The Incoherence of Atheism Ravi Zacharias

[notjam]

[Kevin Beal]

In the video, the presenter discusses how difficult it is to define good and evil without god. And he's right. It is really difficult. When you no longer have "god did it", it opens up a lot of important questions that we don't necessarily have answers for.

 

But, "god did it" still isn't answer. I'd prefer to be confused and wonder, than to pretend to myself that I already have an answer, when actually I don't.

[notjam]

In the video, the presenter discusses how difficult it is to define good and evil without god. And he's right. It is really difficult. When you no longer have "god did it", it opens up a lot of important questions that we don't necessarily have answers for.

 

But, "god did it" still isn't answer. I'd prefer to be confused and wonder, than to pretend to myself that I already have an answer, when actually I don't.

[PatrickC]

These responses with the same videos are frankly irritating. Of course, perhaps that is why you are here to irritate this community. It is the sabbath afterall, so perhaps you are doing Gods work.

 

That said, do you actually have a mind of your own that you might care to share with us all.

[notjam]

In the video, the presenter discusses how difficult it is to define good and evil without god. And he's right. It is really difficult. When you no longer have "god did it", it opens up a lot of important questions that we don't necessarily have answers for.

 

But, "god did it" still isn't answer. I'd prefer to be confused and wonder, than to pretend to myself that I already have an answer, when actually I don't.

the church of evolution says "time did it" :

if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that is a fairy tale.... but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science..

time = magical fairy dust

 

so how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

These responses with the same videos are frankly irritating. Of course, perhaps that is why you are here to irritate this community. It is th esabbath so perhaps you are doing Gods work.

 

That said, do you actually have a mind of your own that you might care to share with us all.

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

[PatrickC]

so how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

 

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

 

Well since your only reading of UPB (from a different thread) was a docile attempt at philosophy and a poor critique at that. Read the book for yourself and then this community might help you out.

 

Until then, consider yourself at sea. At least you'll be glad to know you do have a paddle. In the form of free links to the book and a whole 8 year forum and podcasts to search for your questions in.

[Mister Mister]

the church of evolution says "time did it" :

if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that is a fairy tale.... but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science..

time = magical fairy dust

 

so how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

 

That's a nice strawman of evolution, but what does it have to do with morality?  It is not the job of Evolution or Atheism to define morality.  Evolution is an explanation of the origins and diversity of biological organisms.  Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity.  Neither has any bearing on morality.  Rather it is reason and philosophy, starting from first principles, which we use to determine objective morality.  We start from the axiom of Self-Ownership, and the fact that people can reason, and that the human mind tends toward Universals, and all follows from there, that's at least how I understand it.  The belief in God or Evolution doesn't really have a bearing on this particular reasoning process I don't think, except that if you think Morality is defined by arbitrary commandments of a deity, which we have to rely on the interpretations of a priesthood to know, then you may have significant psychological resistance to reasoning a morality from first principles.

[Kevin Beal]

That's a nice strawman of evolution, but what does it have to do with morality?

Because morality is a feature of god's software programmed into us humans. He gave us our sense of right and wrong. Because evolution is a blind force without conscious deliberate purpose, any atheistic morality that would exist as a feature in our software would be similarly blind and purposeless. It would not be morality because it's existence was not created within us in a principled way. To say it was principled would be like saying that raindrops are art (which of course it is, but by god and not by the rain itself).

 

Morality would also then not be binding upon people to adhere to because there is no god to enforce this bind.

 

I don't actually believe this, but this is at least one religious perspective on "atheistic morality". (Software is used as an analogy here, since we are gods flesh robots).

 

In this view, morality is a feature of an object, rather than an epistemic matter. Morality is inserted into us, rather than something discovered, the way that mathematics or the laws of logic were discovered. With free will, we can defy our programming and thereby spit in the face of our holy father programmer.

[J. D. Stembal]

Nothing good or moral can come of God, except by accident, because God is not real. Organized religion is a confidence scam. Forget God, leave the church, and believe in yourself.

[AynRand]

Cracked up so hard. I only watched the first 30 seconds, but he made so many assumptions I couldn't help but break the tension to burst out laughing.

[notjam]

Well since your only reading of UPB (from a different thread) was a docile attempt at philosophy and a poor critique at that. Read the book for yourself and then this community might help you out.

 

Until then, consider yourself at sea. At least you'll be glad to know you do have a paddle. In the form of free links to the book and a whole 8 year forum and podcasts to search for your questions in.

that fact that atheist/evolutionists must write books about "objective morality" is evidence that this is a linch pin argument. 

 

don't you have a mind of your own and your own ideas?

if so how do you explain "atheism/evolution account for objective morality" ?  

Nothing good or moral can come of God, except by accident, because God is not real. Organized religion is a confidence scam. Forget God, leave the church, and believe in yourself.

do you believe in "objective morality" ? 

if so 

how does atheism/evolution account for objective morality ? 

[PatrickC]

that fact that atheist/evolutionists must write books about "objective morality" is evidence that this is a linch pin argument. 

 

don't you have a mind of your own and your own ideas?

if so how do you explain "atheism/evolution account for objective morality" ?

 

The thing is I or no one else is here to hold your hand or wipe your arse. Stop relying on other peoples videos and then speak to this community like an adult. Until then, you remain at sea.

[J. D. Stembal]

do you believe in "objective morality" ?

 

if so 

how does atheism/evolution account for objective morality ? 

 

Yes.

 

They don't account for it.

 

The non-aggression principle outlines the four major moral prohibitions for human beings (rape, murder, theft, and assault). Do we need a holy book or sermons to transmit this wisdom?

 

While it is currently being re-written, UPB is the closest thing we have to objective morality manifested in literary form. God didn't write it. A man did.

[notjam]

Because morality is a feature of god's software programmed into us humans. He gave us our sense of right and wrong. Because evolution is a blind force without conscious deliberate purpose, any atheistic morality that would exist as a feature in our software would be similarly blind and purposeless. It would not be morality because it's existence was not created within us in a principled way. To say it was principled would be like saying that raindrops are art (which of course it is, but by god and not by the rain itself).

 

Morality would also then not be binding upon people to adhere to because there is no god to enforce this bind.

 

I don't actually believe this, but this is at least one religious perspective on "atheistic morality". (Software is used as an analogy here, since we are gods flesh robots).

 

In this view, morality is a feature of an object, rather than an epistemic matter. Morality is inserted into us, rather than something discovered, the way that mathematics or the laws of logic were discovered. With free will, we can defy our programming and thereby spit in the face of our holy father programmer.

sounds like you are consistent to claim "atheism cannot account for objective morality" so do you reject the notion of "objective morality"?

only relativisitc "subjective morality" exisits? 

 

 

the laws of logic and the scientific method itself could also be evidence of an "intelligent creator" . as apposed to randomness. 

how can there be laws of logic, physics, energy, or anything "consistent" in a world of relativity?

 

(mathematics is separate , since it is a cognitive, semantical creation of man. like language)

That's a nice strawman of evolution, but what does it have to do with morality?  It is not the job of Evolution or Atheism to define morality.  Evolution is an explanation of the origins and diversity of biological organisms.  Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity.  Neither has any bearing on morality.  Rather it is reason and philosophy, starting from first principles, which we use to determine objective morality.  We start from the axiom of Self-Ownership, and the fact that people can reason, and that the human mind tends toward Universals, and all follows from there, that's at least how I understand it.  The belief in God or Evolution doesn't really have a bearing on this particular reasoning process I don't think, except that if you think Morality is defined by arbitrary commandments of a deity, which we have to rely on the interpretations of a priesthood to know, then you may have significant psychological resistance to reasoning a morality from first principles.

do you beleive that humans evolved from other animals? 

do you believe that all animals/life had a common evolution from primordial slime/soup? 

or are you saying that all life is not from a common abiogenesis?

if so. no stawman. 

 

 

"first principles" are created in man's mind , which could only result in "subjective morality"  or a "subjective consensus" . 

once you use the phrase "to determine ojective morality" it is not longer "objective" .by definition "subjective" . 

 

 

I have not claimed that "objective morality" comes from "arbitrary commandments of a diety, nor the pagan catholic priesthood". 

I am asserting that if "objective morality" exists, it must come from outside of "subjective man".

so as an atheist/evolutionist you MUST REJECT OBJECTIVE MORALITY. since ther can be only one man's opinion on what is moral. 

hence "subjective morality" or a "subjective consensus" aka a bunch of guys in suits who decide. 

[Mister Mister]

sounds like you are consistent to claim "atheism cannot account for objective morality" so do you reject the notion of "objective morality"?

only relativisitc "subjective morality" exisits? 

 

"first principles" are created in man's mind , which could only result in "subjective morality"  or a "subjective consensus" . 

once you use the phrase "to determine ojective morality" it is not longer "objective" .by definition "subjective" . 

 

 

I have not claimed that "objective morality" comes from "arbitrary commandments of a diety, nor the pagan catholic priesthood". 

I am asserting that if "objective morality" exists, it must come from outside of "subjective man".

so as an atheist/evolutionist you MUST REJECT OBJECTIVE MORALITY. since ther can be only one man's opinion on what is moral. 

hence "subjective morality" or a "subjective consensus" aka a bunch of guys in suits who decide. 

 

  I'm sorry but you have completely failed to understand, either willfully or not.  First Principles are a product of man's mind, yes, they are a concept like God or Justice or Society or Mathematics, but that does not mean they are subjective.  Self-Ownership, for example, is an axiomatic Truth.  Whether there is a God or not, you cannot deny Self-ownership without logically contradicting yourself.  So either you are ignorant about the idea of reasoning from first principles, which is fine - you've come to the right place to learn - or you are trying to confuse the issue.

 

You say you have not claimed that morality comes from the arbitrary commandments of a deity, but in the first 15 seconds of the video you just posted, Dr. Zacharias says "If there is an absolute Law, there must be an absolute Law-Giver".  Do you agree with this statement?

 

So the fundamental question is, how do we determine this Law?  If it can be reasoned out and demonstrated to all people, using the reasoning which you might consider our God-given right, then we don't have so much of a disagreement over morality.  If you are willing to subject your theories of morality to reason, as am I, then we can leave the question of God to a discussion of Metaphysics, and just talk morality.  If, on the other hand, you have some way of determining God's Law which is only available to those who follow some mystical process, then we are completely at odds and will never agree, and what's more you are my enemy.

[notjam]

Yes.

 

They don't account for it.

 

The non-aggression principle outlines the four major moral prohibitions for human beings (rape, murder, theft, and assault). Do we need a holy book or sermons to transmit this wisdom?

 

While it is currently being re-written, UPB is the closest thing we have to objective morality manifested in literary form. God didn't write it. A man did.

funny. so just since "his holiness stef" wrote a book in the last few years "objective morality" could not be explained? 

 

as much as I hate the pagan catholic church hierarchy, I think I hate modern internet "sacred cow" fanboys even more. 

so much for free thinkers. 

 

The non-aggression principle is based on the assumption of "objective morality" not the origination. you put the cart before the horse. 

 

also your "strawman" of "needing a holy book" just shows your emotionaly charged scorn/resentment. it does not address my premiss

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality"?

 

you must "as an atheist/evolutionist" either REJECT objective morality,

or explain how this can come about via "time + chance + matter" aka "primordial slime" . 

[NotDarkYet]

I pose the question at you.  How can you have morality WITH gods?

 

Only through philosophy can something be decided as true/false, right/wrong.

[notjam]

  I'm sorry but you have completely failed to understand, either willfully or not.  First Principles are a product of man's mind, yes, they are a concept like God or Justice or Society or Mathematics, but that does not mean they are subjective.  Self-Ownership, for example, is an axiomatic Truth.  Whether there is a God or not, you cannot deny Self-ownership without logically contradicting yourself.  So either you are ignorant about the idea of reasoning from first principles, which is fine - you've come to the right place to learn - or you are trying to confuse the issue.

 

You say you have not claimed that morality comes from the arbitrary commandments of a deity, but in the first 15 seconds of the video you just posted, Dr. Zacharias says "If there is an absolute Law, there must be an absolute Law-Giver".  Do you agree with this statement?

 

So the fundamental question is, how do we determine this Law?  If it can be reasoned out and demonstrated to all people, using the reasoning which you might consider our God-given right, then we don't have so much of a disagreement over morality.  If you are willing to subject your theories of morality to reason, as am I, then we can leave the question of God to a discussion of Metaphysics, and just talk morality.  If, on the other hand, you have some way of determining God's Law which is only available to those who follow some mystical process, then we are completely at odds and will never agree, and what's more you are my enemy.

"first principles" are "subjective" by definition. I did not fail to understand. 

anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. 

 

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment)

this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). 

 

if not. 

again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

it MUST REJECT it. 

I pose the question at you.  How can you have morality WITH gods?

 

Only through philosophy can something be decided as true/false, right/wrong.

anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. 

 

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment)

this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). 

 

if not. 

again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

it MUST REJECT it. 

[Mister Mister]

"first principles" are "subjective" by definition. I did not fail to understand. 

anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. 

 

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment)

this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). 

 

if not. 

again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

it MUST REJECT it. 

anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. 

 

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment)

this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). 

 

if not. 

again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

it MUST REJECT it. 

"if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality""  NOPE, sorry. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/basics/definition/CON-20027920

 

Yes you have failed to understand.  It is not a man or a group of men deciding what is moral, in fact, that is how religious morality works most of the time.  Rather, moral propositions are subject to a methodology based on universal principles of reason.  It is similar to science or math.  We don't say 2 + 2 = 4 because the Math Teachers say so, but rather because we can follow the logic ourselves.  This is how UPB works.  So you are welcome to evaluate it and point out flaws in the reasoning.  It is not some closed religious or academic priesthood which seeks to impose its will on everyone, everyone who is capable of reason is welcome to be part of the process.  Welcome to the conversation.

 

But you are claiming that we somehow rely on the non-existence of God for a moral theory - this is not true.  The existence or non-existence of God or gods, technically has no bearing on UPB, anymore than the existence of God is necessary to prove or disprove that 2 + 2 = 4.  That's as clear as I can make it.

[notjam]

"if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality""  NOPE, sorry. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/basics/definition/CON-20027920

 

Yes you have failed to understand.  It is not a man or a group of men deciding what is moral, in fact, that is how religious morality works most of the time.  Rather, moral propositions are subject to a methodology based on universal principles of reason.  It is similar to science or math.  We don't say 2 + 2 = 4 because the Math Teachers say so, but rather because we can follow the logic ourselves.  This is how UPB works.  So you are welcome to evaluate it and point out flaws in the reasoning.  It is not some closed religious or academic priesthood which seeks to impose its will on everyone, everyone who is capable of reason is welcome to be part of the process.  Welcome to the conversation.

 

But you are claiming that we somehow rely on the non-existence of God for a moral theory - this is not true.  The existence or non-existence of God or gods, technically has no bearing on UPB, anymore than the existence of God is necessary to prove or disprove that 2 + 2 = 4.  That's as clear as I can make it.

 

math is a cognative, semantics of man. not a law onto itself. 

2 + 2 = 4 only after man has given meaning and defenition to the symbols. it is purely semantics. not a law onto itself.

(like language)

 

 

I don't reference "his holienss stefs" newest book UPB. because I don't need some "new cool internet guy" to define anything for me.

"objective morality" is not "universally preffered behavior". UPB is an attempt to explain away the "objective" part. with a "subjective consensus" . clearly becasue stef uses displacement of his resentment/scorn of his parents onto the concept of god

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1586176870

which is pretty common among "militant atheists" . otherwise they would be agnostics. (a much more rational possition)

 

 

Antisocial personality disorder does not disprove that "we all have a conscience" inherently.

it might prove we all don't "act on it" but this is a fallacious argument. as I orginally stated :

*(you misquoted me out of context) :

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

 

 

and by the way the fact that we can have "science" or "math" or "logic" or "consistency" also creates a problem for the atheist/evolutionists' assumption that this is all the result of "time + chance + matter " aka "primordial slime" ... 

and actually lends more "coherence" towards "intelligent design" aka "god". 

[J. D. Stembal]

funny. so just since "his holiness stef" wrote a book in the last few years "objective morality" could not be explained? 

 

as much as I hate the pagan catholic church hierarchy, I think I hate modern internet "sacred cow" fanboys even more. 

so much for free thinkers. 

 

The non-aggression principle is based on the assumption of "objective morality" not the origination. you put the cart before the horse. 

 

also your "strawman" of "needing a holy book" just shows your emotionaly charged scorn/resentment. it does not address my premiss

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality"?

 

you must "as an atheist/evolutionist" either REJECT objective morality,

or explain how this can come about via "time + chance + matter" aka "primordial slime" . 

 

Are you really going to ask me the same questions twice? Where is your argument? Have you read UPB?

[GuzzyBone]

Morality is weighing of behavior that brings us better survival vs. closer to death. Nothing more. It is subjective in the personal form, and has degrees of objectivity in the macrocosmic context of ALL humanity surviving, because human beings are extremely cooperative creatures whose survival largely depends on each other, and the betterment of your fellow man is the betterment of YOU. This is largely how you could potentially teach morality to a sociopath, at least in the purely logical and mathematical context, basically "When you hurt others, you are hurting yourself". I could prove this in various ways and explain how we don't teach our children not to steal because it hurts others or gets them arrested, but I think that it is self-evident enough that this is ultimately self-destructive behavior.

Yes, I know the opening chapter of UPB declares survival is not the root of morality because it is too subjective, however as I just pointed out, this only applies on the personal level and is relatively absolute when you consider all of humanity as a family. THIS is the core teaching of religions, that we are ONE, that we are ALL God's children and no one should be left behind or ostracized (which is a form of violent punishment in itself). Regardless of what Stefan claims, religion helps people see very clearly that we all have a moral responsibility and obligation for the betterment of each others capacity for survival. This is it's boon. This is the GOOD that comes out of it. You already know religious people have some of the healthiest lifestyles and families on Earth, you cannot take small violent or oppressive minorities within religions and use them as straw men to deny this basic fact.

Don't believe that GOOD vs. BAD/EVIL is Life vs. Death? Go ahead and take a stroll through the synonyms and definitions of good, bad, and evil. We have an inborn understanding of that helping each other to survive better makes you survive better, and just in case you don't, that's where religion comes in with giving people a greater understanding of this through parables, stories, metaphors, and teachings. Symbolism, allegory, and parable is the language of things we know and see in our subconscious minds, but have trouble putting into conscious words. Any artist worth his salt will tell you the same.

Stefan is wrong when he determines the use of violence as WIN-LOSE, it is ultimately LOSE-LOSE as both parties suffer in the long term, just as a thief has never learned to accumulate money legitimately and has to continue to spiral downward into the consequence of his violent sustenance.

This is objective morality in action. The major proponent of such a thing, being religious teachings. I literally heard Stefan scoff and mock a caller when he brought up concepts of "We are one" and then in another video he is moved to tears over the peace created by people's innate understanding of this objective morality on Christmas Day during World War II. He claims he's scoured the world and made it a mission to find what would compel people to drop their arms and drink together and play games on CHRISTMAS day. The answer is within his question as is often the case with great philosophical problems. He claims he has look in religion, but his own emotional hatred and distaste for it, will never allow him to see anything beyond a small minority of unappealing traits within the religious community.

Religious people are the most moral people you will ever meet. This is a basic known fact. If you disagree, you haven't spent very much time in many churches or religious gatherings. You can say you have, but this isn't true at all. God forbid it happens, but wait till you're falling apart one day and the only people who will take you in and help you restore your life are those of religious leanings. Then you will see the power of it's value and truth.

This is strawman that many Atheists create where they selectively look at potential negative uses of religion or early understandings of Gods, or the manipulations of particular sects... It comes from an emotional place, not one of morality. Are you not genuinely curious of the deeper meanings beyond the origin of the notion of morality through human history? What is this desire to completely dismiss all the old learnings as trash, and start from scratch like a babe in the woods? You don't have to believe in God to be genuinely CURIOUS of the value and deeper meanings (allegory) behind religious teachings of morality.

[Slavik]

 THIS is the core teaching of religions, that we are ONE, that we are ALL God's children and no one should be left behind or ostracized (which is a form of violent punishment in itself). 

 

Except if you are gay, belong to another religion, do not believe at all, disrespect your parents, commit adultery, then you are ostracized, and prior to current time you were also beheaded.   

 

 

He claims he has look in religion, but his own emotional hatred and distaste for it, will never allow him to see anything beyond a small minority of unappealing traits within the religious community.

 

Its really difficult to love something that promotes murder.  And Bible is chock full of stories where either God kills or his followers are commended to do so.

 

Religious people are the most moral people you will ever meet. This is a basic known fact. If you disagree, you haven't spent very much time in many churches or religious gatherings. You can say you have, but this isn't true at all. 

 

Well do you think stoning unbelievers, homosexuals and what have you is moral?   This is commended in the bible.

 

This is strawman that many Atheists create where they selectively look at potential negative uses of religion or early understandings of Gods, or the manipulations of particular sects... It comes from an emotional place, not one of morality. 

 

How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one, while billions of believers of many faiths are the incorrect ones?  

[Slavik]

funny. so just since "his holiness stef" wrote a book in the last few years "objective morality" could not be explained? 

 

as much as I hate the pagan catholic church hierarchy, I think I hate modern internet "sacred cow" fanboys even more. 

so much for free thinkers. 

 

The non-aggression principle is based on the assumption of "objective morality" not the origination. you put the cart before the horse. 

 

also your "strawman" of "needing a holy book" just shows your emotionaly charged scorn/resentment. it does not address my premiss

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality"?

 

you must "as an atheist/evolutionist" either REJECT objective morality,

or explain how this can come about via "time + chance + matter" aka "primordial slime" . 

Ok, lets say for a moment that when we get to the root of things some of us will have trouble getting the exacts of where morality has originated.  Well all we will end up saying at some point is "I do not know" same as with what happened before big bang, thus far its "I do not know."  How does the "I do not know" answer help you at all?  What are you driving at with this question?

[PatrickC]

I'm sorry guys and you know feel free to ignore me here of course (I hope not). But why oh why are you engaging this fella. Irrational people like to trouble the rational amongst us and waste our damn good time on hyperbole, superlatives and all the flaming rest.

 

Apart from the OP, I hope you see my intervention as helpful. This conversation is a dead duck frankly chaps.

[shirgall]

I'm sorry guys and you know feel free to ignore me here of course (I hope not). But why oh why are you engaging this fella. Irrational people like to trouble the rational amongst us and waste our damn good time on hyperbole, superlatives and all the flaming rest.

 

Apart from the OP, I hope you see my intervention as helpful. This conversation is a dead duck frankly chaps.

 

Well, I engaged for a while until it was clear we were talking past one another. Then I moved on.

[Slavik]

"first principles" are "subjective" by definition. I did not fail to understand. 

anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. 

 

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment)

this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). 

 

if not. 

again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

it MUST REJECT it. 

anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. 

 

if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it)

then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment)

this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). 

 

if not. 

again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

it MUST REJECT it. 

Evolutionary speaking, there are species that are social, in order for a pack to survive better, animals evolved to have certain rules so as to not hurt each other and to remain stronger as a pack.  This can be seen on a rudimentary level with many species and animals within.  Wolfs, monkeys etc.  This concept taken further with people due to spoken language and concept formation, allowing us to extract first principles etc.  Humans are social creatures to a very high degree, so the idea to not hurt others eventually was conceptualized into base principles, as in we named that which we consider to be beneficial for the individuals.  The advancement of the brain is what allowed us to take the concepts much further and to expand upon the previously formed concepts.  

 

Even with humans we can easily see the conceptual evolution.  Using a child as a sacrifice to the "gods" used to be the norm, beating children used to be the norm.  Killing people for being gay was the norm, enslavement was also considered to be "moral" or good until a certain point.  We have yet to reach the pinnacle of the "moral" evolution even by today's standards.  I am really am not sure what the idea of god has to do with anything, by saying that "god did it" is fallacious by the simple fact that "god" is not and hos never been proven to exist in the first place.