think it is a safe assumption that you behave as if it is true. To be certain, it is implicit in many of your comments. Anything which involves science automatically includes this as a premise.
That is to say, then, that you are implicitly claiming that reality is true. I don't have an objection to that, save when individuals claim not to have beliefs without sufficient evidence.

I have NOT said ANYTHING is impossible. In fact I have been quite clear that ANYTHING is possible. However, I have stipulated that based on what we know some things align better with what we know than others and therefore these things are more reasonable to believe in. Additionally we have found a method (scientific method) that is unsurpassed in its power to discover and verify “truth� within reality. If you have a new method or better reason then the world awaits your contribution.

I have no argument with the scientific method. I love it myself. I merely believe that no one can claim to believe only those things which are evidenced.

You are putting forth the same argument strategy I get from some theists. They attempt to smooth the playing field by trying to put materialist beliefs on equal ground with esoteric or transcendental beliefs.

As one of those theist types, I see no problem with this. So, pardon my why I drift onto a tangent. Why should materialism get the pedestal? It is not any more evidenced than the others. (In case it's the next thought: it is not itself scientific in the slightest, but a comment about the supernatural, a subject on which science is silent.)
So, why is it irrational to start with a level playing field when picking a belief? Is it somehow more rational to pre-assume that one is superior? Can it be any wonder that the one which was so favored won out in this process?

Okay, back to your main argument:

The strategy is to place as much skepticism on material reality as possible and then suddenly sneak in and introduce some vague “other belief� next to it as though they are both equally valid. But the real kicker is they never talk directly about these “other beliefs� specifically by comparing and contrasting them directly.

In this case, that kicker has a lot to do with the fact that my "other belief" is off topic. I don't personally have a problem discussing it when we get onto that discussion. I have many times in the past.
I do, however, spend a lot of time trying to throw doubt onto some basic premises of atheism. I do want to say that it is not because I have an issue discussing my own beliefs, but because I find that it is very easy for people to feel that their own position is rock-solid until some of these things are pointed out. I often have atheists write to me that they don't understand how people can believe anything without a great deal of evidence. This makes me feel that there is a need for the "why do you believe in reality" discussion on occasion.
Most, theist and non-theist alike, are simply so used to thinking the way they think that it seems ridiculous that other ways of thinking could ever be considered as valid as their own. I use these kinds of "tactics" to point out that such opinions are not based in logic so much as a lack of experience in other perspectives. I mean no accusation toward you. I don't claim to know what goes on in your head. It's really that I've had it pounded into me (on this site, mostly) that, if you want to talk about belief with most anyone who thinks with a deeply different philosophy that your own, you have to go back to the absolute fundamentals.
All this is to say that there's no use talking about atheism to someone who's in a purely spiritualistic mindset, nor is there any use talking about God to someone who's currently in a purely materialistic mindset. Before we can even get there, both parties have to admit that there are other ways of looking at the universe. All the claims of "it's so obvious that our side is right", from both sides, strike me more as a lack of vision than a compelling argument.

On the other hand, I don't proclaim reality with preconceived notions. Reality presents itself and then I fold that knowledge gained from reality back in on itself to see what I can conclude about what it is I am experiencing.

The preconceived notion here is that at least some of the information you are receiving through your senses is accurate.

Is there any reason to think it is not accurate? If it isn’t, where does that lead us? How are you sure and what makes you so much more confident in some other method?

I'm not proposing another method. I was specifically taking the stance that there is no way out of this problem. As to the matter of trusting your senses until a reason arrives to doubt them, this is your call on a personal level. In a debate, however, it is the argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy.
The fact remains that some things are simply believed without evidence by all people. I don't claim to be immune to this; I only argue with the idea that this is somehow less true of materialism than of other philosophies.

I wasn't born with the knowledge of ANY of this, I learned it from experiencing reality and can traverse the evidence and reasoning for such a claim.

Nor, claim most atheists, was anyone born with a belief in God. Does that mean that people's experiences of God are proof of them before we demonstrate the validity of those experiences?[/quote]

How can anyone experience God? Experiencing God is like saying you experience gravity.

People claim to have felt the effects of God in the way that one would claim to have felt the effects of gravity. Whether or not one accepts such claims, should be based on whether or not those experiences are found to be valid. This is not a comment about God, however, but a use of God as an example to make a point about reality: experiences do not validate themselves.

And while we are discussing experiences: you have a penchant for being skeptical of physical reality and our senses. Granted that we know that people can be mistaken due to delusion, bias, brain damage and malfunction, drugs, etc, how are you so sure that your experience of God is divine and not simply natural or an illusion?

Not at all. Please excuse me whilst I ramble:
I claim no certainty about God's existence. I consider it to be the most likely case, but am fully willing to admit that I could be wrong. I'm skeptical about all things. I find myself questioning God's existence daily - which I have done since becoming Christian fifteen years ago. I find myself questioning most everything I hear, read, and know.
This does not mean that I don't operate under the assumption that much or even most of what I have heard is true. I both believe and doubt many things. Though others tell me it's not the case, and I can't claim to know any better than they, it is hard for me to imagine that a person could be any other way.
I personally consider those who do not question their beliefs regularly far less credible than those who doubt greatly. The latter strike me as those who understand at least some of the perspective of others, and I do try to be this way myself.

It is the same here. You are using your senses to validate themselves.

I concede that one or all of my senses may all be 100% wrong or some other really weird unexplainable repeating phenomenon. But what am I to do if they are? (even though I have no reason except conjecture to presume that they are deceiving me)

That is my personal position as well. I don't know. I do, however, feel that knowing we have such little assurance about what we see of reality makes for a good swift kick to the arrogance. At least, it is for me. It helps me try on a new way of looking at the world. Without remembering how little we know, it's easy to forget why we need to to that.

All this is to say that people don't believe in reality due to some kind of logical or scientific process. It is an article of faith, to use religious terminology (or a matter of blind trust, if you prefer).

As Bernee has so wisely said:

I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith. This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences.

Apologies, then, I mean to do no such thing. I don't like having any more faith than is absolutely necessary either. Perhaps this wasn't your situation at all, but I tend to find that I have to defend my notion of having any faith at all, and this seems to be a good way to do it.
With regard to logic, I agree with Bernee that it is better to use it whenever possible. I don't see how materialism holds up better than theism myself, but I do agree with him on this point.

If I ever try to argue that God exists on the grounds that you have no evidence of reality, feel free to call me on the non-sequitur argument. I can promise you, however, I have never made, and will never make, that argument.

Then what are you claiming?

With regard to the topic question, I am claiming that, while atheist can be (and usually are) very ethical people, secular ethics have no objective value.
With the matter of the existence of reality, I am claiming that those who insist that they don't have any faith are wrong.
With the matter of materialism, I am claiming that it is not founded in logic any more fully than theism.

The difference between science and religion is that science finds answers and religion asserts them.

I'd say that is perfectly true so long as one is referring to a very particular form of religion. I can understand where you're coming from, honestly. I think I can say, however, that my personal take on Christianity does not follow that pattern.

For the record, I believe that reality exists. I merely acknowledge my complete lack, in spite of years of searching, of evidence for its existence.

But that’s an infinite regress.

I'm concerned about what I can or can't evidence, infinite regress or not. Rather than argue with a statement which I can't disprove, I do my best to acknowledge that I don't have evidence and see what I can learn from that fact.

I feel that I have to make a call one way or the other, and made it.

As expected you vaguely refer to this “other� theory. I challenge you to present it side by side with perceived physical reality.

The "call" to which I was referring was my decision to believe in the physical universe.

I'll be more than happy to talk about my religious beliefs when we're on that topic. I'm not arguing in favor of them here. I really only showed up to make the case that secular ethics are subjective, and are therefore not really worth calling ethics.

As such, I have no argument with you doing the same. I do, however, have an argument with any who claim that there is such evidence (or, more accurately, those who claim that they don't accept any idea without evidence), as that is simply untrue.

That because what you ask for is probably impossible.

Just as it is probably impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists. This is why I feel that those who demand that I have proof before claiming what I believe to be the most likely scenario are not being at all consistent.

I have often heard individuals claim that they do not accept anything without evidence. My statement above was meant to counter that, and present something much more like what you have described.

As you have discovered there is limits to that claim, like all claims. Simply because a claims has limits doesn’t mean it is any less truthful.

I agree.

1. You have to live as if God exists, or as if he doesn't. There is no neutral ground where your actions reflect neither assumption.

not all beliefs have consequences or are always of consequence. This refutes your claim.

Here, I disagree.
The assumption that belief or lack of belief in God is of no consequence has the claim that Christianity is false implicit in it. Christianity directly claims that this is a matter of consequence. As such, living as if this is not a matter of consequence would, quite directly, be living as if the Christian God does not exist.

2. Refusing to make a claim on a subject prevents one from making a case in support of any conclusion.

I’m talking about a beliefs, not claims. People can believe whatever they want. They are under no obligation to support their beliefs, though I highly recommend it.

Okay, bounce back to agreement. People need not support their claims (though I, too, recommend it). If they do not, however, they are not debating. Nor are those who try to offer support without a claim debating. That seems to be rather like trying to fight a battle without an objective.

This is what reasonable scientists (as well as all reasonable people) do, form conclusions while admitting that they are subject to change with the arrival of new information and/or theories.

I’ve never claimed I don’t operate under the assumption that unicorns, Gods, and all manner of things I have yet to consider do not exist. But what I don’t do is say “I absolutely cannot be convinced of X.�

Are you claiming not to have considered the matter of the Christian God's existence? If so, I would say that effective debate on the subject would be difficult at best. If not, I don't see how you can claim not to have at least a tentative position on the matter.

Don't equivocate societies cumulative morality with personal morality. If you want to ask me personally why I find genocide wrong or disagreeable and on what basis I have to do something about it, then ask. But its an entirely different question to ask the same question of a society as a whole.

Very well. Given that, I'd like both. Please let me know what your personal reasons are for believing that they were wrong, as well as general societies reasons. Can either of them be shown to be inherently logical?

logical = it obeys the rules of logic. Not committing any type of logical fallacy or violating any rules of logic. I don’t believe any of the Nazi’s beliefs were illogical with this use of the word.

But one of my many objection: Personally I find genocide immoral because I don’t believe racial extermination is reasonable, effective or beneficial.

As for society, I think society today finds genocide unacceptable because cumulatively we believe that people should only be killed for a few reasons such as self defense, heinous crimes, and other capital offenses, not merely for one’s religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. (I concur)

This seems to be the admittance that there is no logical reason here to conclude that they were wrong (unless we're at least hypothetically accepting God's existence). Rather, it seems to be the statement that their opinions about ethics differed from yours as well as from most modern societies'. I'll agree with that as a statement of fact, but don't see how that really addresses my concern regarding the fact that this reasoning paints the Nazis' view as being as valid as our own.

Don't forget to differentiate between moral and sound reasoning. The Nazis can have sound reasoning but still be morally wrong. What is morally wrong is simply what the society (or whoever has the power in a society) decide it is. The current moral zeitgeist finds genocide extremely morally reprehensible where in biblical times it was quite common and expected.

So, it is wrong in this society, but since it was desired in WWII Germany, then racial killing was morally acceptable (commendable, actually) at that time, whereas those who protected the Jews at the risk of their lives were being morally repugnant?
I do not mean to be obtuse. A society, like an individual, can decide anything it wants about morality. Most societies throughout history have believed things that would offend you and I. How, then, can we believe that our morals are right and theirs are wrong, unless we are arguing that these statements are merely a matter of corporate opinion, without any real objective weight? If we are, we're back to my original claim (which was exactly that, regarding secular ethics).

If cumulatively people believe that racial killing is acceptable than cumulatively it is morally permissible. You don’t need to go back very far in history to find examples of widespread racism and its effects on morality.

How can we believe our morals are right? Because we believe they are right. How can we believe their morals are wrong? Because we believe they are wrong. It is really that simple. Having subjective morals does not necessarily imply amorality, though it can.

If we're going to draw a line between "moral" and "sound" reasoning (which I question very deeply), then my "moral" reasoning doesn't feel that this is acceptable at all. To argue that the Nazis were just as right to attempt genocide as others are to help the poor does not sit well.
If, however, we cease thinking about moral reasoning as something completely distinct from rational thought, and rather as something that logically proceeds from an objective purpose in life, then one can actually claim that relief workers are more morally acceptable than Hitler without speaking nonsense.
I don't claim that this necessitates amorality in practice. Someone can still claim "these are my morals", I agree. I'm claiming that this reduces morality to a set of personal opinions, just as someone can still claim "this is my favorite color". The statement can still be made, but lacks meaning save as a point of interest about that particular individual.

As to your other question: "On what basis can we force our morals on other people?". On the basis that as a society we find it disagreeable and have the power and will to stop it.

This would be the "Might Makes Right" argument.
I have some personal issues with it, of course. Mostly, however, I don't see how it at all opposes my stance that there is no objective value to secular ethics - but rather just a lot of people with a common opinion and the power to force those who disagree to stop behaving in ways that contradict their opinions.
I don't mean to mock. Apologies if it seems that way. I do, however, feel that this statement is a valid response.

No offense taking.
The simple fact is that I'm not claiming that a society’s ability to force you to do something means it is universally correct and right. All I am saying is that what a society deems correct and right from their subjective perspective is what they deem right and correct from their subjective perspective. I find it a non-sequitor that you believe this should somehow inhibit a society from forcing those within the society to comply.

First, and definitely foremost, thanks for the kind reading.
Okay, to debate: I agree that, if we are allowing any ideas about morality to be as valid as any other, then there is no inherent problem in a society punishing those it deems to be evil. My issue is with the idea that communist dictatorships are as right to do this as modern democracies. I understand the claim, but find it very hard to believe that anyone actually lives his/her life as if this is the case.
It's another judgment call, isn't it? One can say that one doesn't think that a call to morality is valid, but only sociopaths can actually bring themselves to live as if this is the case. The inherent contradiction, however, between claim and practice strikes me quite negatively.

1) God gets his morality from another source. In which case God doesn't give us morality he is simply a messenger of it.

This does not mean that such a morality isn't valid. If God recognized it, it was either real, or he gave it reality after "hearing about" the idea.
Some of this contradicts other claims about God in the Bible (such as the idea that he created all basic things in the universe), and should be rejected as a possibility on those grounds, however.

but it still doesn’t make it objective or universal. Its just a bold faced assertion that even surpasses God.

Actually, it is no such thing. If we are arguing in the hypothetical that God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to attribute such abilities to him.

2) God arbitrarily decides morality. Thus there is no objective morality, only a morality that God decides. Objective morality does not exist because morality for us is simply what God decides it is.

This is no more reasonable than to conclude that the Earth isn't objectively real because God's decision to make it was arbitrary, that an artist's painting isn't a real object because the artist's idea was arbitrary, or that a law isn't a real law because it was decided upon arbitrarily by the local government.
This is actually not unlike Thomas Aquinas' false-dilemma response to the matter.

Aquinas response relies on a vague notion to “god’s nature� which only creates further issues rather than resolving them.

“The claim that God would not command evil because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?" Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies. If, on the other hand, God did not create his own nature, then either someone else created it (in which case the dilemma applies to the creator of God's nature) or the morality contained in God's nature is inherent in some way (in which case God is not truly the author of right and wrong).�

Part of the God concept is status as existing outside of time. Normal reasoning about cause and effect would not apply. This is quite similar to statements regarding the Big Bang, actually.
Beyond that, this still does not address my specific point, which is that arbitrary creation does not automatically infer lack of objective existence.

3) We can't know God's morality from our limited perspective so we are limited in what we can claim is truly moral or immoral. IOW, we can't fully know objective morality.

This is the argument that something can't be treated as real because we don't fully understand it. Anyone who professes a support of the scientific method should see the problems with this.

This was a cop-out I left for theists. Another take on it is “God works in mysterious ways�.

Fair enough. I've heard such cop-outs before, and know how frustrating they are.
Without in any way (believe me) defending people that make this kind of argument, I do believe that it is valid to say that not knowing much about a subject is no reason to conclude that it isn't objectively real.

4) We can't answer the dilemma but I just know God grants objective morality.

Here is an honest-to-goodness logical fallacy.

I agree.

Hold on, agreement party
We don't get much of that round these parts. I like to appreciate it when it comes.

Okay, great thoughts, and apologies again for some of the lack of clarity. I hope this one was better, but more of the same if it wasn't.

[scourge99]

If an atheist does not believe that some or all ethics are universal and objective then it is impossible to support any type of universal objective morals. All I can say in broad terms is that some morals are better supported or more reasonable based on what we know than others. For example, the golden rule is easily supported based on reciprocity.

If an atheist does not believe in objective ethics, then I can agree that my argument would not apply, as that is all it really addresses.
To such a person, then, I would point out that there is no arguing things on ultimately moral grounds from this perspective.

Why? That would be to argue that simply because love may be electrochemical responses entirely in one’s brain then it isn’t real. Which is absurd. Even if love is simply electrochemical responses produced entirely by natural phenomenon it does not mean the feeling of love is any less genuine and real. This analogy can also be applied to morality. Simply because morality may not be objective and universal does not mean discussing it is of any less importance.

Perhaps we can all agree on some rules of conduct which benefit us in general. There are endless examples, however, of behaviors which benefit either the group or the individual, while harming the other. (Sacrificing one's life for others would benefit the group at the cost of the individual, for instance, while theft would benefit the individual at the cost of the group.) In these cases, we cannot logically argue that individuals should behave in the way that is best for the group, because ethics are, from the current perspective, simply ideas that have been agreed upon. Any individual who feels that stealing is acceptable, so long as he doesn't get caught, cannot be said to be immoral on these terms. His opinions are as valid as those who would disagree unless there are objective ethics.

You presume far more too much. Yes, perhaps there is no absolute objective and universal basis for claiming an action is right or wrong. However, one’s subjective beliefs or the group’s subjective beliefs are morals nonetheless. And as such they don’t require some divine being or objective basis for. When you act what you think is morally is it God that made you act? No, it is you alone.

Furthermore, there are arguments that define objective morality which are derived from specific premises. Morals, like beliefs, are not required to be logical, sensible, or based in some sound philosophy. However, people can and do claim to have better morals, for example, by showing that certain actions result in a desired outcome or conclusion (On a side note: they all do not require sacrifice to achieve their altruistic ends. E.G., capitalistic behavior could be argued in such a way. That selfishness in particular ways is actually beneficial to the group as a whole. That is but one example) Specifically, one can claim someone’s act of stealing is immoral because it harms the integrity of order within society. That is, immoral in this scenario denotes subjective opinion on right and wrong despite not being able to prove absolutely or not having a universally agreed upon objective basis. The basis for this set of morals would be the preeminence of society (which isn’t to say that the preeminence of society is universally agreed upon or absolutely provable as a valid premise)

As to your other question: "On what basis can we force our morals on other people?". On the basis that as a society we find it disagreeable and have the power and will to stop it.

This would be the "Might Makes Right" argument.
I have some personal issues with it, of course. Mostly, however, I don't see how it at all opposes my stance that there is no objective value to secular ethics - but rather just a lot of people with a common opinion and the power to force those who disagree to stop behaving in ways that contradict their opinions.
I don't mean to mock. Apologies if it seems that way. I do, however, feel that this statement is a valid response.

No offense taking.
The simple fact is that I'm not claiming that a society’s ability to force you to do something means it is universally correct and right. All I am saying is that what a society deems correct and right from their subjective perspective is what they deem right and correct from their subjective perspective. I find it a non-sequitor that you believe this should somehow inhibit a society from forcing those within the society to comply.

First, and definitely foremost, thanks for the kind reading.
Okay, to debate: I agree that, if we are allowing any ideas about morality to be as valid as any other, then there is no inherent problem in a society punishing those it deems to be evil. My issue is with the idea that communist dictatorships are as right to do this as modern democracies. I understand the claim, but find it very hard to believe that anyone actually lives his/her life as if this is the case.
It's another judgment call, isn't it? One can say that one doesn't think that a call to morality is valid, but only sociopaths can actually bring themselves to live as if this is the case. The inherent contradiction, however, between claim and practice strikes me quite negatively.

Don't equivocate societies cumulative morality with personal morality. If you want to ask me personally why I find genocide wrong or disagreeable and on what basis I have to do something about it, then ask. But its an entirely different question to ask the same question of a society as a whole.

Very well. Given that, I'd like both. Please let me know what your personal reasons are for believing that they were wrong, as well as general societies reasons. Can either of them be shown to be inherently logical?

logical = it obeys the rules of logic. Not committing any type of logical fallacy or violating any rules of logic. I don’t believe any of the Nazi’s beliefs were illogical with this use of the word.

But one of my many objection: Personally I find genocide immoral because I don’t believe racial extermination is reasonable, effective or beneficial.

As for society, I think society today finds genocide unacceptable because cumulatively we believe that people should only be killed for a few reasons such as self defense, heinous crimes, and other capital offenses, not merely for one’s religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. (I concur)

This seems to be the admittance that there is no logical reason here to conclude that they were wrong (unless we're at least hypothetically accepting God's existence). Rather, it seems to be the statement that their opinions about ethics differed from yours as well as from most modern societies'. I'll agree with that as a statement of fact, but don't see how that really addresses my concern regarding the fact that this reasoning paints the Nazis' view as being as valid as our own.

Okay getting back to arguing:

To me morality appears to be subjective. My belief is that morality is what we make it.

I hope it isn't too dramatic of me to pull out the tired old example of the Nazis here. This was a group of people who felt that racial killing was morally commendable. If we are to say that morality is what we make it, then we have to allow that the Nazis' opinions about ethics are no more or less valid than our own subjective understanding. If, however, we are going to say that what they did was wrong, something which they should not have done regardless of what they felt about it, then we are stuck claiming that there is some real standard of morality.
Perhaps this is closer to what I am getting at. I don't believe, for the briefest of moments, that believers in a subjective morality are any less repulsed by the Holocaust/Shoah than I am. This leaves me with a quandary, however. Is this repulsion coupled with the idea that such ethics were okay for the Nazis, but not for us? Regarding those people who hid Jews from the authorities, was and is the opinion that they were immoral to do so as valid a subjective opinion as your and my ideas about ethics? What of the neo-Nazis and other hate groups today? I can't seem to put any of these thoughts together with the fact that the atheists I've known seem to behave as if they believe deeply in their morals as valid. I viscerally reject the idea that atheists are any less ethical than religious individuals, but am stuck wondering about the fact that these issues don't seem to line up.

I understand the frustration. The problem is, as your have demonstrated, the emotional fixation on the desire to objectively differentiate evil from good; to claim the Nazis were somehow inherently evil or bad. In general, the fixation on the desire to determine an objective standard for right and wrong for personal validation purposes. You admit to this several times in the above. Perhaps you desire this as many people do so that we can easily validate our beliefs and standards against others without having to acknowledge the many flaws and complexity of the issue of morality. A desire in many exists to claim to have the moral high ground and therefore state authoritatively “I am just and right and these people who did such atrocious things are obviously wrong.� The problem is the complexities of the matter aren’t that simple where such an uncomplicated “right or not right� approach can be taken. The matter simply isn’t black and white. You must remove your preconceived notions of inherent evil, and right and wrong and look at the issue without such preconceived notions; without requiring some ill conceived litmus test to satisfy whether this concept of morality is true or false. You must make an intellectual pursuit.

Morals have nothing to do with adhering to some universal standard. They have everything to do with subjectivity, or, in your case, a subjective belief in objective morals. They are evidently not all dependent on some universal objective standard by the fact that morals continue to and have differed so greatly. They are dependent only upon our BELIEFS.

To analyze from this different perspective I have proposed, let’s suppose the Nazis won the war and conquered the world which resulted in the majority of people ascribing to their beliefs. If this were to occur then their actions would be deemed moral by the majority. People who disagreed would be immoral. If the Nazi’s exterminated or “reeducated� every last person who disagreed then only those who agreed would be left. It’s at such an epiphany that morals reveal their true nature: they are entirely in the eye of the beholder(s).

BUT!!! This is not to say that we cannot argue that distinct environmental, natural, social, and other pressures guide our ideas on morality in certain, sometimes unpredictable, ways. For example, survival, happiness, empathy, etc, all drive our subjective morals and thus it is plausible that one CAN derive some quasi-objective morality from such things. But the ONLY reason we can do such a thing is because FIRST a basis for morality is asserted.

So the question about whether the Nazis are wrong due to some objective standard cannot be answered because the premise of such a statement is far too presumptuous and leaves out a critical question: on what basis were their actions immoral?

Personally, I object to the Nazi’s actions thus self identifying that my morality is opposed to theirs.

But, if we want to discuss something more than opinion, if we want to discuss what the “best� morals are then we must first define by what basis is “best� determined by. Thus, the discussion no longer revolves around opinion but upon some clearly defined principal. However, as we have seen repeatedly, the basis for what is “best� is unresolved and uncertain claims.

But don’t get excited by the prospect that once again something is not absolute. As is discussed many times there are good and bad reasons for belief. E.G., to say that the existence of flying cookie monsters is equally as likely as the existence of gold fish is absolutely absurd. But that is another discussion we touch upon later.

What I was complaining about is that you appear to be conflating beliefs of subjective morality with a belief in God in order to validate your belief in God.

Then let me clarify.
I did not mean to do this. I understand that a subjective understanding of ethics does nothing to validate God's existence. I did point out that a reference to God is needed to support objective ethics, but this does not validate God's existence either. I meant only to refer to God insofar as it related to the topic, none of this was meant to somehow prove that God exists.
So, apologies for the poor wording on my part.

But you seem to be arguing that because my morality is self defined then it is also valid that you self define a God.

I'm not sure how I communicated that, but wanted to go on record as saying that this is not my position. I only meant to reference God when I thought I was talking about claims of objectivity, and point out parallels. I didn't mean to argue that it was acceptable to self-define a god.

Your whole argument relies on your belief that it is valid for people to establish premises in a vacuum because of subjective conclusions on human purpose.

I agree that we have not established God's existence in this debate. I have tried (and, I hope, succeeded) to refer to objective ethics with the qualifier "if God exists" so as not to put it forth as an accepted premise. This is to say that I meant only to discuss the posibillities, not to pretend to be able to settle the matter of God's existence as a side point.

For some reason I was under the impression you were trying to conflate morality with proving God. Thank God you weren’t because I was having a really difficult time clearly explaining my rebuttal. It also cuts out a bunch of our discussion now that we seem to be at an understanding.

The problems others have had in the past is supporting ideas that the popular goals of humanity (such as survival and prosperity) are never supported, but merely declared as premises.

Never supported? But they are! They just aren’t universally objective or have yet to be proven as such. I’ll use an example to put this in a different frame of reference. Happiness like morality is subjective. What makes one person happy may not make the next person happy.

I'm not sure I follow your example yet. It seems to be the argument that morals are supported insofar as they are things that people think and care about, but not necessarily in any universal or objective way.
If this is the case (but let me know if it's not) I agree completely.

One can argue that some objective morals do exist without a God given that their premises are true or assumed to be true. For example, if the premise can be made that the preeminence of societal order is paramount then it can be argued that coldblooded murder has a negative impact on society thus cold blooded murder is immoral.

I simply don't see any logical reason to say to another person "don't do that". We can argue psychology, and how that person will feel guilty, etc. Ultimately, however, we're back to admitting that we aren't any closer to being the authorities on what others should or shouldn't do than even the most repulsive of criminals.

And my question to you is why must you be an authority to claim that you disagree with something? Why isn’t it enough that based on everything you know and understand you find such an action wrong and therefore oppose it? I’m not saying this is the way I justify my beliefs on morality, but why can’t someone else believe so?

I didn't say that someone could substitute God. I said that such beliefs were logically equivalent to proposing God as a premise.

And I strongly disagree because you have yet to show that atheists who knowingly define their purpose subjectively are claiming it as universally objective.

[…]I don't see how movements, including atheist movements, get off the ground. It's very hard for me to picture Martin Luther King Jr. saying "some people believe that we're inferior to white people. That opinion is as valid as ours, but we think that you ought to change your opinion to our subjective ethics." It is equally hard to imagine any great reformer doing as much.

You are distorting the line between a discussion on truth and a discussion influence. You seem to be arguing that because Martin Luther King was persuasive, a strong leader, that people agreed with, and found him to be a hero then he must have been objectively correct in his moral positions. Furthermore, your position attempts to address the inversion of this: that if someone were to preach about something that many people don’t like or wouldn’t find influential or pleasing (such as subjective ethics) then it must be wrong. Do you honestly find such arguments valid? If so, why

Okay, cutting a bit here (not because you weren't interesting, but because my responses would have been too redundant).

Okay, regarding the existence of reality:

This is still logically equivalent to Pascal's Wager. Let my try to summarize your argument here:
...

Here you are just trying to put forward a false analogy. You want to claim X and Y are both similar enough so that you can apply known faults with X onto Y. But then you don’t explain how Y has those faults! You just want to assume that because X and Y are similar in some aspects (appeal to consequences) then they must both share other traits (E.G., Pascal’s wager is a false dichotomy so believing in perceived reality must be too). I’m not buying it. Don’t tell me its Pascal’s wager. Tell me why exactly believing in perceived reality is a poor choice! Tell me why your alternative is so much better!

Let me try that again.
I'm not arguing what is "better", nor was I trying to imply anything about false dichotomies. An appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.
I'm commenting on fact, not what you and I would consider to be better or worse. The fact is that, whatever we may personally believe is "better", there is no evidence that reality actually exists. Pointing out that one can't actually live under the assumption it does not, or that this would be a very unfortunate thing if reality were illusory are neither one logical responses. The parallel to Pascal's Wager is that an appeal to consequences is preoccupied with what someone wants to be true (or fears might be true), rather than what is true.
Until the focus is on what is true, we aren't discussing the matter logically. Once it is, however, we are forced to admit our complete lack of evidence.

Of course you do have this to say:

These are both appeal to consequences fallacies.

No its not because I don’t claim that reality is true. If I were to claim that reality is true because of the consequences then it would be an appeal to consequences. I simply claim that reality is without knowing exactly whatever it is.

Once again, it’s the only game in town. You don’t have to play or you can end your life. But what do you lose by not playing? It is your call.

You may not be making that direct written claim, but I think it is a safe assumption that you behave as if it is true. To be certain, it is implicit in many of your comments. Anything which involves science automatically includes this as a premise.
That is to say, then, that you are implicitly claiming that reality is true. I don't have an objection to that, save when individuals claim not to have beliefs without sufficient evidence.

Its at this point that many philosophers contemplate suicide. After all, maybe paradise is waiting after this “life�. Perhaps if we wait one millisecond longer we will forever be damned to torment. The problem is that such potentials equate to a zero sum game. The potentials all cancel out. But what tips the balance is that this perceived objective reality undoubtedly presents the fact that this reality is true. Reality presents us with evidence that things apparently happen for a reason, that actions are the result of previous actions, etc. Every valid tool of reasoning points towards the answer that truth is this reality. That may change given new evidence but NO ONE except those claiming gnosis can rationally overcome the mountain of evidence supporting otherwise.

It all comes down to what is the most reasonable conclusion. What answer is best supported by reason, evidence, or anything for that matter which we can use from our mental toolbag to help us verify fact from fiction? And the evident conclusion is that science and reason is winning that game hands down over such things as intuition and mysticism.

Logic is a premise for reasoning, and science. Science rests on: existence & causality. You can’t reason without first implicitly assuming these. And if you can’t reason all you can do is sit still and be quiet.

I have NOT said ANYTHING is impossible. In fact I have been quite clear that ANYTHING is possible. However, I have stipulated that based on what we know some things align better with what we know than others and therefore these things are more reasonable to believe in. Additionally we have found a method (scientific method) that is unsurpassed in its power to discover and verify “truth� within reality. If you have a new method or better reason then the world awaits your contribution.

I have no argument with the scientific method. I love it myself. I merely believe that no one can claim to believe only those things which are evidenced.

Then by what means do you believe things which are unevidenced? By what means can you discern whether such things are true? Do you rely on something as unreliable and dubious as the testimony of other humans when objective evidence and reason indicates otherwise?

We don’t see people walking on water, or rising from the dead after 3 days. We don’t observe flying horses taking people to heaven or human like Gods casting lightening bolts upon enemy soldiers. We don’t see winged women whisking men away to Valhalla or fire pits full of people long since dead suffering in torment. These are claims which both defy evidence and reason. They defy the world about you. They defy everything you know. They are NOT impossibilities but nearly ANY other answer is more likely than such an unlikely answer.

You are putting forth the same argument strategy I get from some theists. They attempt to smooth the playing field by trying to put materialist beliefs on equal ground with esoteric or transcendental beliefs.

As one of those theist types, I see no problem with this. So, pardon my why I drift onto a tangent. Why should materialism get the pedestal? It is not any more evidenced than the others. (In case it's the next thought: it is not itself scientific in the slightest, but a comment about the supernatural, a subject on which science is silent.)
So, why is it irrational to start with a level playing field when picking a belief? Is it somehow more rational to pre-assume that one is superior? Can it be any wonder that the one which was so favored won out in this process?

Science does start on a level playing field. That is the great thing about it. It is VERIFIABLE. Anyone can claim they don’t believe in science and then we can objectively prove why science does render a probable truth. Computers, space shuttles, wire phones, submarines, television were created using science and continue to work because of the discoveries from science! Our technology and material achievements are almost exclusively possible because of a very specific type of reasoning and method of discovery and verification. We can reset the playing field as many times as we want and repeatedly show why such a methodology is undoubtedly superior to rendering truth than any other methodology thus far known and examined. The proof is science is literally all around you and it can be PROVEN not just asserted.

And here is the real kicker. Even if a better methodology were to exist we’d probably have to use science to verify it!

“Logic is not a pre-requisite for identifying truth in all, or even most religions.
Logic is a premise for reasoning, and science.
Necessarily, the logical standing of premises is then irrelevant to all, if not most, religions.

Science rests on: existence & causality�

All this is to say that there's no use talking about atheism to someone who's in a purely spiritualistic mindset, nor is there any use talking about God to someone who's currently in a purely materialistic mindset. Before we can even get there, both parties have to admit that there are other ways of looking at the universe. All the claims of "it's so obvious that our side is right", from both sides, strike me more as a lack of vision than a compelling argument.

I agree. But just because a different perspective exists doesn’t mean it is reasonable. As I said before, nothing is impossible, but based on what we know some things are far more probable or best explain what we do know.

I have yet to meet a theist whose arguments are not conjecture, unlikely, or illogical when it comes to beliefs of the universe and afterlife. These claims always have a different flavor but to date they each fail for very general reasons but in nonetheless each in its own unique way.

I would love to be convinced otherwise. To enlighten my own perspective and perhaps discover some loving God, but the more I discuss the matters and continuously discover the utter shambles and flaws of reasoning used by the majority of theists I encounter (and even some atheists), the more my own beliefs of the non-existence of God are reinforced and refined.

On the other hand, I don't proclaim reality with preconceived notions. Reality presents itself and then I fold that knowledge gained from reality back in on itself to see what I can conclude about what it is I am experiencing.

The preconceived notion here is that at least some of the information you are receiving through your senses is accurate.

Is there any reason to think it is not accurate? If it isn’t, where does that lead us? How are you sure and what makes you so much more confident in some other method?

I'm not proposing another method. I was specifically taking the stance that there is no way out of this problem.

and what does that leave us with? Your choices:

A non-100%-certain self evident material reality that continuously proves the consistency and objectivity of its existence

OR

A plausible but unsubstantiated transcendent/esoteric reality that does not manifest thus leaving one no basis for reason or action over the infinitely many other possibilities.

This is not a difficult choice.

As to the matter of trusting your senses until a reason arrives to doubt them, this is your call on a personal level.

But this has ALREADY been addressed. If you don’t trust your senses to some extent then how can you trust anything you’ve learned from them, including the Bible or your concept of God? These are all learned FROM material reality. But the difference is there is verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable, and empirical evidence for one set of beliefs and none for the other.

In a debate, however, it is the argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy.
The fact remains that some things are simply believed without evidence by all people. I don't claim to be immune to this; I only argue with the idea that this is somehow less true of materialism than of other philosophies.

But there is a difference. We have EVIDENCE and REALITY to back claims within the material realm. What do we have for the transcendental and esoteric? We have testimony, the weakest and poorest of evidence if one dares to be so bold as to slander the definition of “evidence� by including it within such a category. May the God of evidence strike you down for such blasphemy! =)

I wasn't born with the knowledge of ANY of this, I learned it from experiencing reality and can traverse the evidence and reasoning for such a claim.

Nor, claim most atheists, was anyone born with a belief in God. Does that mean that people's experiences of God are proof of them before we demonstrate the validity of those experiences?

How can anyone experience God? Experiencing God is like saying you experience gravity.

People claim to have felt the effects of God in the way that one would claim to have felt the effects of gravity.

And it is bogus as far as we know. Why? Because we all have objective senses: sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch. But only a small minority of people claim to have some 6th sense. Some outrageous “supernatural sense�. And guess what happens when we examine, test, and critique that sense in a controlled environment? It fails to manifest every time.

What is the difference between a jar of nothing and a jar of supernatural invisible dust? Nothing. You either have something that is manifesting or you don’t. If it manifests you have something to examine. If it is not manifesting then you have nothing. There is either something there or there is nothing there. If you have something, then you can examine it. If you don’t have anything then you have nothing.

Whether or not one accepts such claims, should be based on whether or not those experiences are found to be valid. This is not a comment about God, however, but a use of God as an example to make a point about reality: experiences do not validate themselves.

Which is why evidence is used! Evidence is present in an existence, which appears to contain an objective universal reality shared by all of us.

It is the same here. You are using your senses to validate themselves.

I concede that one or all of my senses may all be 100% wrong or some other really weird unexplainable repeating phenomenon. But what am I to do if they are? (even though I have no reason except conjecture to presume that they are deceiving me)

That is my personal position as well. I don't know. I do, however, feel that knowing we have such little assurance about what we see of reality makes for a good swift kick to the arrogance. At least, it is for me. It helps me try on a new way of looking at the world. Without remembering how little we know, it's easy to forget why we need to to that.

but the world does make sense. Even if we aren’t certain, you can’t deny that science works. That our methods for rational thought WORK. And they don’t just work because it random. We have identified precisely why they work.

Ask yourself, how would you know reality is, or is not provable, without contradicting yourself?

Reasonably, we discover some THING (Z), we identify it as Z, then we make claims about Z. That's the logical order of operation, to suggest otherwise results in fallacy.

You cannot reasonably claim that if Z exists, and we identify it, that we cannot evidence it. Nor can you claim you identified Z, before you discovered Z.

For you to make claims about identified things Z, that you then claim cannot be discovered, is a contradiction.

With regard to logic, I agree with Bernee that it is better to use it whenever possible. I don't see how materialism holds up better than theism myself, but I do agree with him on this point.

All you have to do is look at the basis for which you go about reasoning and acknowledge that fundamentally it presumes existence and causality. Without such fundamentals all one can do is sit still and be quiet.

With the matter of the existence of reality, I am claiming that those who insist that they don't have any faith are wrong.

As explained before, this “faith� is an equivocation fallacy. It’s a willful denial of the very distinct differences in blind/intuitive/emotional trust and a reasoned conclusion.

As such, I have no argument with you doing the same. I do, however, have an argument with any who claim that there is such evidence (or, more accurately, those who claim that they don't accept any idea without evidence), as that is simply untrue.

That because what you ask for is probably impossible.

Just as it is probably impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists. This is why I feel that those who demand that I have proof before claiming what I believe to be the most likely scenario are not being at all consistent.

There is a stark difference between believing that which has already been strongly evidenced and believing in that which has not or is merely plausible. Furthermore, there is a difference in methodology when it comes to believing that which is of consequence and that which is not. The details of these are exactly what we have been discussing.

To imply that one believes the sun will come up tomorrow is evaluated in the same manner that believing that a person by the screen name “Jester� is actually a male and lives in S Korea is a bit silly. The perceived consequences of our beliefs has a great deal of importance in how we determine our beliefs.

1. You have to live as if God exists, or as if he doesn't. There is no neutral ground where your actions reflect neither assumption.

not all beliefs have consequences or are always of consequence. This refutes your claim.

Here, I disagree.
The assumption that belief or lack of belief in God is of no consequence has the claim that Christianity is false implicit in it. Christianity directly claims that this is a matter of consequence. As such, living as if this is not a matter of consequence would, quite directly, be living as if the Christian God does not exist.

No, not necessarily. To not believe the claims of Christianity can simply mean that there is no reason for belief in such a claim. To not believe does not imply a counter positive claim. This is something many have trouble understanding. Such people falsely believe that if someone asserts a claim and another cannot come up with a reason why that claim is false or another positive claim counter to it is better then the only rational thing is to believe that claim. This is absurd because it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the claimant.

I agree that you either live as if your God(s) exist and all others (if any are left) do not or you live as though none do. That appears to be a tautology.

This is what reasonable scientists (as well as all reasonable people) do, form conclusions while admitting that they are subject to change with the arrival of new information and/or theories.

I’ve never claimed I don’t operate under the assumption that unicorns, Gods, and all manner of things I have yet to consider do not exist. But what I don’t do is say “I absolutely cannot be convinced of X.�

Are you claiming not to have considered the matter of the Christian God's existence?

I have considered many of the claims regarding the Christian God and reject many of them as unlikely with differing degrees of belief. Some religious beliefs I still consider or believe are possible perhaps even likely in some respects.

If so, I would say that effective debate on the subject would be difficult at best. If not, I don't see how you can claim not to have at least a tentative position on the matter.

I don’t believe I’ve claimed to not have a position on the matter.

Don't forget to differentiate between moral and sound reasoning. The Nazis can have sound reasoning but still be morally wrong. What is morally wrong is simply what the society (or whoever has the power in a society) decide it is. The current moral zeitgeist finds genocide extremely morally reprehensible where in biblical times it was quite common and expected.

So, it is wrong in this society, but since it was desired in WWII Germany, then racial killing was morally acceptable (commendable, actually) at that time, whereas those who protected the Jews at the risk of their lives were being morally repugnant?
I do not mean to be obtuse. A society, like an individual, can decide anything it wants about morality. Most societies throughout history have believed things that would offend you and I. How, then, can we believe that our morals are right and theirs are wrong, unless we are arguing that these statements are merely a matter of corporate opinion, without any real objective weight? If we are, we're back to my original claim (which was exactly that, regarding secular ethics).

If cumulatively people believe that racial killing is acceptable than cumulatively it is morally permissible. You don’t need to go back very far in history to find examples of widespread racism and its effects on morality.

How can we believe our morals are right? Because we believe they are right. How can we believe their morals are wrong? Because we believe they are wrong. It is really that simple. Having subjective morals does not necessarily imply amorality, though it can.

If we're going to draw a line between "moral" and "sound" reasoning (which I question very deeply), then my "moral" reasoning doesn't feel that this is acceptable at all. To argue that the Nazis were just as right to attempt genocide as others are to help the poor does not sit well.

And you are entitled to believe so with no objections from my part regarding your freewill. It is at this point where I question what “reason� your beliefs are worthy due to whatever basis you derive them from—which is likely God. And assuming you argue they are from God, I will respond by asserting the claim for the non-existence of God or the unlikelihood of such a being, effectively kicking the chair out from under your position of such moral claims. Then, you will retort by reasonably questioning the basis for my morals. I will respond by demonstrating the quasi-objective basis of some morals and the subjective basis of others, all of which are derived from reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable evidence…….

We are discussing all of this elsewhere so I believe we can tie off this loose end here.

If, however, we cease thinking about moral reasoning as something completely distinct from rational thought, and rather as something that logically proceeds from an objective purpose in life, then one can actually claim that relief workers are more morally acceptable than Hitler without speaking nonsense.

Sure, you can. But only because you’ve identified a subjective basis for determining morality, a proposed objective purpose in life, which is, of course, objectionable.

I don't claim that this necessitates amorality in practice. Someone can still claim "these are my morals", I agree. I'm claiming that this reduces morality to a set of personal opinions, just as someone can still claim "this is my favorite color". The statement can still be made, but lacks meaning save as a point of interest about that particular individual.

It a bit more complicated than mere opinions as I’ve explained above. But in short, we only have our experiences and perceived objective reality that generates such opinions of the world. Is it any surprise that our non-omniscience results in differing world views and thus differing opinions on the matter of right and wrong, on morality?

1) God gets his morality from another source. In which case God doesn't give us morality he is simply a messenger of it.

This does not mean that such a morality isn't valid. If God recognized it, it was either real, or he gave it reality after "hearing about" the idea.
Some of this contradicts other claims about God in the Bible (such as the idea that he created all basic things in the universe), and should be rejected as a possibility on those grounds, however.

but it still doesn’t make it objective or universal. Its just a bold faced assertion that even surpasses God.

Actually, it is no such thing. If we are arguing in the hypothetical that God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to attribute such abilities to him.

Its perfectly reasonable to claim that even though God didn’t create morality and is merely a messenger of it then it follows that its objective? I’m not seeing how that is so.

If God gets his morality from another source then we do not get morality from God. God is merely a messenger of that morality. This throws a stick into the spokes of your original claim that God is what grants objective morality. Furthermore, the question is still unresolved as to whether that morality is objective to begin with since you have effectively removed God from the picture as an explanation for the objectivity of morality.

2) God arbitrarily decides morality. Thus there is no objective morality, only a morality that God decides. Objective morality does not exist because morality for us is simply what God decides it is.

This is no more reasonable than to conclude that the Earth isn't objectively real because God's decision to make it was arbitrary, that an artist's painting isn't a real object because the artist's idea was arbitrary, or that a law isn't a real law because it was decided upon arbitrarily by the local government.
This is actually not unlike Thomas Aquinas' false-dilemma response to the matter.

Aquinas response relies on a vague notion to “god’s nature� which only creates further issues rather than resolving them.

“The claim that God would not command evil because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?" Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies. If, on the other hand, God did not create his own nature, then either someone else created it (in which case the dilemma applies to the creator of God's nature) or the morality contained in God's nature is inherent in some way (in which case God is not truly the author of right and wrong).�

Part of the God concept is status as existing outside of time. Normal reasoning about cause and effect would not apply. This is quite similar to statements regarding the Big Bang, actually.

Ok. Then explain how a timeless God doesn’t arbitrarily determine morality if its not he himself who created himself and therefore determined it himself? Thus, making it arbitrary to however God decided it was to be whenever he created it. Explain how this “timelessness� works without using semantic acrobatics.

Beyond that, this still does not address my specific point, which is that arbitrary creation does not automatically infer lack of objective existence.

If God arbitrarily creates objective existence then is he subject to his objectively created existence or not? Either way the dilemma still applies.

[VermilionUK]

Assuming God (and especially BibleGod) exists then what would happen if it disappeared? Would all morality vanish too?

Do you agree with this video?

Hehe, I love that EdwardCurrent guy. A lot of people don't realise it's in-fact satire.

In my opinion, if God dissappeared, then nothing would really change. Yes, there'd be huge outcry from Christians - but lets face it -
what verifiable proof do we have that God has actually done anything in the past 1000 years anyway? Although I'd be happy for someone to point out to me an event with proof of God's intervention.

So, if he disappeared - who'd be any the wiser?

[Jester]

If an atheist does not believe in objective ethics, then I can agree that my argument would not apply, as that is all it really addresses.
To such a person, then, I would point out that there is no arguing things on ultimately moral grounds from this perspective.

Why? That would be to argue that simply because love may be electrochemical responses entirely in one’s brain then it isn’t real. Which is absurd.

I didn't claim that it isn't real. I claimed that, in that case, it wouldn't be any more significant than the electrochemical responses in someone else's brain. It would be "you should stop doing that because the chemistry of my brain gives me an unpleasant sensation when I know you do it". The rational response would be "but doing it gives me a pleasant electrochemical sensation, and I see no reason why I should be more concerned about any sensations other than my own".
So, yes, you can try to argue ethics from this view. The trouble is that its pointless. You are simply arguing opinion. There is no rational reason why, in this paradigm, someone ought to change their opinion to fit yours.

You presume far more too much. Yes, perhaps there is no absolute objective and universal basis for claiming an action is right or wrong. However, one’s subjective beliefs or the group’s subjective beliefs are morals nonetheless. And as such they don’t require some divine being or objective basis for. When you act what you think is morally is it God that made you act? No, it is you alone.

I don't see the difference between them and personal tastes, in that case. "You shouldn't kill people indiscriminately" is not significantly different than "you shouldn't like Mozart". True, people have their opinions, but saying that such opinions are subjective means that most of what people say about ethics doesn't make logical sense. To throw out a few examples:
Racism is bad.
Slavery shouldn't exist.
Hitler did something wrong.
People should be allowed their opinions.
There's no point in saying any of these things if they are subjective opinions. Either people agree or they don't but there is no rational reason to agree with any of them.

Of course, you do say this:

Furthermore, there are arguments that define objective morality which are derived from specific premises.

I agree, and would be fully willing to discuss these premises.

Morals, like beliefs, are not required to be logical, sensible, or based in some sound philosophy. However, people can and do claim to have better morals, for example, by showing that certain actions result in a desired outcome or conclusion ...
Specifically, one can claim someone’s act of stealing is immoral because it harms the integrity of order within society. That is, immoral in this scenario denotes subjective opinion on right and wrong despite not being able to prove absolutely or not having a universally agreed upon objective basis. The basis for this set of morals would be the preeminence of society (which isn’t to say that the preeminence of society is universally agreed upon or absolutely provable as a valid premise)

This is the argument that people can have subjective morals and make moral claims even if they are not rational. I agree, but would also agree with the statement that people can believe anything they choose, regardless of whether or not such beliefs are rational. Yes, people have morals, but, as debate is about reason, I think the fact that a rational reason should be provided for these morals before this is considered a valid defense of said morality.

I understand the frustration. The problem is, as your have demonstrated, the emotional fixation on the desire to objectively differentiate evil from good; to claim the Nazis were somehow inherently evil or bad. In general, the fixation on the desire to determine an objective standard for right and wrong for personal validation purposes. You admit to this several times in the above. Perhaps you desire this as many people do so that we can easily validate our beliefs and standards against others without having to acknowledge the many flaws and complexity of the issue of morality. A desire in many exists to claim to have the moral high ground and therefore state authoritatively “I am just and right and these people who did such atrocious things are obviously wrong.� The problem is the complexities of the matter aren’t that simple where such an uncomplicated “right or not right� approach can be taken. The matter simply isn’t black and white. You must remove your preconceived notions of inherent evil, and right and wrong and look at the issue without such preconceived notions; without requiring some ill conceived litmus test to satisfy whether this concept of morality is true or false. You must make an intellectual pursuit.

First, I'll agree that the desire to believe in morals is emotional (it is a desire). I'll agree that this does not tell us whether or not there is an objective standard.
My main disagreement here is that this destroys most of what is said on the matter, and it is hardly worth having the term "morality" at all. As such, this doesn't seem to be the argument that I am wrong to claim that subjective morality is meaningless in any way that we normally think of reality as having meaning, but rather the argument that I ought to not be concerned about that fact. Reality is subjective, you say, and there is no way to claim objectively that the Nazis did something evil. Assuming atheism as a premise, I would completely agree. Our only argument, then, seems to be that I have a problem with this and you don't. Fair enough, but I don't see how you can argue that I should change my opinion that this is wrong. Is that position of mine not as valid as yours?
Lastly, I fail to see how my pursuit fails to be intellectual because I also admit to having a personal opinion on the matter. All people have personal opinions on the subjects which we consider, whether we admit it or not. My argument was sound, meaning that it is intellectually valid. Saying that I must change my opinion about that argument is itself an opinion, and therefore an emotional reaction. There is no logical reason why we ought to accept it.

To analyze from this different perspective I have proposed, let’s suppose the Nazis won the war and conquered the world which resulted in the majority of people ascribing to their beliefs. If this were to occur then their actions would be deemed moral by the majority. People who disagreed would be immoral. If the Nazi’s exterminated or “reeducated� every last person who disagreed then only those who agreed would be left. It’s at such an epiphany that morals reveal their true nature: they are entirely in the eye of the beholder(s).

It seems that I should again make it clear that I've not been trying to argue the objective validity of ethics. I've been pointing out that, from an atheistic perspective, this cannot be done. As such, I have no argument with this if we are assuming atheism. Yes, I have an emotional reaction, as I imagine most would, but completely agree that this reaction is only valid as more than a reaction if we assume theism.

BUT!!! This is not to say that we cannot argue that distinct environmental, natural, social, and other pressures guide our ideas on morality in certain, sometimes unpredictable, ways. For example, survival, happiness, empathy, etc, all drive our subjective morals and thus it is plausible that one CAN derive some quasi-objective morality from such things. But the ONLY reason we can do such a thing is because FIRST a basis for morality is asserted.

Asserted, but not evidenced. Is it quasi-rational? I suppose so, depending on how we define that term. It is not, however, rational. I see no logical reason to assert such a basis for morality.

So the question about whether the Nazis are wrong due to some objective standard cannot be answered because the premise of such a statement is far too presumptuous and leaves out a critical question: on what basis were their actions immoral?

Personally, I object to the Nazi’s actions thus self identifying that my morality is opposed to theirs.

This again seems to agree with my initial statement that morality has no more meaning than personal opinion from an atheistic perspective.

But, if we want to discuss something more than opinion, if we want to discuss what the “best� morals are then we must first define by what basis is “best� determined by. Thus, the discussion no longer revolves around opinion but upon some clearly defined principal. However, as we have seen repeatedly, the basis for what is “best� is unresolved and uncertain claims.

But don’t get excited by the prospect that once again something is not absolute. As is discussed many times there are good and bad reasons for belief. E.G., to say that the existence of flying cookie monsters is equally as likely as the existence of gold fish is absolutely absurd. But that is another discussion we touch upon later.

Actually, I don't see the parallel. You offered an example of a goldfish (for which we have evidence) to represent a "good" basis for morality (for which we have not yet seen any evidence). If you can show that there is any basis that is truly good (that is, one that is evidenced at all to be objectively good, rather than merely something most or all humans happen to like) then the analogy is valid. Otherwise, it still seems arbitrary.

For some reason I was under the impression you were trying to conflate morality with proving God. Thank God you weren’t because I was having a really difficult time clearly explaining my rebuttal. It also cuts out a bunch of our discussion now that we seem to be at an understanding.

Great, and sorry about causing the confusion.

One can argue that some objective morals do exist without a God given that their premises are true or assumed to be true. For example, if the premise can be made that the preeminence of societal order is paramount then it can be argued that coldblooded murder has a negative impact on society thus cold blooded murder is immoral.

I completely agree, but so far have seen no logical reason to assume that these premises are true.

I don't see how movements, including atheist movements, get off the ground. It's very hard for me to picture Martin Luther King Jr. saying "some people believe that we're inferior to white people. That opinion is as valid as ours, but we think that you ought to change your opinion to our subjective ethics." It is equally hard to imagine any great reformer doing as much.

You are distorting the line between a discussion on truth and a discussion influence. You seem to be arguing that because Martin Luther King was persuasive, a strong leader, that people agreed with, and found him to be a hero then he must have been objectively correct in his moral positions. Furthermore, your position attempts to address the inversion of this: that if someone were to preach about something that many people don’t like or wouldn’t find influential or pleasing (such as subjective ethics) then it must be wrong. Do you honestly find such arguments valid? If so, why

No, I do not.
This was not meant, in any way, as an argument that ethics were ethically valid for this reason, but as an example of the fact that people believe in their ethics as something more than opinion. Martin Luther King Jr. argued out of the belief that his morals were superior to the opposition. Anyone who changed their minds due to his speeches would have done so by concluding likewise.

On the idea that reality might be illusory:

Its at this point that many philosophers contemplate suicide. After all, maybe paradise is waiting after this “life�. Perhaps if we wait one millisecond longer we will forever be damned to torment. The problem is that such potentials equate to a zero sum game. The potentials all cancel out. But what tips the balance is that this perceived objective reality undoubtedly presents the fact that this reality is true. Reality presents us with evidence that things apparently happen for a reason, that actions are the result of previous actions, etc. Every valid tool of reasoning points towards the answer that truth is this reality. That may change given new evidence but NO ONE except those claiming gnosis can rationally overcome the mountain of evidence supporting otherwise.

This "evidence" is not evidence, as it is circular. As such, regardless of what we don't know about other options, we still don't have evidence that reality exists. This is a very old truism.

It all comes down to what is the most reasonable conclusion. What answer is best supported by reason, evidence, or anything for that matter which we can use from our mental toolbag to help us verify fact from fiction?

Logically speaking, no answer meets these criteria. If you feel that one should decide that which helps the world seem to make more sense, even if there is no real evidence that it is actually true, you are certainly able to do that. I wouldn't begrudge you this - it's not too far off from what I do myself. My only issue is that I don't feel that it is intellectually honest to say that this means this position is evidenced, or that there is any logical reason for this conclusion. It is a leap of faith.

Logic is a premise for reasoning, and science. Science rests on: existence & causality. You can’t reason without first implicitly assuming these. And if you can’t reason all you can do is sit still and be quiet.

As abstract constructs of the human mind, logic can exist without the physical universe. Even one who does not accept physical reality can engage in logic in an abstract sense.

I have no argument with the scientific method. I love it myself. I merely believe that no one can claim to believe only those things which are evidenced.

Then by what means do you believe things which are unevidenced?

Certainly not by scientific one. Personally, I tend to believe those things which I experience, even if my experience is invalid as actual evidence. This discussion, however, is not about what I do personally, but about what can be shown logically. If you believe that there is a logical way to establish things which can be evidenced, feel free to mention it. If not, then it seems that we agree that there is no such method.

We don’t see people walking on water, or rising from the dead after 3 days.

I'm not sure that I understand this comment. If the Bible would have only reported things that were common place, then would you believe that it is valid evidence of God's existence? If not, how might something outside the natural order be evidenced?

Why should materialism get the pedestal? It is not any more evidenced than the others. (In case it's the next thought: it is not itself scientific in the slightest, but a comment about the supernatural, a subject on which science is silent.)
So, why is it irrational to start with a level playing field when picking a belief? ...

Science does start on a level playing field. That is the great thing about it. It is VERIFIABLE.

I completely agree that science starts with a level playing field. What I claimed was that insisting that materialism be given a superior position before reaching a conclusion about the spiritual is not a level approach. Materialism assumes that the universe which science studies is the whole of reality. Science does not. Science makes no claim about whether or not there are other parts of reality. It sticks to its subject (part of why it is so useful. To equate science with atheism, then, is to misunderstand science.

I have yet to meet a theist whose arguments are not conjecture, unlikely, or illogical when it comes to beliefs of the universe and afterlife.

I'd mostly agree if I can add that I would say the same for atheists. There simply is very little, if anything, that we know about the subject. That fact does nothing to help any side of the argument. The ability to say but a little does not allow us to say "this is false" with any more certainty than "this is true". Science does neither.

On the other hand, I don't proclaim reality with preconceived notions. Reality presents itself and then I fold that knowledge gained from reality back in on itself to see what I can conclude about what it is I am experiencing.

The preconceived notion here is that at least some of the information you are receiving through your senses is accurate.

Is there any reason to think it is not accurate? If it isn’t, where does that lead us? How are you sure and what makes you so much more confident in some other method?

I'm not proposing another method. I was specifically taking the stance that there is no way out of this problem.[/quote]

and what does that leave us with? Your choices:

It is a fact. It isn't required to leave us with anything in order to be true, no matter how desperate we might be for a more conclusive statement.


As to your choices:

A non-100%-certain self evident material reality that continuously proves the consistency and objectivity of its existence

It has done nothing of the sort. "Self-evident" means nothing more than something which is accepted without a logical reason for doing so, a premise, a faith conclusion, or the like. The physical universe has done nothing to evidence it's objectivity, as has been noted. Yes, I personally feel that it is impossible to actually live as if the universe were illusory. I believe many things with which you disagree, so fail to see how that is relevant unless I can provide some kind of logical support for that belief. I cannot.
So, regardless of how uncomfortable or impractical we may find it, we are forced to accept that there simply is no proof of objectivity here.

OR

A plausible but unsubstantiated transcendent/esoteric reality that does not manifest thus leaving one no basis for reason or action over the infinitely many other possibilities.

I don't see anything, save perhaps "transcendent/esoteric" that could not be said of the example of the physical universe.

This is not a difficult choice.

If one is willing to use a method other than logic, certainly not. It is quite easy indeed.

As to the matter of trusting your senses until a reason arrives to doubt them, this is your call on a personal level.

But this has ALREADY been addressed. If you don’t trust your senses to some extent then how can you trust anything you’ve learned from them, including the Bible or your concept of God?

This is only a valid argument if we are assuming that the Bible and God are real. Surely, that is my personal belief, but I'm not asserting that here. Neither, I assume are you. I'm pointing out that this seems to be either the argument: You already believe in reality, that makes it true. (Which is based on the idea that something is true if I already believe in it) or: You must believe in reality, because if you don't God won't be real either (I'm not sure that's, true, but is an appeal to consequences fallacy in any case).
There is simply no evidence for reality. I'm not claiming this as support for God's existence. I'm claiming it first because it is true, and second because it illustrates the point that science (amazing though it is) isn't the whole of all understanding.

The fact remains that some things are simply believed without evidence by all people. I don't claim to be immune to this; I only argue with the idea that this is somehow less true of materialism than of other philosophies.

But there is a difference. We have EVIDENCE and REALITY to back claims within the material realm.

What is this evidence?
That (if we assume reality) our senses are real and take in information?
That (if we assume that there is nothing outside of the scientific) that science not finding something proves there is nothing but the material world?
I could go on, but I still don't see what you mean by evidence and reality. Anything you can name is based on the idea that your senses are receiving real information, which seems to be based on the idea that you think it is impossible to behave or believe any other way. I'm not sure how you know this without first assuming reality, but I'm not sure that it makes sense in any case. "This is true, because I can't conceive of it not being true" is not sound reasoning.

What is the difference between a jar of nothing and a jar of supernatural invisible dust? Nothing. You either have something that is manifesting or you don’t. If it manifests you have something to examine. If it is not manifesting then you have nothing. There is either something there or there is nothing there. If you have something, then you can examine it. If you don’t have anything then you have nothing.

Nothing observable at any rate. This logic, however, sounds very similar to the argument that "disproved" that germs don't exist because they couldn't be seen or measured with the tools available at the time.

Whether or not one accepts such claims, should be based on whether or not those experiences are found to be valid. This is not a comment about God, however, but a use of God as an example to make a point about reality: experiences do not validate themselves.

Which is why evidence is used! Evidence is present in an existence, which appears to contain an objective universal reality shared by all of us.

The key word here is "appears". Unless you are arguing that anything which appears to be true is true, then I don't see why this should be mentioned. I agree that evidence needs to be used. I don't agree that experiences of the physical world appearing to validate themselves are legitimate evidence.

I concede that one or all of my senses may all be 100% wrong or some other really weird unexplainable repeating phenomenon. But what am I to do if they are?

That is my personal position as well. I don't know. I do, however, feel that knowing we have such little assurance about what we see of reality makes for a good swift kick to the arrogance. At least, it is for me. It helps me try on a new way of looking at the world. Without remembering how little we know, it's easy to forget why we need to to that.

but the world does make sense. Even if we aren’t certain, you can’t deny that science works. That our methods for rational thought WORK. And they don’t just work because it random. We have identified precisely why they work.

Actually, we haven't. We only have more conjecture.
The world appears to make sense.
Science appears to work.
Our methods of rational thought appear to work.
All of this appears to be more than random.
All of these things are more than appearance if we first assume physical reality as a premise (as I do personally). None of them, however, evidence reality because they all rely on reality to exist in order to be true.

Ask yourself, how would you know reality is, or is not provable, without contradicting yourself?

I don't feel that I claimed either of these things. I claimed that it is not evidenced, and that all the evidence suggested rests on assuming a priori that the physical universe exists. Thus far, that has remained true.

With regard to logic, I agree with Bernee that it is better to use it whenever possible. I don't see how materialism holds up better than theism myself, but I do agree with him on this point.

All you have to do is look at the basis for which you go about reasoning and acknowledge that fundamentally it presumes existence and causality. Without such fundamentals all one can do is sit still and be quiet.

Materialism is the belief that there is no universe outside the physical. It is not synonymous with science, nor does it imply any particular form of reasoning. Existence and causality are presumed in all philosophies I know. I fail to see how this makes materialism distinct from the crowd.
Beyond that, I have seen no proof of existence and causality as of yet. I agree with it, to be certain, but my point is that we assume at least some things without logical reason. If you cannot provide a logical reason, no amount of saying that those who disagree with you must "sit still and be quiet" changes this fact.

Furthermore, there is a difference in methodology when it comes to believing that which is of consequence and that which is not. The details of these are exactly what we have been discussing.

We haven't yet proven any consequence of any side.

To imply that one believes the sun will come up tomorrow is evaluated in the same manner that believing that a person by the screen name “Jester� is actually a male and lives in S Korea is a bit silly. The perceived consequences of our beliefs has a great deal of importance in how we determine our beliefs.

The relative importance hasn't been discussed, but is another important point. I see nothing in science which tells us that the physical universe is somehow more important than the spiritual. It seems to be an assumption.

The assumption that belief or lack of belief in God is of no consequence has the claim that Christianity is false implicit in it. Christianity directly claims that this is a matter of consequence. As such, living as if this is not a matter of consequence would, quite directly, be living as if the Christian God does not exist.

No, not necessarily. To not believe the claims of Christianity can simply mean that there is no reason for belief in such a claim. To not believe does not imply a counter positive claim. This is something many have trouble understanding. Such people falsely believe that if someone asserts a claim and another cannot come up with a reason why that claim is false or another positive claim counter to it is better then the only rational thing is to believe that claim. This is absurd because it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the claimant.

This does nothing to shift the burden of proof. It is a simple statement of fact. Saying "I live as if there is no reason to believe in alien life" is not distinguishable in content from "I live as if there is no alien life". Neither believing nor disbelieving in a considered claim is called uncertainty. If, however, one rejects a claim as not being credible enough to believe, that is the position that it is wrong.
I do not argue with the debater who takes the positive position (when we are on that topic) that Christianity is wrong due to a lack of evidence. Fair enough. The "debater" who takes no position is not debating, but standing on the sidelines not defending any position.

I agree that you either live as if your God(s) exist and all others (if any are left) do not or you live as though none do. That appears to be a tautology.

No, actually. Those are two distinctly different options: "I live as if one god exists" and "I life as if no gods exist". A tautology would be: "those who live as if no gods exist live as if no gods exist. My claim is neither of these, but "those who live as if no gods exist are either making the implicit claim that no gods exist or the implicit claim that Christianity is wrong to say that its a vital issue". If you consider this a tautology (a simple restatement of a fact), then there is no reason why you should agree with one statement and disagree with the other.

I have considered many of the claims regarding the Christian God and reject many of them as unlikely with differing degrees of belief. Some religious beliefs I still consider or believe are possible perhaps even likely in some respects.

Okay, I'll try to be sure to keep that in mind.

If so, I would say that effective debate on the subject would be difficult at best. If not, I don't see how you can claim not to have at least a tentative position on the matter.

I don’t believe I’ve claimed to not have a position on the matter.

I had thought that you were claiming to not believe believe in God, but not to believe that there is no God. In which case, you would not be taking a position on whether or not God exists. If my initial observation was wrong, however, feel free to disregard the point.

It is at this point where I question what “reason� your beliefs are worthy due to whatever basis you derive them from—which is likely God. And assuming you argue they are from God, I will respond by asserting the claim for the non-existence of God or the unlikelihood of such a being, effectively kicking the chair out from under your position of such moral claims. Then, you will retort by reasonably questioning the basis for my morals. I will respond by demonstrating the quasi-objective basis of some morals and the subjective basis of others, all of which are derived from reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable evidence…….

Actually, they are not. They may be so if we first accept a few arbitrary ideas (such as the desire to make society prosperous) as premises, but this is a chair that is at least as easy to kick as claims about God.
My point, however, was not about my emotional reaction. I mentioned it, true, but my point was that you have not yet disagreed with my initial claim: that there is no objective validity to ethics within an atheistic paradigm. If you wish to define and justify this term "quasi-objective" feel free to do so, but I don't yet see that you have established that your ethics should be considered objective.

If, however, we cease thinking about moral reasoning as something completely distinct from rational thought, and rather as something that logically proceeds from an objective purpose in life, then one can actually claim that relief workers are more morally acceptable than Hitler without speaking nonsense.

Sure, you can. But only because you’ve identified a subjective basis for determining morality, a proposed objective purpose in life, which is, of course, objectionable.

Okay, so if one accepts an arbitrary claim in favor of that decision, then one can logically conclude that. This is true, but not really worth saying, in my opinion. One can logically conclude anything if we are allowed to start with any subjectively chosen premise we'd like. I fail to see how this is any different than a person arguing that God exists because if we subjectively decide that the Bible is accurate in its claims he does.
This gets back to a major concern of mine. Why demand objective, established, testable evidence for certain claims, but insist that they are unnecessary to establish ethics or the physical universe. It strikes me as highly inconsistent and should at least be acknowledged as more of a personal choice than any sort of logical conclusion.

I don't claim that this necessitates amorality in practice. Someone can still claim "these are my morals", I agree. I'm claiming that this reduces morality to a set of personal opinions, just as someone can still claim "this is my favorite color". The statement can still be made, but lacks meaning save as a point of interest about that particular individual.

It a bit more complicated than mere opinions as I’ve explained above. But in short, we only have our experiences and perceived objective reality that generates such opinions of the world. Is it any surprise that our non-omniscience results in differing world views and thus differing opinions on the matter of right and wrong, on morality?

Not at all (though I do want to interject that objective reality hasn't been evidenced yet either).
I have no disagreement with this, except to wonder how this could be said to be any more objective than the beliefs of others (most particularly those who believe in the spiritual).

but it still doesn’t make it objective or universal. Its just a bold faced assertion that even surpasses God.

Actually, it is no such thing. If we are arguing in the hypothetical that God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to attribute such abilities to him.[/quote]

Its perfectly reasonable to claim that even though God didn’t create morality and is merely a messenger of it then it follows that its objective? I’m not seeing how that is so.

It's perfectly reasonable if one quits insisting on the phrase "merely a messenger". If God "heard" about an idea, then said "I like that. I'll make it objective truth with my omnipotent power." that would make it objective if we're hypothetically assuming God (which we were, in this instance).

With regard to the idea that God invented ethics, whether or not that makes them arbitrary, and whether or not being arbitrary makes them unreal.

Ok. Then explain how a timeless God doesn’t arbitrarily determine morality if its not he himself who created himself and therefore determined it himself? Thus, making it arbitrary to however God decided it was to be whenever he created it. Explain how this “timelessness� works without using semantic acrobatics.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with ideas about the origin of the universe, and the breakdown of cause and effect that one must confront in considering the matter. Regardless, Stephen Hawking would agree with my statements here.
First, God does not "create himself". God existed before time, meaning that one can't say "before God, what was there". There was no "before God", back then, there was no "before", "after", or "now". Ethics were a part of God's character at this time, meaning that he didn't create them as he did not create himself. Insisting that this is an arbitrary creation of God, and demanding a classical answer based on cause and effect would be like demanding that a scientist explain, in classical terms, how the singularity that predates the universe was "created".

Beyond that, this still does not address my specific point, which is that arbitrary creation does not automatically infer lack of objective existence.

If God arbitrarily creates objective existence then is he subject to his objectively created existence or not? Either way the dilemma still applies.

Why?
If God is subject to it, then it is not real because...?
If God is powerful enough to overcome it, it is not real because...?

This seems rather like claiming that a unilateral decree from a king is not a real or binding decree on the grounds that the king may not be subject to it himself. Or, conversely, it is the claim that it must not be a real decree because the king will obey it, and therefore is (inexplicably) not able to give decrees anymore. I don't follow either of these lines of reasoning, and they still seem to be logically identical to the claim that gravity in the event that it was created arbitrarily.