Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Divine Insight]

I can sympathize with this, though I don't completely agree with it. I think the church now (and even in the past), has been far away from what Jesus really wanted it to be.

But how could this be?

You have just suggested that God's message is "Clear enough". Yet you seem to be prepared that churches have it all wrong.

Why should so many churches have it all wrong if the message is clear enough?

And what exactly is clear?

I can see that the Bible is a story that proclaims that we are all in hot water with a God who expects us all to "repent" our evil ways. That part of the "message" is pretty clear.

But why should anyone believe such nonsense?

That is the part that is totally unclear.

It's not that I don't understand the basic story. It's just that I think it's absolute nonsense.

Moreover, what would be the result of this?

According to Jesus those who hunger and thirst for "righteousness" will be fulfilled.

Well, I certainly hunger and thirst for "righteousness", in fact, I actually reject the overall Christian religion precisely because I feel that it is totally "unrighteous".

So what happens now?

Will I be fulfilled as Jesus claimed?

Or will I be damned for not believing in Hebrew mythology or that Jesus was the demigod son of God?

We can't have it both ways. Either I'll be fulfilled as Jesus preached in the beatitudes, or I'll be damned as John proclaims that everyone who doesn't believe in the name of Jesus as the only begotten son of God shall be damned.

Someone has to be wrong.

I reject Christianity and the Bible because it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles.

And I can't imagine any God condemning me for rejecting an immoral mythology.

But the Bible demands that I must be condemned, because I don't believe that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh or any other God for that matter.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with righteousness or morality.

It's clearly just a man-made religion that condemns everyone who doesn't worship their demigod.

It can't be anything other than this.

I mean if you'd like for something to be crystal clear, I don't think anything can be more clear than this. There is nothing moral about any religion that condemns people for merely not believing in their demigod.

[wiploc]

..

[wiploc]

What's scary about it? Got something against misogyny? Is misogyny wrong in any objective sense? Or is it merely a matter of esthetics, and yours cannot possibly be better or more right than anyone else's?

Yes, I agree that my own personal view that misogyny is disgusting and should not be supported is indeed a personal subjective opinion on my part. It has no objective reality.

You're saying it's your own personal whim. It isn't right or true, it's just your own attitude, something nobody should even want to go along with, let alone sacrifice for.

Have I got that right?

In fact, we know that this is the truth. There are many men who condone, support, and practice misogyny.

You are saying that if many people do something, it cannot be objectively wrong?

I thought the test of objectivity is that it doesn't depend on people's opinions. So how can people disagreeing with something mean it isn't objective?

Many of them actually do so for religious reasons.

You're saying that if people do something for religious reasons, it cannot be objectively wrong?

Is your new test of objectivity that something doesn't depend on people's non-religious opinions?

And of course the Old Testament supports misogyny beginning with the story of Adam and Eve.

So objectivity depends on not disagreeing with the book of contradictions?

God commands that Adam shall rule over his wife and that her desire shall be to him. That misogyny right there. Not to merely be cruel toward women, but to not trust them or give them equal respect is also misogyny. So the Biblical God condones and has even commanded that men should be misogynistic toward their wives.

That really sucks, doesn't it? So why are you claiming that it's only subjectively wrong, a matter of personal idiosyncracy?

So clearly my views against misogyny are indeed subjective and come entirely from me.

Then why should anybody care? What is wrong with being (according to your personal version of morality) immoral?

They are indeed my views and options. You are free to disagree that misogyny is undesirable or wrong in any way.

Gee, thanks.

I cannot prove that misogyny is objectively wrong. I can only offer that in my subjective view I refuse to condone it.

But there is nothing about your subjective view that is any better than any one else's subjective view? Objectively speaking, Hitler was every bit as good as Gandhi? If someone wants to know what morality is highest and best, you've got nothing for them?

As a human I flatly reject ancient Hebrew morality. IMHO, it actually represents barbaric immorality. I refuse to give it my support.

Wouldn't your morality seem barbaric to them? How are we to choose between two moralities?
If it's simply a matter of preference, then why should anyone want to be moral?

What do you mean when you ask, "why should anyone want to be moral?"

What do you mean by moral? Are you suggesting that there is some absolute morality?

I think that, in a secular world, torturing babies for fun is wrong. Rape is wrong. The Holocaust was wrong.

You seem to think that, in a god-afflicted world, those things could be "good" if the god said they were.

And you seem to think that in a secular world, those behaviors are merely distasteful, and that only to people with a certain sense of taste.

If my subjective sense of morality seems barbaric to other people I can't help that. I can only offer my views on what I feel is the best course of action or behavior.

And there's the issue: What do mean by best?

Because, up to this point, you seem to have been arguing that there is no such thing. You seem to be arguing that respecting women is a personality quirk akin to preferring chocolate to vanilla.

Other people can either agree with me and respect women as being respectable sovereign beings worthy of egalitarian rights, or they can be misogynistic in their views and behavior.

But you're saying there is no reason for us to agree with you. There is no way to choose between your morality and anyone else's?

I can't force people to accept my sense of morality.

Nobody's talking about force.

(Well, actually, theists often use force as one of the four justifications of theistic morality. But they never defend it if challenged. Rather, they jump to one of the other justifications until that is challenged.)

Do you really believe that---force aside---there is no reason that people should respect women?

But I can support the sovereignty of women and advocate egalitarian rights.

But as a whim or personal idiosyncrasy, right? Not because it is, in any significant way, good?

I can also argue on grounds of pure logic and reason why I feel that it only makes intelligent sense to respect the sovereignty of women. So I can actually offer purely secular reasoning why my sense of morality also equates to being intelligent.

Well it's about time. Let's have your reasoning.

IMHO, misogyny is stupid.

That's it? People should agree with you because In Your Humble Opinion? What if someone else has an opinion?

What if people profit by oppressing women? Should they still agree with you?

And since the Biblical God himself supports misogyny I have no choice but to conclude that Hebrew mythology is also stupid.

I gotta admire your moral instincts, but I can't say you're doing a good job of selling the idea of being virtuous.

Calling things you don't like "stupid" isn't going to win converts.

Theists like to claim that, absent god, everything is permissible, one behavior is as good as another, kindness is not preferable to cruelty. You seem to be supporting them, promoting the idea that atheist morality cannot be meaningful, cannot be a useful guide to significantly good (as opposed to I-like-chocolate-better-than-vanilla good) behavior.

I don't know why you'd want to concede that point.

I also don't know why you'd want to concede that it would be different if there were a god. Suppose a god did exist, and did say that we should oppress women. And suppose that this somehow made suppressing women "objectively moral." Should we then oppress women?

Is it really the case that perverse rules dictated by invisible eccentrics would automatically become the standard of how we should behave?

But in the end I confess that all of this is my subjective opinion and views. Clearly there are many misogynistic evangelists who would curse me as being rebellious against the directives and will of their misogynistic God.

So what? How is this relevant to the question of whether morality is objective?

There's nothing much I can do about that other than to hope that someday they will realized that Hebrew mythology has nothing to do with any real God.

What if their god was real? Should we then oppress women?

[wiploc]

We're after your explanation, so we'll have to let you set the definition. There's no point in asking me to guess what definitions you want to use.

So, in answer to your question, I'm happy to accept whichever answer you prefer.

Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil.

This confuses me. It would have to be considered evil to be objective? I thought the test of objectivity was that it didn't matter what people thought.

It does not matter what people thought about it

There we go. But that conflicts with what you wrote before.

So maybe you meant to write, "Objective evil would be universal."

Which is still confusing. Can we have exceptions, like "Thou shalt not kill, except in self defense?" Or does a rule have to be absolutely without exceptions, as in, "Honor the sabbath, and honor every other day since we can't have exceptions"?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm trying to get what you mean so I'll be able to agree with it. (Since this is going to be your argument, you get to set the definitions.)

(even if people thought it was acceptable); it would be still be evil. For example, exterminating innocent people in the gas chambers would be evil (even if the people doing it thinks it is acceptable). Or another example, forced sterilization of people who do not consent to being sterilized would be evil (even if it is approved of by the Supreme Court).

I'm with you, I think. Let me just test that: Could these things also be good (if god said they were good) even though we think they are evil?

Subjective evil is considered evil that is dependent on a person, group, society.

I've read that over and over, but I can't make it out. You've got that "considered" word in there again. And you seem to be saying that (if there was a god) the Holocaust would be only subjectively evil because only one country did it.

That can't be right. I mean, it's right if you say it's right, but is that what you really mean?

It doesn't apply universally.

This seems like a change of topic. Are you saying that if god said to rape your daughters on Tuesdays, that would be subjectively good, but if he said to do it every day then would be objective because the application is universal?

Again, whatever you say goes, but I have to double check before assuming you really mean this. It would, for instance, mean that Jehovah's rules are not objective, because they changed in the new testament.

Things can be evil at one time, and then be considered good at another time.

Right, my point exactly, the new rules for the testament.

It all depends on what society accepts at that time.

Once again, this seems like a change of topic. I don't see what the opinions of societies have to do with what we're talking about. Unless maybe you're using cultural relativism as one example of a non-objective morality?

[Divine Insight]

You're saying it's your own personal whim. It isn't right or true, it's just your own attitude, something nobody should even want to go along with, let alone sacrifice for.

Have I got that right?

No, not even close. Where did I say that nobody should even want to go along with my views on morality? On the contrary I think that most people actually would. Especially if they are intelligent people.

In fact, we know that this is the truth. There are many men who condone, support, and practice misogyny.

You are saying that if many people do something, it cannot be objectively wrong?

There can be no such thing as "objectively wrong". Who would be the judge of that?

Can you say that a tornado that hit college dorm and killed a bunch of innocent students was "objectively wrong"? If so, then clearly we live in a universe that is "objectively wrong".

Many of them actually do so for religious reasons.

You're saying that if people do something for religious reasons, it cannot be objectively wrong?

I don't support the concept that anything can be "objectively wrong". It can only be deemed to be "subjectively wrong" by whoever is passing judgement on the concept in question.

Is your new test of objectivity that something doesn't depend on people's non-religious opinions?

Objective morality would not depend on anyone's opinions.

And of course the Old Testament supports misogyny beginning with the story of Adam and Eve.

So objectivity depends on not disagreeing with the book of contradictions?

Why do you keep talking about "objectivity"?

I have already rejected the notion of objective morality.

There is no such thing as objective morality or objective "evil".

At best you might be able to obtain a large consensus on subjective opinions. But even if you obtained a 100% subjective agreement, that still wouldn't make it objective.

God commands that Adam shall rule over his wife and that her desire shall be to him. That misogyny right there. Not to merely be cruel toward women, but to not trust them or give them equal respect is also misogyny. So the Biblical God condones and has even commanded that men should be misogynistic toward their wives.

That really sucks, doesn't it? So why are you claiming that it's only subjectively wrong, a matter of personal idiosyncracy?

Because I hold that for me it is subjectively 'wrong'. That's my own personal opinion on the matter. Clearly those who believe in the Bible will have a different subjective view.

So clearly my views against misogyny are indeed subjective and come entirely from me.

Then why should anybody care? What is wrong with being (according to your personal version of morality) immoral?

Apparently there are a LOT of people in this world who have no problem being what I consider to be immoral. I personally, and subjectively, also deem that such people are stupid.

Your opinion may vary obviously.

They are indeed my views and options. You are free to disagree that misogyny is undesirable or wrong in any way.

Gee, thanks.

So do you personally approve of misogyny?

After all, you are free to chose whatever you believe to be "moral" based on your own subjective standards.

I cannot prove that misogyny is objectively wrong. I can only offer that in my subjective view I refuse to condone it.

But there is nothing about your subjective view that is any better than any one else's subjective view? Objectively speaking, Hitler was every bit as good as Gandhi? If someone wants to know what morality is highest and best, you've got nothing for them?

If someone needs me to decide for them what they believe is moral then they are already in truly sad shape.

I think that, in a secular world, torturing babies for fun is wrong. Rape is wrong. The Holocaust was wrong.

That's your personal subjective opinion and you are free to hold it. I happen to be in agreement with those same sentiments. But that doesn't make them objective.

You seem to think that, in a god-afflicted world, those things could be "good" if the god said they were.

Yes that's right. If there truly was an all-powerful creator God who makes the rules than you and I would have no choice in the matter. If God said that torturing babies is ok, you and I could complain until the cows come home and it wouldn't matter. We'd just be cast into eternal hell for disagreeing with God and God would still hold that torturing babies is ok. And unfortunately for you and me THAT would be reality.

And you seem to think that in a secular world, those behaviors are merely distasteful, and that only to people with a certain sense of taste.

And that is indeed the truth in a secular world.

After all, who's deciding what is right or wrong? Clearly we are.

There is no one else to decide. And therefore the sooner we realize that it's entirely up to us the better off we'll be.

If my subjective sense of morality seems barbaric to other people I can't help that. I can only offer my views on what I feel is the best course of action or behavior.

And there's the issue: What do mean by best?

Because, up to this point, you seem to have been arguing that there is no such thing. You seem to be arguing that respecting women is a personality quirk akin to preferring chocolate to vanilla.

That's exactly right. As humans we need to define a system to determine what we deem to be the "best". And that's going to require sitting down and coming up with some unprovable axioms that we can all agree on. Just like we do everything else.

Sam Harris covers this quite well. The overwhelming majority of people tend to agree that not suffering is better than suffering. So we can use that as a bottom line axiom and start working up from there. Women who are being oppressed are clearly suffering more than women who are not being oppressed. So logically misogyny is out in terms of "secular morality".

It's based on LOGIC. But even that logic must have foundational concepts such as a previous consensus that non-suffering is better than suffering.

We need to start somewhere and so we appeal to intellect and reason.

What's wrong with that?

Other people can either agree with me and respect women as being respectable sovereign beings worthy of egalitarian rights, or they can be misogynistic in their views and behavior.

But you're saying there is no reason for us to agree with you. There is no way to choose between your morality and anyone else's?

Sure there is. There's logic, reason, and intelligence.

Of course there will always be illogical unreasonable and unintelligent people who will fight against this. But that's a given.

I can't force people to accept my sense of morality.

Nobody's talking about force.

Religions talk about forced morality. If you disagree with the morality of their God he will unless unimaginable wrath and force against you. There will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

(Well, actually, theists often use force as one of the four justifications of theistic morality. But they never defend it if challenged. Rather, they jump to one of the other justifications until that is challenged.)

I should have read faster, I see that you already recognize that religions talk about forced morality.

Do you really believe that---force aside---there is no reason that people should respect women?

I never said there is no reason. I simply said that I can't force other people to accept my morality. I never said that I might not be able to convince reasonable people to accept my morality. I think most reasonable people would accept it.

But I can support the sovereignty of women and advocate egalitarian rights.

But as a whim or personal idiosyncrasy, right? Not because it is, in any significant way, good?

I subjectively hold that it's the intelligent thing to do. That's really all I can offer.

Misogynists will obviously disagree with me.

I can also argue on grounds of pure logic and reason why I feel that it only makes intelligent sense to respect the sovereignty of women. So I can actually offer purely secular reasoning why my sense of morality also equates to being intelligent.

Well it's about time. Let's have your reasoning.

See Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values"

I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. Sam Harris has already covered this.

IMHO, misogyny is stupid.

That's it? People should agree with you because In Your Humble Opinion? What if someone else has an opinion?

What if people profit by oppressing women? Should they still agree with you?

Why should I care if people agree with me? It's not my job to teach humanity moral values. As far as I'm concerned people who need to be taught moral values are already in really bad shape. They may even be unteachable.

We don't go around trying to teach animals moral values, yet we manage to live in the same world with other animals. Humans are just apes. And some of them behave like apes. Even if you try to teach them moral values they are still going to be have like apes, or even worse.

It's not my job to teach humanity morality.

And since the Biblical God himself supports misogyny I have no choice but to conclude that Hebrew mythology is also stupid.

I gotta admire your moral instincts, but I can't say you're doing a good job of selling the idea of being virtuous.

Calling things you don't like "stupid" isn't going to win converts.

I'm not trying to win any converts. In fact this thread isn't even supposed to be about morality.

Theists like to claim that, absent god, everything is permissible, one behavior is as good as another, kindness is not preferable to cruelty. You seem to be supporting them, promoting the idea that atheist morality cannot be meaningful, cannot be a useful guide to significantly good (as opposed to I-like-chocolate-better-than-vanilla good) behavior.

I don't know why you'd want to concede that point.

I don't concede that point. That's your misunderstanding of my position.

Theists who claim that they would be "immoral" if there were no God are basically proclaiming to the world that they are indeed "immoral" people at heart.

Such people get no respect from me.

I also don't know why you'd want to concede that it would be different if there were a god. Suppose a god did exist, and did say that we should oppress women. And suppose that this somehow made suppressing women "objectively moral." Should we then oppress women?

Only if we wanted to save our own soul from being cast into hell.

I have made the point repeating on these forums that I would reject the Biblical God even if it were REAL. If Christianity were true I would chose to go to hell rather than support what I considered to be an immoral creator.

Is it really the case that perverse rules dictated by invisible eccentrics would automatically become the standard of how we should behave?

If those perverted invisible eccentrics were "Real" then yes, you would have no choice in the matter. Either do as they say or be cast into an eternal hell fire.

As I have stated endlessly I would choose to be cast into the hell fire if that were reality.

But in the end I confess that all of this is my subjective opinion and views. Clearly there are many misogynistic evangelists who would curse me as being rebellious against the directives and will of their misogynistic God.

So what? How is this relevant to the question of whether morality is objective?

Well I don't even know why we are discussing this in this thread. This thread is supposed to be about justifying a belief in God, and if I recall correctly you even started it.

There's nothing much I can do about that other than to hope that someday they will realized that Hebrew mythology has nothing to do with any real God.

What if their god was real? Should we then oppress women?

Either that or be cast into hell. Those are the only two choices you would have.

Like I say, I would chose to be cast into hell.

What would you choose?

[KenRU]

[Replying to otseng]

I never claimed that a supernatural cause is a scientific answer. The only thing I claimed is that making an assumption and making a prediction is not splitting hairs.
In this case, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're claiming lack of evidence (in essence) is evidence for belief in a supernatural origin of the universe.

Call (or don't call it) splitting hairs, or circular logic, or whatever you like. Citing the lack of an answer does not seem to me to be a good basis for evidence in this case. Especially considering what we know now vs. what we knew just 50 years ago.

Yes, you're mistaken.
Please explain how. If you're wrong and science does provide an explanation down the road, how would this not be a God of the Gaps scenario.
You stated:
"Well, perhaps I'm mistaken, but the parts of god (properties) that are proven to be false by science, would most certainly be falsifiable. What's left becomes non-falsifiable ... for the time being."

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter? There are certainly many factual inaccuracies in the bible. But even if nothing about god has ever been proven false by science (which I disagree with), I still don't see how it couldn't be considered a god of the gaps, given your earlier admissions.

But in the case of God, the evidence is that there was a temporal beginning to the universe.
Science also has many models that account for how it began - without the need for a Cause. So, science is reliable enough to for you to believe the universe "began" but not reliable enough to believe that a Creator is not necessary for its inception?

[wiploc]

You're saying it's your own personal whim. It isn't right or true, it's just your own attitude, something nobody should even want to go along with, let alone sacrifice for.

Have I got that right?

No, not even close. Where did I say that nobody should even want to go along with my views on morality? On the contrary I think that most people actually would. Especially if they are intelligent people.

Okay, I'm confused. When you say your morality is subjective, aren't you saying it is just your personal opinion? Why, then, should anyone else want to go along with it?

In fact, we know that this is the truth. There are many men who condone, support, and practice misogyny.

You are saying that if many people do something, it cannot be objectively wrong?

There can be no such thing as "objectively wrong". Who would be the judge of that?

Then why did you bring up the men who condone misogyny?

Can you say that a tornado that hit college dorm and killed a bunch of innocent students was "objectively wrong"? If so, then clearly we live in a universe that is "objectively wrong".

A tornado is not a free moral agent.

Many of them actually do so for religious reasons.

You're saying that if people do something for religious reasons, it cannot be objectively wrong?

I don't support the concept that anything can be "objectively wrong". It can only be deemed to be "subjectively wrong" by whoever is passing judgement on the concept in question.

Then why did you bring up the religious reasons?

Is your new test of objectivity that something doesn't depend on people's non-religious opinions?

Objective morality would not depend on anyone's opinions.

Then why did you bring up the religious opinions? I'm not understanding your point.

And of course the Old Testament supports misogyny beginning with the story of Adam and Eve.

So objectivity depends on not disagreeing with the book of contradictions?

Why do you keep talking about "objectivity"?

Otseng says we can't have objective evil without gods. When I try to discuss that with him, you jump in insisting that he's right. So you're the one bringing it up, not me.

I have already rejected the notion of objective morality.

There is no such thing as objective morality or objective "evil".

At best you might be able to obtain a large consensus on subjective opinions. But even if you obtained a 100% subjective agreement, that still wouldn't make it objective.

Agreed. Objective morality doesn't depend on anyone's opinions. So how could the opinion of a god create an objective morality?

God commands that Adam shall rule over his wife and that her desire shall be to him. That misogyny right there. Not to merely be cruel toward women, but to not trust them or give them equal respect is also misogyny. So the Biblical God condones and has even commanded that men should be misogynistic toward their wives.

That really sucks, doesn't it? So why are you claiming that it's only subjectively wrong, a matter of personal idiosyncracy?

Because I hold that for me it is subjectively 'wrong'. That's my own personal opinion on the matter. Clearly those who believe in the Bible will have a different subjective view.

So it's just a matter of opinion. In that case, if it is not a matter of fact but of opinion, isn't everything allowable? Isn't one opinion as good as another? Isn't rape just as good as respecting women?

Why should anyone go along with your personal whim about respecting women?

So clearly my views against misogyny are indeed subjective and come entirely from me.

Then why should anybody care? What is wrong with being (according to your personal version of morality) immoral?

Apparently there are a LOT of people in this world who have no problem being what I consider to be immoral. I personally, and subjectively, also deem that such people are stupid.

Your opinion may vary obviously.

They are indeed my views and options. You are free to disagree that misogyny is undesirable or wrong in any way.

Gee, thanks.

So do you personally approve of misogyny?

No.

After all, you are free to chose whatever you believe to be "moral" based on your own subjective standards.

Again, thanks.

What would be the point of subjective standards? You say I'm off base when I ask whether subjective standards are just a whim that nobody has reason to agree with. But you don't explain why anyone should agree with yours.

You call people who disagree stupid, but now you've said that they are subjectively stupid. That is, they seem stupid to you. That's not much of a case.

Do you have a case? Is there any reason, in your world of subjective morality, for other people to want to respect women?

I cannot prove that misogyny is objectively wrong. I can only offer that in my subjective view I refuse to condone it.

But there is nothing about your subjective view that is any better than any one else's subjective view? Objectively speaking, Hitler was every bit as good as Gandhi? If someone wants to know what morality is highest and best, you've got nothing for them?

If someone needs me to decide for them what they believe is moral then they are already in truly sad shape.

Once again, you seem to be saying that your subjective morality is personal to you, and that it can't or doesn't affect other people. The best you can offer by way of a reason not to rape is that you personally will subjectively think that the rapist is stupid.

I think that, in a secular world, torturing babies for fun is wrong. Rape is wrong. The Holocaust was wrong.

That's your personal subjective opinion and you are free to hold it. I happen to be in agreement with those same sentiments. But that doesn't make them objective.

No, your agreement cannot make them objective.

You seem to think that, in a god-afflicted world, those things could be "good" if the god said they were.

Yes that's right. If there truly was an all-powerful creator God who makes the rules than you and I would have no choice in the matter. If God said that torturing babies is ok, you and I could complain until the cows come home and it wouldn't matter. We'd just be cast into eternal hell for disagreeing with God and God would still hold that torturing babies is ok. And unfortunately for you and me THAT would be reality.

And you seem to think that in a secular world, those behaviors are merely distasteful, and that only to people with a certain sense of taste.

And that is indeed the truth in a secular world.

After all, who's deciding what is right or wrong? Clearly we are.

There is no one else to decide. And therefore the sooner we realize that it's entirely up to us the better off we'll be.

How will we better off if everyone can do anything he wants as long as he thinks other people are stupid?

If my subjective sense of morality seems barbaric to other people I can't help that. I can only offer my views on what I feel is the best course of action or behavior.

And there's the issue: What do mean by best?

Because, up to this point, you seem to have been arguing that there is no such thing. You seem to be arguing that respecting women is a personality quirk akin to preferring chocolate to vanilla.

That's exactly right. As humans we need to define a system to determine what we deem to be the "best". And that's going to require sitting down and coming up with some unprovable axioms that we can all agree on. Just like we do everything else.

Sam Harris covers this quite well. The overwhelming majority of people tend to agree that not suffering is better than suffering. So we can use that as a bottom line axiom and start working up from there. Women who are being oppressed are clearly suffering more than women who are not being oppressed. So logically misogyny is out in terms of "secular morality".

It's based on LOGIC. But even that logic must have foundational concepts such as a previous consensus that non-suffering is better than suffering.

We need to start somewhere and so we appeal to intellect and reason.

What's wrong with that?

Sam Harris made me a moral realist, so I'm with you that far.

I just don't see why you keep shooting yourself in the foot by insisting that morality comes down to personal caprice. "I happen to like respecting women, and I'll think you're stupid if you don't too." That's not helping the team. You don't see Harris doing that.

Other people can either agree with me and respect women as being respectable sovereign beings worthy of egalitarian rights, or they can be misogynistic in their views and behavior.

But you're saying there is no reason for us to agree with you. There is no way to choose between your morality and anyone else's?

Sure there is. There's logic, reason, and intelligence.

The intelligence, you say, turns out to be subjective, your personal viewpoint. Is the logic and reason subjective too?

You're passionate in your insistence that this is all subjective, but you're very cryptic when asked for a reason atheists should try to be good.

Of course there will always be illogical unreasonable and unintelligent people who will fight against this. But that's a given.

But that's your personal subjective view, right, that they are illogical, unreasonable, unintelligent? As long as they can, with equal authority, subjectively view you as the one who is illogical, unreasonable, and unintelligent, then there's nothing corrective or instructive that we can say to them.

Because all sense of rightness is subjective, and because our subjective sense of rightness---if you are correct---is all we have to justify respecting women, then any behavior really is as good as any other.

The theists are right about atheist morality, even if they aren't right about theist morality. Anything goes.

If that's true, it has to suck to be an atheist. Doesn't it?

I can't force people to accept my sense of morality.

Nobody's talking about force.

Religions talk about forced morality. If you disagree with the morality of their God he will unless unimaginable wrath and force against you. There will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

(Well, actually, theists often use force as one of the four justifications of theistic morality. But they never defend it if challenged. Rather, they jump to one of the other justifications until that is challenged.)

I should have read faster, I see that you already recognize that religions talk about forced morality.

Do you really believe that---force aside---there is no reason that people should respect women?

I never said there is no reason.

But the only reason you give is that you personally subjectively view people who disagree with you as stupid. You've brought a knife to a gunfight.

I simply said that I can't force other people to accept my morality. I never said that I might not be able to convince reasonable people to accept my morality. I think most reasonable people would accept it.

Subjectively (in your own personal viewpoint) reasonable people?

How are you going to persuade them. I don't think calling them subjectively stupid is going to work. Why should anybody fall in with your subjective views?

But I can support the sovereignty of women and advocate egalitarian rights.

But as a whim or personal idiosyncrasy, right? Not because it is, in any significant way, good?

I subjectively hold that it's the intelligent thing to do. That's really all I can offer.

Then you've got nothing. Why do keep saying that reasonable people will agree with you if that's all you've got?

Misogynists will obviously disagree with me.

Worse, they'll keep disagreeing with you.

I can also argue on grounds of pure logic and reason why I feel that it only makes intelligent sense to respect the sovereignty of women. So I can actually offer purely secular reasoning why my sense of morality also equates to being intelligent.

Well it's about time. Let's have your reasoning.

See Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values"

I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. Sam Harris has already covered this.

He did a great job of proving that respecting women really is better. Objectively better. It really objectively makes people happier. You don't see him throwing it all away by insisting that morality is subjective.

IMHO, misogyny is stupid.

That's it? People should agree with you because In Your Humble Opinion? What if someone else has an opinion?

What if people profit by oppressing women? Should they still agree with you?

Why should I care if people agree with me?

I don't know. You keep butting into this discussion as if you want people to agree. But then you won't come across with a reason.

One minute you're all, hey, logic is on my side, and then when asked to explain that, you say it's a matter of personal viewpoint.

It's not my job to teach humanity moral values.

Is it your job to insist that morality has no objective foundation?

As far as I'm concerned people who need to be taught moral values are already in really bad shape. They may even be unteachable.

So, according to atheist morality, nobody can be helped, nobody can be coaxed toward better behavior? All is hopeless?

We don't go around trying to teach animals moral values, yet we manage to live in the same world with other animals. Humans are just apes. And some of them behave like apes. Even if you try to teach them moral values they are still going to be have like apes, or even worse.

So subjectively intelligent people should agree with you that, morally speaking, things are bleak and depressing?

It's not my job to teach humanity morality.

Is it your job to insist that morality has no objective foundation?

And since the Biblical God himself supports misogyny I have no choice but to conclude that Hebrew mythology is also stupid.

I gotta admire your moral instincts, but I can't say you're doing a good job of selling the idea of being virtuous.

Calling things you don't like "stupid" isn't going to win converts.

I'm not trying to win any converts. In fact this thread isn't even supposed to be about morality.

It's about whether strong atheism is well founded. Otseng wants to refute that with the moral argument, and apparently I have to first deal with your claim that atheist morality should only appeal to depressives.

So I'm dealing.

Theists like to claim that, absent god, everything is permissible, one behavior is as good as another, kindness is not preferable to cruelty. You seem to be supporting them, promoting the idea that atheist morality cannot be meaningful, cannot be a useful guide to significantly good (as opposed to I-like-chocolate-better-than-vanilla good) behavior.

I don't know why you'd want to concede that point.

I don't concede that point. That's your misunderstanding of my position.

Theists who claim that they would be "immoral" if there were no God are basically proclaiming to the world that they are indeed "immoral" people at heart.

Right. I assume that William Lane Craig is lying when he brags about being a moral Cretin. I can't figure out why Christians think we should take our morality from them when they insist that they don't have any.

Harris, on the other hand, has a morality, and sells it well. We should go along with him for objectively logical reasons.

Such people get no respect from me.

I'm with you.

I also don't know why you'd want to concede that it would be different if there were a god. Suppose a god did exist, and did say that we should oppress women. And suppose that this somehow made suppressing women "objectively moral." Should we then oppress women?

Only if we wanted to save our own soul from being cast into hell.

I have made the point repeating on these forums that I would reject the Biblical God even if it were REAL. If Christianity were true I would chose to go to hell rather than support what I considered to be an immoral creator.

Is it really the case that perverse rules dictated by invisible eccentrics would automatically become the standard of how we should behave?

If those perverted invisible eccentrics were "Real" then yes, you would have no choice in the matter. Either do as they say or be cast into an eternal hell fire.

As I have stated endlessly I would choose to be cast into the hell fire if that were reality.

But you'd do that for moral reasons, right? You'd do that to be good?

Which means that even magical omnipotence can't actually produce an objective morality.

If Jehovah said we should rape, Jehovah would be wrong.

Gods can't actually make objective morality.

Gods don't have anything to do with morality.

But in the end I confess that all of this is my subjective opinion and views. Clearly there are many misogynistic evangelists who would curse me as being rebellious against the directives and will of their misogynistic God.

So what? How is this relevant to the question of whether morality is objective?

Well I don't even know why we are discussing this in this thread.

You keep bringing it up. Otseng wants to make the moral argument for the existence of god, and you keep, for some reason, jumping in on his side.

This thread is supposed to be about justifying a belief in God, and if I recall correctly you even started it.

I started it, and apparently the only way I can get on with it is by first dealing with your objections to my objections to the moral argument.

There's nothing much I can do about that other than to hope that someday they will realized that Hebrew mythology has nothing to do with any real God.

What if their god was real? Should we then oppress women?

Either that or be cast into hell. Those are the only two choices you would have.

Like I say, I would chose to be cast into hell.

What would you choose?

I'd do anything to avoid Hellfire. But my compliance with the omnipotent tyrant would not be moral. You can't make something moral by forcing people to do it. Gods can't make something objectively moral.

It's an objective fact that respecting women has a strong tendency to increase happiness. That's what makes respecting women moral.

If a god ordered us to abuse women, there isn't any sense in which that would make abusing women moral. Gods have nothing to do with morality.

[Divine Insight]

Sam Harris made me a moral realist, so I'm with you that far.

I just don't see why you keep shooting yourself in the foot by insisting that morality comes down to personal caprice. "I happen to like respecting women, and I'll think you're stupid if you don't too." That's not helping the team. You don't see Harris doing that.

But Sam Harris is ultimately doing that whether you realize it or not.

I haven't read his actual book, but I have watched him speak about this on several videos. He begins by embracing several totally subjective and unprovable axioms.

He begins by stating that most everyone will agree that suffering is bad and that no one wants so suffer. So he's starting out with something he feels that he can easily gain a large subjective consensus on.

He also CHEATS in a major way by automatically assuming that this applies to all humans (i.e. both male and female equally) So he already has misogyny out of the way early on in this assumption. He's already assuming from the get-go that all humans want to avoid suffering and that men and women should have equal rights when considering what might be the cause of suffering.

It may sound iron-clad "logical" to you, but that's only because you subjectively agree with his starting premises.

But there are many other people who will subjectively disagree with Sam Harris' starting premises. There are many people who will ask, "What does suffering have to do with morality?" There are people who actually believe that suffering is a good thing. There are people who believe that suffering is what teaches us lessons and if we try to remove all suffering we will become stagnant and not learn lessons, etc.

Trust me, Sam Harris himself is getting all manner of opposition to his views on what foundational morality should be built upon.

Religious fanatics will even cite the Bible and proclaim that it's "God's Will" that women are to suffer in childbirth, for example. In fact, the curses that God inflicted upon Adam in terms of hardships were also meant to cause suffering. So they will immediately argue that suffering is actually required by God.

Of course, people like you and me and Sam Harris are going to think that's crazy. It appears to us that if we are going to have a system of "Morality", (which to us is just ethics), then it needs to be based on fairness. And the best way to determine what is "fair" is by attempting to measure the amount of suffering that might be associated with particular actions. A scientific morality needs to have something to measure.

Actually this type of philosophy has it's own problems. It will ultimately lead to the ideal that if anyone is suffering more than someone else then clearly something immoral must be occurring. Therefore in a morality built on this ideal it would be immoral for some people to be wealthy and for others to be poor. Because surely the poor people are suffering more than the rich.

It's not going to be perfect by a long shot. And it's certainly not "objective" at all. It's entirely subjective based upon the premise that everything should be done to cause the least amount of suffering, and that everyone should be treated equally under this system.

You can argue that its "objective" in the sense that it's based upon suffering and suffering can be "measured" thus making it objective. But in truth, the only thing that is objective is the suffering, not the morality. In fact, even the suffering becomes difficult to measure. Like I say, is it then innately immoral to have rich people and poor people? Clearly the poor people are suffering more than the rich people. So this system suggests that if anyone is richer than someone else then something immoral is going on.

It's a great ideal, and far better than basing our morality on a God who inflicts suffering on people to teach them a lesson. But it's still a subjective construct of mankind and it's going to be far from perfect. It's also certainly not an objective morality. It's a morality that is built upon a concept of "suffering" where there is an attempt to make suffering objective by suggesting that it can be objectively measured. But it's not even always possible to objectively measure suffering. Much suffering is entirely subjective as the Buddha has so wisely pointed out.

I personally favor Sam Harris' proposed scientific morality over biblical morality by far. But that does not make Sam Harris' model an objective morality. It's simply a model of morality that is based upon subjective ideals concerning suffering.

It's a good model, it would be interesting to have people work on it and build a system of morality to see where it might lead. It's not going to be without some problems and contradictions.

I mean face it, a system of morality that is based upon the idea of "no suffering" could never be said to be perfected until every single person was experiencing precisely the same amount of suffering. If anyone is suffering more than someone else then, based on the very foundation of this moral system, something immoral must necessarily be going on.

So it's heading for a philosophical catastrophe in the end in terms of the fact that it could never be a perfect system of morality in practice.

But, yeah, from a practical point of view it's a good place to start.

And it sure beats out biblical morality where people are supposedly being punished by an angry jealous God.

But the morality that Sam Harris is proposing it not an "Objective" morality in any absolute sense. It's clearly dependent entirely upon human subjective opinions on what constitutes suffering, and on who has equal rights to not suffer.

[Divine Insight]

I'd do anything to avoid Hellfire. But my compliance with the omnipotent tyrant would not be moral. You can't make something moral by forcing people to do it. Gods can't make something objectively moral.

Would you really do anything to avoid Hellfire?

Think of it this way. Suppose you were in Germany during WWII and Adolf Hitler gave you a choice. You could either work for him exterminating the Jews by putting them in furnaces and burning them to death, or he will put you in a furnace and burn you to death.

What would you do?

Would you spend the rest of your days exterminating innocent Jews? Or would you refuse to cooperate and be thrown into the Hellfire yourself rather than taking part in his madness?

And when it comes to a God why should your choice be any different?

Why would you do something immoral to appease a God but not Hitler?

It's an objective fact that respecting women has a strong tendency to increase happiness. That's what makes respecting women moral.

If a god ordered us to abuse women, there isn't any sense in which that would make abusing women moral. Gods have nothing to do with morality.

But supposedly God has his reasons why women need to be punished. Eve supposedly represent the female condition. Eve wasn't just an individual person she was the personification of the female spirit and she supposedly rebelled against God and dragged Adam down with her. So her curse of sorrow in childbirth and to be ruled over by her husband is a punishment that God has given to all woman, all female spirits, who are all innately "Eve".

So their "punishment" is morally warranted.

Because, God didn't command Adam to beat on his wife or abuse her. He just gave Adam the final say in everything and commanded that Eve must not resist or disobey Adam's desire.

This is how it is supposedly justified in religious circles.

It's not considered "abuse". God never instructed Adam to abuse Eve. He simply commanded that He shall rule over her. This also doesn't suggest that Adam is free to go running around just raping any woman he sees either.

I'm not "defending" this ancient mythology by any means. But I'm just pointing out how religious people often view it.

I think as the Bible progressed beyond the story of Adam and Eve the male-chauvinism became much worse and women in general were treated as property and given no authority in any matters at all. It was taken to extremes.

But even so, I think the idea that all women are "Eve", or that all women should be punished for what some primal female spirit had done is unwarranted superstitious garbage having no more merit than the fables of Zeus and company.

In any case, if we're going to have a modern day system of "Ethics" it should be based upon something like Sam Harris is proposing. In fact, we shouldn't even call it "morality" we should simply call it "ethics" and trash the word "morality" entirely because morality causes people to think in terms of absolutism. Whereas "ethics" actually sounds more subjective which it should be.

We should realize that ethical behavior isn't carved in stone and may even be subject to context. What may be ethical in one situation may not be ethical in another.

[instantc]

He begins by stating that most everyone will agree that suffering is bad and that no one wants so suffer. So he's starting out with something he feels that he can easily gain a large subjective consensus on.

Let me ask you, DI, what in your opinion makes anything in reality objective? How can you say that there is an objective reality at all?

In my view, we say that the physical reality is objective precisely because it appears to be the same for everyone (with a few exceptions, of course). Similarly, why cannot we call certain moral base values objective, if they appear to be the same for everyone? Why do you insist that even the very basic moral values cannot have an objective foundation, even if they appear to be exactly the same in everybody's moral experience?

You ask, "who would be the judge of objective morality?". Well, I ask who is the judge of objective reality? The answer to both questions is the same, nobody is the judge of objective reality or objective morality, but we all are witnesses of both.

In my books, solipsism and moral relativism are the same. Sure, I have no way of justifying the objectivity of my sensory experience or my moral experience, but I find it completely unnecessary for anyone to be skeptical towards either one.