Moral objective values...

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
whisperit
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:15 pm

Moral objective values...

Post #1

Post by 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

Post #301

Post by keithprosser3 »

So there is an actual right and wrong but not an objective right and wrong.

Got it.

So is the holocaust actually bad?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #302

Post by Goat »

keithprosser3 wrote: So there is an actual right and wrong but not an objective right and wrong.

Got it.

So is the holocaust actually bad?
Subjectively, to the victims, yes, it was actually bad. That goes to the families, and the survivors too.

Ever meet and talk to a concentration camp survivor?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
10CC
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:51 am
Location: Godzone

Re: What is objective morals?

Post #303

Post by 10CC »

olavisjo wrote: .
help3434 wrote: Who is denying there is a right and wrong?
Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an actual right or wrong.
How absolutely wrong could this not be? It couldn't.
What an asinine thing to say.

Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, tell me JUST ONE objective moral and you will win this argument.

That's it.
Just ONE objective moral that is right and you win. Just ONE.
Last edited by 10CC on Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'll tell you everything I've learned...................
and LOVE is all he said

-The Boy With The Moon and Star On His Head-Cat Stevens.

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post #304

Post by olavisjo »

.
Goat wrote: Subjectively, to the victims, yes, it was actually bad. That goes to the families, and the survivors too.

Ever meet and talk to a concentration camp survivor?
I never did meet them, but here is a list of survivors.

Subjectively, it was not actually all that bad for them.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."

C.S. Lewis

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: What is objective morals?

Post #305

Post by olavisjo »

.
10CC wrote:
olavisjo wrote:
help3434 wrote: Who is denying there is a right and wrong?
Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an actual right or wrong.
How absolutely wrong could this not be? It couldn't.
What an asinine thing to say.

Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, tell me JUST ONE objective moral and you will win this argument.

That's it.
Just ONE objective moral that is right and you win. Just ONE.
It seems to me that you made a claim that you never defended, would you care to do so, or show me where you already did. Else, please withdraw your claim.
olavisjo wrote:
10CC wrote: Yes it's a very subjective definition. But try to defend it if you want.
A definition need not be defended.
10CC wrote: Probably a good idea, since [claim] there is no such thing as objective morality. [/claim]
You made the claim, please defend it or withdraw it.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."

C.S. Lewis

User avatar
10CC
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:51 am
Location: Godzone

Post #306

Post by 10CC »

olavisjo wrote: .
Goat wrote: Subjectively, to the victims, yes, it was actually bad. That goes to the families, and the survivors too.

Ever meet and talk to a concentration camp survivor?
I never did meet them, but here is a list of survivors.

Subjectively, it was not actually all that bad for them.
Just one moral imperative that is OBJECTIVE, that's all I ask.
I'll tell you everything I've learned...................
and LOVE is all he said

-The Boy With The Moon and Star On His Head-Cat Stevens.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #307

Post by Goat »

olavisjo wrote: .
Goat wrote: Subjectively, to the victims, yes, it was actually bad. That goes to the families, and the survivors too.

Ever meet and talk to a concentration camp survivor?
I never did meet them, but here is a list of survivors.

Subjectively, it was not actually all that bad for them.

I have to disagree.. I have met survivors. Subjectively it was bad for them. I have met people who saw their families killed in front of them. Subjectively it was bad for them. So, don't give me that nonsense.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

keithprosser3

Post #308

Post by keithprosser3 »

Goat - did you actually click the link Olavisjo provided? It's to a list of Nazi war criminals, a rather dark inversion of expectation for the word 'survivor'.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #309

Post by Goat »

keithprosser3 wrote: Goat - did you actually click the link Olavisjo provided? It's to a list of Nazi war criminals, a rather dark inversion of expectation for the word 'survivor'.
No, I didn't.

However, that does not stop the fact I have friends whose families were intimately involved in being victims.

And, many of those 'war criminals' were put into prison or executed for their actions. I would not call them 'unaffected' by it..

And, I would not call any of them 'survivors of the holocaust' either. That is a very insulting and highly bigoted equivocation.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

keithprosser3

Post #310

Post by keithprosser3 »

I am sure Olavisjo will post his own apology shortly. It is unfortunate that the holocaust has become our go-to example of an evil act when it is a matter of genuine personal concern to many. I will try to keep that in mind.

Post Reply