Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

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

[help3434]

As you can see, I am saying that the Holocaust was wrong, it is Artie who has doubts, so you should direct your comments to him.

Artie did not say that he doubted that the Holocaust is wrong. This is dishonest and uncivil.

[olavisjo]

.

As you can see, I am saying that the Holocaust was wrong, it is Artie who has doubts, so you should direct your comments to him.

Artie did not say that he doubted that the Holocaust is wrong. This is dishonest and uncivil.

I apologize.

I should have said that 'it is Artie who is asking for proof that the Holocaust was objectively wrong'.

And that begs the question, 'is it proper to ask for proof regarding something you have no doubts about'?

[olavisjo]

.

As you can see, I am saying that the Holocaust was wrong, it is Artie who has doubts, so you should direct your comments to him.

Artie did not say that he doubted that the Holocaust is wrong. This is dishonest and uncivil.

I apologize.

I should have said that 'it is Artie who is asking for proof that the Holocaust was objectively wrong'.

[olavisjo]

.

We have not been programmed by evolution to think murder is wrong.

If evolution does not program humans into thinking that murder is wrong, then we can rule out evolution as the source of our moral instinct.
Then we can move on to the other two things you mentioned, society and thinking. Early societies noticed that constant fighting and antisocial behavior was very disruptive to life so they began punishing people who engage in disruptive behavior. This meant that if one wanted to steal or kill then one had to do it in such a way that it would be undetected. Stealing and killing was not wrong, but there were consequences if one got caught. Also, if a member of this tribe were powerful enough he would be able to openly kill or steal and nobody would be able to do anything about it, as this person would be too powerful to punish. People like Ramses, Nero, Genghis Khan Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong etc. Their behavior was simply the natural order, to say that they were immoral is meaningless.

Therefore the Holocaust was not wrong because of evolution, society or thinking.

[JohnA]

.

As you can see, I am saying that the Holocaust was wrong, it is Artie who has doubts, so you should direct your comments to him.

Artie did not say that he doubted that the Holocaust is wrong. This is dishonest and uncivil.

I apologize.

I should have said that 'it is Artie who is asking for proof that the Holocaust was objectively wrong'.

And that begs the question, 'is it proper to ask for proof regarding something you have no doubts about'?

But you already admitted that your objective morals & your definition of it are just there to sneak in your god. And you said your reasoning would not agree with your god if he decrees rape or murder as 'good'.
If you claim that objective morals exist then you better back that claim up. Are you familiar with any of these arguments? It seems to me not. And it seems to me you do not understand the burden of proof. Also, you refusal to answer my questions is borderline insulting. Is that why you even reject your own works, your own admissions?

Do you actually read your posts or has your dogma programmed your hand to write these admissions that your head rejects. This is called a delusion, and you are pontificating it.

Address my posts. Be honest with yourself.
My prediction is that you will run away, similar to your other conversations you had with me. Your arguments are all unsound and mostly invalid. You do admit it when you answer basic questions, but you refuse to acknowledge what you wrote. Your dogma has done a bad job on you, grounded a bad addiction! A cute cure is available, but it starts with you admitting you have a problem.

[olavisjo]

.

We have not been programmed by evolution to think murder is wrong.

If evolution does not program humans into thinking that murder is wrong, then we can rule out evolution as the source of our moral instinct.
Then we can move on to the other two things you mentioned, society and thinking. Early societies noticed that constant fighting and antisocial behavior was very disruptive to life so they began punishing people who engage in disruptive behavior. This meant that if one wanted to steal or kill then one had to do it in such a way that it would be undetected. Stealing and killing was not wrong, but there were consequences if one got caught. Also, if a member of this tribe were powerful enough he would be able to openly kill or steal and nobody would be able to do anything about it, as this person would be too powerful to punish. People like Ramses, Nero, Genghis Khan Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong etc. Their behavior was simply the natural order, to say that they were immoral is meaningless.

Therefore the Holocaust was not wrong because of evolution, society or thinking.

[JohnA]

.

We have not been programmed by evolution to think murder is wrong.

If evolution does not program humans into thinking that murder is wrong, then we can rule out evolution as the source of our moral instinct.
Then we can move on to the other two things you mentioned, society and thinking. Early societies noticed that constant fighting and antisocial behavior was very disruptive to life so they began punishing people who engage in disruptive behavior. This meant that if one wanted to steal or kill then one had to do it in such a way that it would be undetected. Stealing and killing was not wrong, but there were consequences if one got caught. Also, if a member of this tribe were powerful enough he would be able to openly kill or steal and nobody would be able to do anything about it, as this person would be too powerful to punish. People like Ramses, Nero, Genghis Khan Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong etc. Their behavior was simply the natural order, to say that they were immoral is meaningless.

Therefore the Holocaust was not wrong because of evolution, society or thinking.

That is the best non sequitur ever, anchored in logical fallacious fallacies. I will address these later.

I want you to answer me first.
Do you accept Evolution as fact?
What is your definition of 'wrong'?
What is your definition of morally wrong, or immoral?

If you do not answer them then this debate is over. I wasted my time with your dishonest debate style, exposed you illogical digma drivel , offered you my time and got your delusional repetitive agley dogma in return.

At least be honest with yourself.

[keithprosser3]

Surely, if it was objectively wrong, then the Nazi's could not have executed the Holocaust.

They could have been mistaken and thought genocide was ok even though it is objectively wrong. It is possible to be mistaken - or deliberately misled - about objective facts.

The Nazis could have believed the world was flat, but that wouldn't make the world flat. Initially very few Germans believed genocide was acceptable, even if anti-semitism existed it didn't go as far as that. The acceptability of genocide was engineered by skilful and all-pervasive propaganda run by whole government departments responsible for that and only that. It would have been scarcely more difficult for the nazis to persuade the German people that the world was flat as they completely controlled schools and the media. The fact that genocide is wrong can be - and was - masked and corrupted by Himmler, Streicher et al. link to some Nazi propaganda

It's a pity the Nazis were racists rather than flat-earthers.

[olavisjo]

.

Do you accept Evolution as fact?

Red Herring.

What is your definition of 'wrong'?
What is your definition of morally wrong, or immoral?

wrong noun \ˈrȯŋ\

• : behavior that is not morally good or correct
  
  : a harmful, unfair, or illegal act

Full Definition of WRONG
1

• a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause
  b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort

2

• : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law

source

[JohnA]

Surely, if it was objectively wrong, then the Nazi's could not have executed the Holocaust.

They could have been mistaken and thought genocide was ok even though it is objectively wrong. It is possible to be mistaken - or deliberately misled - about objective facts.

The Nazis could have believed the world was flat, but that wouldn't make the world flat. Initially very few Germans believed genocide was acceptable, even if anti-semitism existed it didn't go as far as that. The acceptability of genocide was engineered by skilful and all-pervasive propaganda run by whole government departments responsible for that and only that. It would have been scarcely more difficult for the nazis to persuade the German people that the world was flat as they completely controlled schools and the media. The fact that genocide is wrong can be - and was - masked and corrupted by Himmler, Streicher et al. link to some Nazi propaganda

It's a pity the Nazis were racists rather than flat-earthers.

You just argued that morals are subjective. And I agree.
However, your analogy of morals with facts fails miserably.

If your god decreed rape and murder as good, would you think it is acceptable?