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]

[keithprosser3]

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you from now on. I want you to know that I am.

[JohnA]

.

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

Ah. You did not answer my questions. So you decided not to proceed?

Your red herring claim is an assertion fallacy because you did not back it up. It's Ok though. We both know you do not accept evolution - you convinced me conclusively in your arguments that lingers your lack of understanding of it. And your redial to accept evolution is not due to religion since many Christians accepts the objective gave of evolution.
However, your unwillingness to answer the question says more about you than you think. This should give you some serious pause and re-examine your beliefs and debate style.
You have so many of my other questions that you still need to answer. Dishonest debate is not a good add for religion.

Notice, there was no ref to your god in the def of wrong you provided. Am glad you saw this and admitted before that you just define objective morals to sneak in your god. You also admitted that you would not agree with your god if he decrees rape as not wrong. We now know your god is not needed for morals and it's subjective.
So what is the source of these subjective morals? Well you can answer that self seeing that you are doing so well so far:

Based on your definition of wrong, can you now tell us how do you know the Holocaust would be wrong if your god decreed it not wrong.

[olavisjo]

.

Your red herring claim is an assertion fallacy because you did not back it up.

Evolution is irrelevant concerning morality, even you implied that here...

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

[JohnA]

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you from now on. I want you to know that I am.

So you have shake-able religious beliefs!

Jesus will be upset with you since he orders you to be perfect and to defend your faith. But you will ignore your Jesus, similar to how you ignore that your god decreed genocide as acceptable, yet you do not agree as you clearly argued. According to Yahweh the Holocaust was a good thing, yet you reject this as wrong. If your god needs to appeal to your reason, why not just eliminate him? Oh, you already did, but you just refuse to admit it, so you ignore me instead.

We both know you read this. Be honest with yourself.

[olavisjo]

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you from now on. I want you to know that I am.

So you have shake-able religious beliefs!

Jesus will be upset with you since he orders you to be perfect and to defend your faith. But you will ignore your Jesus, similar to how you ignore that your god decreed genocide as acceptable, yet you do not agree as you clearly argued. According to Yahweh the Holocaust was a good thing, yet you reject this as wrong. If your god needs to appeal to your reason, why not just eliminate him? Oh, you already did, but you just refuse to admit it, so you ignore me instead.

We both know you read this. Be honest with yourself.

Did you notice the tag Atheist under Keithprosser's username? If he considers himself an Atheist then I don't think he needs to defend any faith.

[JohnA]

.

Your red herring claim is an assertion fallacy because you did not back it up.

Evolution is irrelevant concerning morality, even you implied that here...

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

Evolution is irrelevant concerning morality, ....

That is not telling me why my question if you reject evolution as scientific fact or not is a red herring.
So, I am assuming you reject evolution as scientific fact. Correct me if I am wrong.

Evolution is irrelevant concerning morality, even you implied that here...

Nope, you are straw manning me saying that I implied evolution has nothing to say about morality.
If evolution had nothing to do with morality, then why do human animals exist today? Why did we get to where we are even before there were institutionalized societies making laws and discussing things in public squares?
Even you yourself wrote:

Early societies noticed that constant fighting and antisocial behavior was very disruptive to life so they began punishing people who engage in disruptive behavior.

So, how would these people realize that it was disruptive to life? Smaller societies became bigger societies and needed more 'structure' to avoid extinction, thus wanted to maximize survival.

I said that evolution does not program humans. Evolution is not a 'thing' like your god.
I already gave you the description of evolution and the source so that you can read it for yourself. But, you already have decided that you reject evolution and it can not be on religious grounds since many religious people accept evolution. You are probably rejecting it because you refuse to learn about it and / or your religious denomination instructs via authority for you to reject scientific fact.
I also said that evolution is not responsible for us humans making laws; there is no 'law' gene or a gene that instructs us to formulate 'laws'. This does not imply that evolution has nothing to do why we do not kill our young on birth or kill if it will minimize extinction / maximize survival. Strictly speaking evolution does ensure "Survival of the Fittest" via "Natural selection" = "better designed for an immediate, local environment", not your inference of "in the best physical shape".
Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)
Survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next. (source: Colby, Chris (1996-1997), Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 2009-02-22) .

You still have ALL my questions to deal with.

Notice, there was no reference to your god in the definition of 'wrong' you provided. Am glad you saw this and admitted before that you just define 'objective morals' to sneak in your god. You also admitted that you would not agree with your god if he decrees rape as not wrong. We now know your god is not needed for morals and morals are subjective.
So, the question now is: what is the source of these subjective morals? Well you can answer that self seeing that you are doing so well so far:

Based on your definition of 'wrong', can you now tell us how do you know the Holocaust would be wrong if your god decreed it 'not wrong'?

[arian]

[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]

Since God exists outside of human opinion, the only way to answer this is to watch, listen and learn, from the overall behavior and actions of both parties, the Godless and the Believers. The answer then becomes a no-brainer.

I would like to point out the "Final Solution" that is Now Playing on the worlds stage, it is the last scene on the lessons of Good and Evil. The play is called Agenda 21. Here we can see two very different moral objective values, one, the victims representative of innocents from the side of good, and the other, the perpetrators from the side of evil. This too should prove to be a no-brainer for those who can distinguish between good and evil.

So the foundation for moral objective values is in absolutes, not gray areas like atheists/unbelievers try to delude it down to, but absolutes. Like absolute evil and absolute good, but if one lost his ability to distinguish good from evil, he has no foundation, and is like a stick in the ocean being tossed to and fro by the waves. To such, your question; "what is the foundation for moral objective values?" is truly and totally 'meaningless' as we can see in the debates.

After 9-11 President Bush (who Christians adored as a fellow Christian) named countries as "The Axis of Evil", and every church I went to since then, never once considered that maybe WE are that axis of evil? So they proudly sent their sons and daughters to slaughter the innocent, the weak and helpless, the poor and confused, their fellow Christians and Muslims side by side in tanks and bombers with atheists and un-believers. Another good example of a Nation with no foundation. Money is not a foundation to go out and murder even if the words; "In God We Trust" is written on the back. Obviously the wicked that printed paper money knew what they were doing when they printed that phrase on there leaving out the word 'this', as in "In This God We Trust", and it is obvious that we will fight to the death and kill anyone and everyone to protect this god.

But now, .. God will use this Agenda to take it away from everyone, paper money will vanish as quick as it appeared, and with it the kingdoms that were built upon it will crumble. Mans main foundation for moral objective values washed away like sand from under their feet!

Revelation 18:2
And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 272 by arian]

Appreciate your nice opinions, but you lack substance (facts).


If your god decreed rape and murder as 'not wrong', would you agree?

[Bust Nak]

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'?

You apologize yet you keep on doing it. Do you still want to maintain that you are innocence against my accusation re: backhand implication that those who don't accept moral objectivism think the Holocaust was fine?

[keithprosser3]

I think anyone who thinks the holocaust was fine is unlikely to reject objective morality. More likely they will embrace objective morality wholeheartedly, but have a warped sense of what is objectively moral.

Rather I think it is that people who reject objective morality - usually on the basis of an exaggerated regard for rigorous proof - are forced into the awkward position of almost having to defend the Nazis to maintain some consistency rather than harbouring latent anti-semitism.

Perhaps the problem is that demanding a logically rigorous proof that the holocaust was evil before we start out makes the job of discovering why it is evil hard to begin.