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]

[JohnA]

.

Olavisjo says he "knows" the Holocaust was actually wrong. In other words, what olavisjo "knows" to be right is actually objectively right, and what olavisjo "knows" to be wrong is actually objectively wrong and he doesn't seem to understand why everybody else don't "know" what he knows.

Yes, he doesn't understand why everybody else don't "know" that the Holocaust was actually wrong. It truly boggles his mind.

I have told you why the Holocast was "wrong" here. I also told you why the Nazi's may have thought it was "right". You completely ignored this.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 612#606612

Your responses here concerns me for two reasons. One, you have not addressed my post, you merely made comments, and Two, it is illogical.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 642#606642

Again, I told you how we know things are 'right' or 'wrong'
And we have empathy and ethics (not objective morals) where we know the sources:
1) Evolution : minimize extinction, maximize survival. 99.9% of all species that ever lived on earth are extinct now.
2) Society : laws (not laws of logic, but rules of thought, law/policies by governments/UN)
3) Thinking : why are we still discussing abortion and gay rights when the answer is obvious?

The Holocast was 'wrong' since it is against the law in other countries, because it can lead to human animal extinction, and because our thinking of it today says it is wrong (morals change).
The Holocast was 'right' according to the Nazi's because they may have seen it as killing in self-defense, in war (to protect the human race), and may not have had a law against it.

1. Skipping the step. Am glad you admit that you are merely trying to sneak in your god with this so called "objective morals'. That just says you agree that there is no objective morals as you can not define it without a god.
2. So, if your god decreed rape as acceptable, you would not say it is good. You walked into this. Why would you not say this is a good thing? Surely your god would have some reason for not making such a decree. He did, if you read the bible and his malicious genocide and killing. So, you have some reason to suggest that rape is not good. If your god has to appeal to reason, why not just eliminate the middleman (your god) completely?
3. You do not know why we are still discussing abortion and gay rights since it should have been resolved a long time ago. Do you think abortion/pro choice should be allowed? Should gays have equal rights for same sex marriage as man/woman marriage?


olavisjo,
You have conclusively agreed that there is no such thing as objective morals - all you are doing is trying to sneak in a god as you admitted.
You have also agreed that reason tells you that rape is wrong (always even when your god decree it good), so you conclusively agreed that there is no need for the middleman (god) to figure out what is 'right' and 'wrong' and this god of the bible could not be the author of objective morals since you disagree with it.

I thank you for your honesty.

The question now is:
Why do you still think this god exists?
Why are you still religious, a monotheist?

[JohnA]

.

That is a subjective definition, since you can not back you claim that something (a god or whateva) can independently decreed what we believe to be wrong or right.

Then would it be your position, that there is no actual matter of fact right or wrong? In other words, the Holocaust was not necessarily wrong.

Please do remember to answer my questions:
Why not just skip a step and just offer your god's definition to define (s)he into existence, why bother with objective morality's definition?
If your god decreed rape as acceptable, would you say it is good?
Why are we still discussing abortion and gay rights when the answer is obvious?

1. I would have no problem with skipping that step, but you may have a problem with that so I am including it for your benefit.
2. No.
3. I don't know, seems to me that we should have resolved that a long time ago.

Again, I told you how we know things are 'right' or 'wrong'
We have empathy and ethics (not objective morals) where we know the sources:
1) Evolution : minimize extinction, maximize survival. 99.9% of all species that ever lived on earth are extinct now.
2) Society : laws (not laws of logic, but rules of thought, law/policies by governments/UN)
3) Thinking : why are we still discussing abortion and gay rights when the answer is obvious?

The Holocast was 'wrong' since it is against the law in other countries, because it can lead to human animal extinction, and because our thinking of it today says it is wrong (morals change).
The Holocast was 'right' according to the Nazi's because they may have seen it as killing in self-defense, in war (to protect the human race), and may not have had a law against it.

Now to address these 3 questions I asked you and my response to your answers:


1. Skipping the step. Am glad you admit that you are merely trying to sneak in your god with this so called "objective morals'. That just says you agree that there is no objective morals as you can not define it without a god.
2. So, if your god decreed rape as acceptable, you would not say it is good. You walked into this. Why would you not say rape is a good thing? Surely your god would have some reason for not making such a decree. He did, if you read the bible and his malicious genocide and killing. So, you have some reason to suggest that rape is not good. If your god has to appeal to human reason, why not just eliminate the middleman (your god) completely?
3. You do not know why we are still discussing abortion and gay rights since it should have been resolved a long time ago. Do you think abortion/pro choice should be allowed? Should gays have equal rights for same sex marriage as man/woman marriage?


olavisjo,
You have conclusively agreed that there is no such thing as objective morals - all you are doing is trying to sneak in a god as you admitted.
You have also agreed that reason tells you that rape is wrong (always even when your god decree it good), so you conclusively agreed that there is no need for the middleman (god) to figure out what is 'right' and 'wrong' and this god of the bible could not be the author of objective morals since you disagree with it.

I thank you for your honesty.

The question now is:
Why do you still think this god exists?
Why are you still religious, a monotheist?

And my other questions:
Do you think abortion/pro choice should be allowed? Should gays have equal rights for same sex marriage as man/woman marriage?
Why would you not say rape is a good thing even if your god decrees it?
If your god has to appeal to human reason, why not just eliminate the middleman (your god) completely?

[olavisjo]

.

Olavisjo says he "knows" the Holocaust was actually wrong. In other words, what olavisjo "knows" to be right is actually objectively right, and what olavisjo "knows" to be wrong is actually objectively wrong and he doesn't seem to understand why everybody else don't "know" what he knows.

Yes, he doesn't understand why everybody else don't "know" that the Holocaust was actually wrong. It truly boggles his mind.

I have told you why the Holocast was "wrong" here.

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.

I also told you why the Nazi's may have thought it was "right".

Are you open to the idea that the Holocaust was not wrong?

You completely ignored this.

I did not ignore it, but had enough to chew on for the time being. It gets too confusing to talk about things that are beyond the point where we disagree. For example, if we don't agree that there are Leprechauns, is there any point in debating what is in their pot? (Krugerrands or Maple Leaf Coins)

[JohnA]

.

Olavisjo says he "knows" the Holocaust was actually wrong. In other words, what olavisjo "knows" to be right is actually objectively right, and what olavisjo "knows" to be wrong is actually objectively wrong and he doesn't seem to understand why everybody else don't "know" what he knows.

Yes, he doesn't understand why everybody else don't "know" that the Holocaust was actually wrong. It truly boggles his mind.

I have told you why the Holocast was "wrong" here.

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.

I also told you why the Nazi's may have thought it was "right".

Are you open to the idea that the Holocaust was not wrong?

You completely ignored this.

I did not ignore it, but had enough to chew on for the time being. It gets too confusing to talk about things that are beyond the point where we disagree. For example, if we don't agree that there are Leprechauns, is there any point in debating what is in their pot? (Krugerrands or Maple Leaf Coins)

Once again, you are ignoring my content, my questions and my response to your answers (the 3 questions I raised earlier).

Why do you say the Holocaust "wrong"?
I told you why I think it was 'wrong', but was 'right' (according to the Nazi's)
You can not say to me that it was "wrong" because objective morals exist since you admitted you can not back that claim of your up (all you wanting to do is sneak in your god since you can not define it without your god). And even if you could, you argued that you do not agree with your god if he decrees rate as "right".

I already told you why the Nazi's may have thought the Holocaust was "not wrong".
I would never say killing is wrong. That is just ridiculous. Murder is wrong because it is unlawful killing (i.e. against the law). Soldiers kill other people in war all the time, people kill other people in self-defense all the time. You and I kill most of the stuff we eat. Your god did a bad job when he designed that life kills/eats life.

What things do you disagree with? I stated it all and gave you the implications to your answers.

btw, your Leprechauns dogma is just drivel riddled in fallacies.

Now, please be a good monotheist and defend your faith. You have my two posts (and now the 3rd one), to address. Since you are betting this finite life on an infinite next life, and Jesus orders you to be perfect, and you are ordered by your bible to defend your faith: PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

If you fail to answer, then we agree:
You admit 'objective morals' is a myth.
Your god can not be the author of morals.
You disagree with your god on 'morals.
You have no reason to hold a belief in your god, other than being illogical and irrational.

The choice is yours, the floor is yours as always.

John.

BTW. It seems to me that you rather ignore posts than respond when you do not agree with objective facts. My questions to you lingers here......
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 430#606430
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 101#603101

[olavisjo]

.

The choice is yours, the floor is yours as always.

Thank you.

I also told you why the Nazi's may have thought it was "right".

Are you open to the idea that the Holocaust was not wrong?

[JohnA]

.

The choice is yours, the floor is yours as always.

Thank you.

I also told you why the Nazi's may have thought it was "right".

Are you open to the idea that the Holocaust was not wrong?

AGAIN, I DID ANSWER THIS MULTIPLE TIMES ALREADY.
I would never say killing is wrong. That is just ridiculous. Murder is wrong because it is unlawful killing (i.e. against the law). Soldiers kill other people in war all the time, people kill other people in self-defense all the time. You and I kill most of the stuff we eat. Your god did a bad job when he designed that life kills/eats life.

The Nazi's did not see the Holocaust as wrong.
If I did not have the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy then YES, I would not see the Holocaust as 'wrong'.
If, for example, there was no law called murder, if the Holocaust people that died were a thread to the survival of our human animal spices and the Holocaust were not discussed on a public square (being thought through), then YES, I would say the Holocaust was the 'right' thing to do.

Islamic fundamentals blew up the twin towers. I think it was a good thing that the US went after them and killed (not murder, but in self-defense / war) some of them. Do you disagree with this? According to your view NO LIVING Thing's (animal or plant) should be killed. That is just patently absurd, ridiculous, illogical, irrational.

Now, why do you say the Holocaust was 'wrong'?

I told you why I think it was 'wrong', but was 'right' (according to the Nazi's) and would be "not wrong" for me in my books.
You can not say to me that it was "wrong" because objective morals exist since you admitted you can not back that claim of your up (all you wanting to do is sneak in your god since you can not define it without your god). And even if you could, you argued that you do not agree with your god if he decrees rape as "right".

How many times do you want me to respond the same answer again? How many times can you keep on posting ignoring your own writings that:
You have conclusively agreed that there is no such thing as objective morals - all you are doing is trying to sneak in a god as you admitted.
You have also agreed that reason tells you that rape is wrong (always even when your god decree it good), so you conclusively agreed that there is no need for the middleman (god) to figure out what is 'right' and 'wrong' and this god of the bible could not be the author of objective morals since you disagree with it.


And you are still ignoring my questions. You are ignoring your own responses where you yourself rendered your god irrelevant. The only explanation I have for this is that your dogma is illogical and irrational and it is beyond me how you can both reject it and accept it. That is simply amazing.

We both know how this will end. You will stop responding as you did in the two other threads. But we both know why, and the issue is with you in being honest with yourself.

You have my other questions. Deal with it or run. The choice is yours.

[olavisjo]

.

Are you open to the idea that the Holocaust was not wrong?

The Nazi's did not see the Holocaust as wrong.
If I did not have the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy then YES, I would not see the Holocaust as 'wrong'.

I don't understand why you would think that 'the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy' would make the Holocaust objectively wrong.

There may be evolutionary advantages, society may pass laws, and we may think it is wrong, but none of those things would make it actually wrong.

[JohnA]

.

Are you open to the idea that the Holocaust was not wrong?

The Nazi's did not see the Holocaust as wrong.
If I did not have the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy then YES, I would not see the Holocaust as 'wrong'.

I don't understand why you would think that 'the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy' would make the Holocaust objectively wrong.

There may be evolutionary advantages, society may pass laws, and we may think it is wrong, but none of those things would make it actually wrong.

It is because you assume morals are objective when you already admitted it is not, all you want to do is sneak in your god, a god that you disagree with re rape being acceptable. Ask yourself, if you can, would you say murder is 'right' is your god decreed it good?

Killing is not wrong, Murder is wrong, always wrong.

If I did not have the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy then YES, I would not see the Holocaust as 'wrong'.
If, for example, there was no law called murder, if the Holocaust people that died were a thread to the survival of our human animal spices and the Holocaust were not discussed on a public square (being thought through), then YES, I would say the Holocaust was the 'right' thing to do.

Islamic fundamentals blew up the twin towers. I think it was a good thing that the US went after them and killed (not murder, but in self-defense / war) some of them. Do you disagree with this? According to your view NO LIVING Thing's (animal or plant) should be killed. That is just patently absurd, ridiculous, illogical, irrational.

I don't understand why you would think that 'the 3 sources (evolution, society, thinking) of ethics and empathy' would make the Holocaust [strike]objectively[/strike] subjectively wrong.

I [strike]fixed[/strike] corrected it for you!

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

The Holocaust would be wrong because:
1. Evolution : it would minimize survival and maximize extinction of our spices,
2. Society : it would be against the law to murder people or to commit genocide
3. Thinking: discussing on the public square would show that attempting to wipe a race and killing of innocent people is not beneficial as it will not minimize suffering.

Is the above clear enough?

Why would a lack of ethics and empathy (sources being evolution, society, thinking) not make the Holocaust 'not wrong' according to you?

You can not even tell me why the Holocaust was wrong, nor can you tell me your source. I can tell you Why it was 'wrong' and potentially 'right' and I can tell the source as well.

There may be evolutionary advantages, society may pass laws, and we may think it is wrong, but none of those things would make it actually wrong.

The Nazi's may have seen it as an evolutionary advantage to the human race. They may have not had this murder law (or followed the international genocide law), and may not have discussed it in the public square (or their square had to few people in) to realize it would cause suffering.
If evolution was conjecture, if we had no laws, and if we could not reason, then it would not be wrong to execute the Holocaust. But evolution is fact, and the human race is here today, and got here without laws or reasoning. So the sources of ethics and empathy is sewed towards evolution. Laws and thinking (reasoning in the public square) just aids in the mortality of humans (we do live longer than say 150 years ago, right?) and reduces suffering. When I provided the 3 sources of ethics and empathy it was also in that order: evolution, society, thinking.


You are in a corner. Admit defeat or run or try to get out.

[olavisjo]

.

Why would a lack of ethics and empathy (sources being evolution, society, thinking) not make the Holocaust 'not wrong'?

Take evolution for example. Evolution does not care what we do, all that matters is that the fittest creatures for the environment survive.
If males fighting males for reproductive rights is the behavior that evolution favors then that is what we would consider moral behavior. Morality would be arbitrary as far as good and evil is concerned.
And even if we have been programed by evolution to think that murder is bad, that is no reason to not do it if it benefits us in some great way and we want to go for it.

[JohnA]

.

Why would a lack of ethics and empathy (sources being evolution, society, thinking) not make the Holocaust 'not wrong'?

Take evolution for example. Evolution does not care what we do, all that matters is that the fittest creatures for the environment survive.
If males fighting males for reproductive rights is the behavior that evolution favors then that is what we would consider moral behavior. Morality would be arbitrary as far as good and evil is concerned.
And even if we have been programed by evolution to think that murder is bad, that is no reason to not do it if it benefits us in some great way and we want to go for it.

Ah, now we moved onto evolution and your misunderstanding of it.

Are you trying to refer to "social Darwinism" when you use this "Survival of the Fittest"?

If so, then:
"Survival of the Fittest" measure fitness as the survival rate. Your phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.

Or are you saying that "Survival of the Fittest" is actually 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)

We have not been programmed by evolution to think murder is wrong. Where on earth do you get that? How many times do I need to say that society deems murder wrong via laws, killing is not wrong. We evolved as social animals and established laws and public squares AFTER we evolved (became human animals). Evolution is fact, and the human race is here today, and got here without laws or reasoning. So the sources of ethics and empathy is skewed towards evolution. Laws and thinking (reasoning in the public square) just aids in the mortality of humans (we do live longer than say 150 years ago, right?) and reduces suffering. When I provided the 3 sources of ethics and empathy it was also in that order: evolution, society, thinking.

Do you accept evolution as fact or do you reject it?