Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality

[robert68]

True morality is rooted in the nature of God... and God's nature is immutable.

"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people. So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.

The definition of the word morality doesn’t contain the term “Gods nature”, and that term is far from objective.

Those who recognize individual rights, Ron Paul being one of them, as well as a great many who don’t, understand what they are very well. Also, they’re mentioned twice in the Mission Statement of this forum and discussed at the link “Why Liberty?”

[DamianTV]

True morality is rooted in the nature of God... and God's nature is immutable.

"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people. So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.

By externalizing the source of morality from an internal state, manipulations of the external source become possible. Morality does not come from God. Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not, and that goes for both sides of the God exists / doesnt exist debate. Cant have both Morality from God and Free Will at the same time becaue people will be free for themselves to decide to behave or not to behave in a moral way.

[otherone]

The people of RPF'S like logic, right? Why do they consistently use illogical arguments and never change?

Dunno.
Why do some people consistently think it's their business to change them?

[PaulConventionWV]

The word “God” isn’t a measurement of objective morality since its morality varies according to situation, time period, believer, and group.

God's morality does not change.

Those who recognize individual rights have an objective morality.

But what is the concept of rights based on other than a subjective thought or feeling?

Furthermore, why should I recognize individual rights?

[erowe1]

Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not.

But there is a standard against which the morality of those choices can be measured. And that standard is no more subject to our opinions about it than the laws of mathematics or logic are.

[PaulConventionWV]

The definition of the word morality doesn’t contain the term “Gods nature”, and that term is far from objective.

Those who recognize individual rights, Ron Paul being one of them, as well as a great many who don’t, understand what they are very well. Also, they’re mentioned twice in the Mission Statement of this forum and discussed at the link “Why Liberty?”

You can understand what they are without caring about them. I'm asking you why you believe that we absolutely should care about them.

[PaulConventionWV]

By externalizing the source of morality from an internal state, manipulations of the external source become possible. Morality does not come from God. Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not, and that goes for both sides of the God exists / doesnt exist debate. Cant have both Morality from God and Free Will at the same time becaue people will be free for themselves to decide to behave or not to behave in a moral way.

What's your justification for externalizing an internal state? I assume you mean that you can take your individual beliefs and apply them to everybody, but how would you justify the belief that you can or should do that? If morality comes from choices, then there is no morality because everyone's choices are different. It doesn't matter that people can choose because morality can still be absolutely true without people choosing to behave by it, but on what basis would you believe that it was true if it comes from an internal state that does not apply to everyone?

[Christian Liberty]

As the OP explains, theories of rights that are based on what is, are not sufficient to give prescriptions of what ought be.

The people of RPF'S like logic, right? Why do they consistently use illogical arguments and never change?

Because most people here don't actually like logic.

[lilymc]

The definition of the word morality doesn’t contain the term “Gods nature”, and that term is far from objective.

We have been talking about the nature of morality and the source of morality. Obviously a short definition in the dictionary is not going to go into detail on all those things.

The dictionary defines it as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." So you're still left with the question: what is right conduct? What is "right" to one person is not "right" to another.

And it's also beyond silly to say that fallible, changeable human beings are objective, and the God and Creator of everything - who is eternal and immutable - is not objective.

Those who recognize individual rights, Ron Paul being one of them, as well as a great many who don’t, understand what they are very well. Also, they’re mentioned twice in the Mission Statement of this forum and discussed at the link “Why Liberty?”

The mission statement of Ron Paul forums is where objective morality comes from? You completely ignored the point that you were replying to. I'll repeat it.

"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people. So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.

[lilymc]

By externalizing the source of morality from an internal state, manipulations of the external source become possible.

Have you been reading the thread? If morality comes from man, then it's subjective. If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a true morality. Read the last couple pages of this thread, we went over this in numerous posts.

Objective / universal truths do not come from man. They just exist, whether we believe them or not.

As for manipulation, the exact opposite of what you said is true. If we don't recognize that our rights are derived from a transcendent source, then they can be manipulated or taken away by whatever corrupt person is in power. The very thing that makes our rights inalienable is that they come from God! The founders understood that ("they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights")

Why do you think they're trying to take God out of everything? Why do you think there are horrible human rights abuses and a history of mass murder in atheistic/communist nations? One of the reasons is because they reject the idea of inalienable human rights.... and those brutal dictators didn't think they were accountable to anyone.

Morality does not come from God. Morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not, and that goes for both sides of the God exists / doesnt exist debate. Cant have both Morality from God and Free Will at the same time becaue people will be free for themselves to decide to behave or not to behave in a moral way.

I guarantee you, morality comes from God. Also, it makes no sense to say "morality comes from the choices people make to behave morally or not." Everyone has different ideas on what is moral and what isn't moral. You're sidestepping the question, "What is moral?" Whose standard are you going by?

As for your last sentence, it wasn't clear to me what you're trying to say. Of course people are free to decide to behave or not behave in a moral way. That doesn't mean that morality is not objective. In the same way that people are free to obey the law or break the law.... it doesn't mean there isn't a law.

[robert68]

We have been talking about the nature of morality and the source of morality. Obviously a short definition in the dictionary is not going to go into detail on all those things.

The dictionary defines it as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." So you're still left with the question: what is right conduct? What is "right" to one person is not "right" to another.

And it's also beyond silly to say that fallible, changeable human beings are objective, and the God and Creator of everything - who is eternal and immutable - is not objective.

The mission statement of Ron Paul forums is where objective morality comes from? You completely ignored the point that you were replying to. I'll repeat it.

"Individual rights" can mean different things to different people. So your second statement is extremely vague. And it doesn't explain the source of those individual rights or why we have individual rights in the first place.

It was a reply to your first 2 sentences (of the bold part). Furthermore, “individual rights” are objectively defined and understood pretty well. But most people are tribal in one way or another and oppose them. The ethical stance of “God” on the other hand, as I previously stated, varies with situation, time period, believer and group.

Individual rights don’t require a “source” to be an ethical stance. That’s a rule you and your comrades have concocted in order to define it circular and bring “God” into it (who is always easily used to justify wars, empire, and the violation of individual rights).

[Crashland]

It's as if you are trying to go around telling people that red really is a better color than green because you value it more than green and you think someone else's shared experiences will lead them to the same conclusion.

I couldn't resist, I thought this was ironic after we were just.... anyway, in my subjective view, I'm gonna say that involuntary servitude is not what people should do, and also that the color of this dress is blue and black.

[lilymc]

It was a reply to your first 2 sentences (of the bold part). Furthermore, “individual rights” are objectively defined and understood pretty well. But most people are tribal in one way or another and oppose them. The ethical stance of “God” on the other hand, as I previously stated, varies with situation, time period, believer and group.

You still haven't answered the questions I brought up twice. Let me try again, in different words.

You said, "Individual rights" are objectively defined and understood." By who? If person A defines "individual rights" one way... and person B defines "individual rights" a different way, then which one is right? Whose standard is correct? The one you agree with? What makes your idea of "individual rights" more right than anyone else's?

Individual rights don’t require a “source” to be an ethical stance.

Before we jump ahead to a source, please make your position clear. Do you believe in an objective moral standard (one that is true for everyone, whether they believe it or not?) Or do you believe that morality is subjective?

That’s a rule you and your comrades have concocted in order to define it circular and bring “God” into it (who is always easily used to justify wars, empire, and the violation of individual rights).

Calling me comrade is hilariously ironic, because I'm not the one with an atheistic/ communistic viewpoint. As I posted earlier to someone else, why do you think there are horrible human rights abuses and a history of mass murder in atheistic/communist nations? One of the reasons is because they reject the idea that our rights come from a higher power (God). To them, government is the highest power....to them, government is "god". You seem to like that idea. So since you agree with the communist mindset on morality, who is the comrade here? lol!

[PaulConventionWV]

I couldn't resist, I thought this was ironic after we were just.... anyway, in my subjective view, I'm gonna say that involuntary servitude is not what people should do, and also that the color of this dress is blue and black.

Well, I don't know about the dress, but I'm sure you're going to say that involuntary servitude is wrong because you know that absolute morality really does exist.

[PaulConventionWV]

It was a reply to your first 2 sentences (of the bold part). Furthermore, “individual rights” are objectively defined and understood pretty well. But most people are tribal in one way or another and oppose them. The ethical stance of “God” on the other hand, as I previously stated, varies with situation, time period, believer and group.

Individual rights don’t require a “source” to be an ethical stance. That’s a rule you and your comrades have concocted in order to define it circular and bring “God” into it (who is always easily used to justify wars, empire, and the violation of individual rights).

That is the subjective nature of people, but it does not change the fact that objective truth really does exist regardless of what people believe. They may be objectively defined, but you cannot justify believing in them because I could choose not to care about individual rights and you would have no basis for saying that I'm objectively wrong, thus proving that your worldview cannot account for objective morality.

[robert68]

That is the subjective nature of people, but it does not change the fact that objective truth really does exist regardless of what people believe. They may be objectively defined, but you cannot justify believing in them because I could choose not to care about individual rights and you would have no basis for saying that I'm objectively wrong, thus proving that your worldview cannot account for objective morality.

What "fact" is that?

Also, Christians or theists who decry they’ve been “persecuted” in the past (or presently in one place or another) to the general public are in fact appealing to individual rights to an extent. When at the same time they don’t recognize the individual rights of all and ally with the state for privileged treatment and support its wars, they’re proving to be double talkers and hypocrites. I’m not accusing you of that, but it’s the case with most theists.

[PaulConventionWV]

What "fact" is that?

If you had read the words right after "the fact", then you would have known what "fact" I was referring to.

Also, Christians or theists who decry they’ve been “persecuted” in the past (or presently in one place or another) to the general public are in fact appealing to individual rights to an extent. When at the same time they don’t recognize the individual rights of all and ally with the state for privileged treatment and support its wars, they’re proving to be double talkers and hypocrites. I’m not accusing you of that, but it’s the case with most theists.

You're stereotyping. I believe in individual rights because I have an objective basis for believing in them. If you deny objectivity, then you have no basis. Those who support wars are just wrong.

[robert68]

If you had read the words right after "the fact", then you would have known what "fact" I was referring to.

I never said there isn’t a truth that exists regardless of what one believes. It would be a self defeating statement.

You're stereotyping. I believe in individual rights because I have an objective basis for believing in them. If you deny objectivity, then you have no basis. Those who support wars are just wrong.

[robert68]

There are none. God created everything, including evil. It's easy for you to say that God is evil for doing this, but you have no basis on which to judge what anyone does because you believe there is nothing absolutely wrong with being evil.

This is really beside the point, but I believe that evil works out for good in the end. It's not good now, but it all works out that way. Just as the individual ingredients of biscuits taste horrible, the end product is ultimately all that matters and God's authorship of evil makes him no less God for the fact that his plan involves temporary suffering.

That's not a response to what I wrote. This is what I wrote:

That “God” is logically fallacious. If he caused everything, there would be no minds and identities different than his.

The word "sin" wasn't mentioned. Every human being would just be a mindless robot of that being, with no basis and capability to judge anyone or anything.

[PaulConventionWV]

I never said there isn’t a truth that exists regardless of what one believes. It would be a self defeating statement.

Did I say you believed that? It's been a few days since anyone's responded to this thread, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not a response to what I wrote. This is what I wrote:


The word "sin" wasn't mentioned. Every human being would just be a mindless robot of that being, with no basis and capability to judge anyone or anything.

The whole point being that there are no minds different than His. And suffice it to say, you're just completely wrong about what you claim to know about what humans would be like if God created them. How can you claim to know such a thing?

[robert68]

The whole point being that there are no minds different than His. And suffice it to say, you're just completely wrong about what you claim to know about what humans would be like if God created them. How can you claim to know such a thing?

The word “create” or "cause" has an objective meaning. The implications of a being "creating" other beings comes from the definition of the term.

[PaulConventionWV]

The word “create” or "cause" has an objective meaning. The implications of a being "creating" other beings comes from the definition of the term.

Ok. Not sure how you're drawing the conclusion you are from that, but ok.

[robert68]

Ok. Not sure how you're drawing the conclusion you are from that, but ok.

You like to analogy “God” as a nickel in your pocket: something understandable that really exists. If he’s now something no one can understand, you shouldn’t be lecturing non theists (or anyone else about it.) Not to suggest you’re the only one who pulls the “he can’t be understood” card.

[PaulConventionWV]

You like to analogy “God” as a nickel in your pocket: something understandable that really exists. If he’s now something no one can understand, you shouldn’t be lecturing non theists (or anyone else about it.) Not to suggest you’re the only one who pulls the “he can’t be understood” card.

Um, did I say that He couldn't be understood? I use the nickel as proof of concept regarding equally plausible realities. When you say "something that really exists", you're already implying that you know God doesn't exist, which is fallacious.

[robert68]

The whole point being that there are no minds different than His. And suffice it to say, you're just completely wrong about what you claim to know about what humans would be like if God created them. How can you claim to know such a thing?

I want to go back to this post. If the part in bold is true, humans would be omniscient like "God" is.
And you certainly don't believe humans are omniscient.

[PaulConventionWV]

I want to go back to this post. If the part in bold is true, humans would be omniscient like "God" is.
And you certainly don't believe humans are omniscient.

I have no idea how you are arriving at this conclusion that men MUST have all the attributes of God in order for God to be real. It just doesn't logically follow. Why do you think this?

[robert68]

I have no idea how you are arriving at this conclusion that men MUST have all the attributes of God in order for God to be real. It just doesn't logically follow. Why do you think this?

First of all, I didn’t say that. How about not confusing matters by saying or implying I said things I didn’t?

Secondly, you said “The whole point being that there are no minds different than His.” What is that supposed to mean?

[Sola_Fide]

I want to go back to this post. If the part in bold is true, humans would be omniscient like "God" is.
And you certainly don't believe humans are omniscient.

I agree with you here. God is a mind and men are different minds.

[PaulConventionWV]

First of all, I didn’t say that. How about not confusing matters by saying or implying I said things I didn’t?

Secondly, you said “The whole point being that there are no minds different than His.” What is that supposed to mean?

God knows everything you know. That's what that means.

What you're saying is already confusing enough without my input, so I'll just let you try to explain what you mean if you really have an explanation (but I suspect you're just making baseless assertions).

So go ahead... what in the heck are you saying?

It doesn't really help clarify anything if you tell me what you're not saying without trying to clarify what you are saying.