Apologetic Dialogue on Objective Morality

A discussion on objective morality here

A:Another deaf christian who cannot here the answers to his questions for atheists. The old “I didn’t like what you said so you didn’t answer the question’ idiot response.

B:What question did Bahnsen not answer? And while you’re at it, can you respond to the transcendental argument for God?

A:Its not that he didn’t answer any questions. He did the usual thing where he asks a question, didn’t like the answer so ignored it and said it never got answered.

The TAG argument fails because you are still arbitrarily saying god must exist because things like morality and logic exist. Its not just absurd its intellectually lazy

B:So the TAG arguments fails because you personally think it’s intellectually lazy? That’s not much of a response, to be honest. Morality, logic, science, experiments, uniformity of nature, the principle of induction (that the future will be like the past), all are completely meaningless and unjustifiable in a godless atheistic worldview.

A:Why are these meaningless without your particular god? In fact it is you who have the problems when invoking a deity. Take morality for instance. You cannot claim the high ground with some sort of absolute morality when the most heinous crimes against humanity are sanctioned or committed by your deity.

B:Because there are no absolutes in your worldview, no truth, no objective morality, nothing but pure relativism. Whenever an atheist accuses God of doing anything immoral, that atheist is presupposing the existence of an absolute/objective moral standard, but such a standard can only exist if God exists, so the atheist’s argument against God is built on the foundation of God’s existence. Atheism is intellectually bankrupt.

A: Because there are no absolutes in your worldview” What do you consider an absolute? What can you prove to be absolutely true that supports your particular view of reality?

“no truth..” Truth tends to be subjective.

“no objective morality..” That is because there is no objective morality. It is subjective. Man will justify the most heinous acts and call them righteous. See the bible for examples.

“Whenever an atheist accuses God of doing anything immoral..” Impossible. An atheist by definition does not believe gods/goddesses exist. To accuse a character in a narrative of being immoral only works relative to that narrative. I would say the make believe god of the bible displays some very immoral characteristics. But that is just my opinion.

“that atheist is presupposing the existence of an absolute/objective moral standard..” Wrong. Such a thing does not exist. See previous statements.

“…but such a standard can only exist if God exists..” Non-sequitur. I have stated that the absolute standard does not exist therefore that proving the existence of any god does not follow. Are you getting now why things like the TAG argument fail so miserably.

“..so the atheist’s argument against God is built on the foundation of God’s existence.” Mental and verbal gymnastics.

“Atheism is intellectually bankrupt.” Oh the irony

B: Wow, there are so many errors in your comment, that I was wondering whether there is any reason in responding…

“Truth tends to be subjective.”

Oh boy… post-modernism destroys reason. Is 2+2 equal with 4? Is that an objective or subjective truth? If I say that 2+2 equals 5, am I correct? You should stop drinking pickle juice in the morning, it makes you say weird stuff.

“That is because there is no objective morality. It is subjective. Man will justify the most heinous acts and call them righteous. See the bible for examples.”

1. Is it always wrong for anyone to torture babies merely for their own entertainment?
2. Men’s justification of heinous acts does not indicate the nonexistence of an absolute moral standard, that is the difference between the epistemology of morality versus the ontology of morality. In other words, if every single person on the planet thought that 2+2 equals 5, would 2+2 equal 5? Of course not, the result would still be “4” even if nobody believes that. That’s what an absolute/objective truth means, something that is completely independent of man’s opinion.
3. There you go again, can’t you understand that you cannot call something immoral/evil if you have no objective moral standard that dictates what is moral and what isn’t? Is this really that difficult to comprehend?

“Impossible. An atheist by definition does not believe gods/goddesses exist”

What on earth does your response have to do with anything I said in my previous comment? All I said was “Whenever an atheist accuses God of doing anything immoral…” … how can any rational person respond to that quote of mine with what you’ve just responded? Did I defined what an atheist is? No. Are there atheists who accuse God of doing something evil? Yes, you for example.

“I would say the make believe god of the bible displays some very immoral characteristics. But that is just my opinion.”

Exactly, in a godless atheistic worldview, all you can do is give your own opinions, but you can’t make absolute statements. You can say torturing someone is immoral, and ISIS can come along and say it is perfectly moral, and there is NO way you can prove that your personal and subjective opinion is better than the person and subjective opinion of ISIS.

So, claiming that rape is immoral is exactly on the same level of claiming that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. There is no standard, it’s just your opinion versus someone else’ opinion. That is why atheism entails moral nihilism.

“”..so the atheist’s argument against God is built on the foundation of God’s existence.” Mental and verbal gymnastics.”

That’s what one says when he doesn’t understand the argument that was just made.

A: “Is 2+2 equal with 4? Is that an objective or subjective truth?” You know damn well that we aren’t talking about mathematical proofs. Well I hope you know we are not talking about mathematical proofs.

“1. Is it always wrong for anyone to torture babies merely for their own entertainment?” And you will find that subjectively most people agree. This does not prove that there is an objective morality. It only proves our subjective consensus.

“In other words, if every single person on the planet thought that 2+2
equals 5, would 2+2 equal 5? Of course not, the result would still be
“4”….” MATH PROOFS!!!!! Not relevant to this discussion. The axiom 1+1=2 has nothing to do with thinking female circumcision is a moral act. You are comparing apples and oranges.

“can’t you understand that you cannot call something immoral/evil if you
have no objective moral standard that dictates what is moral and what
isn’t? Is this really that difficult to comprehend?”
Is it so hard to comprehend that I don’t need your subjective opinion that there is some sort of objective morality to operate in a moral framework. Just because you can think of something that is so morally cringe worthy that we all subjectively agree it is “immoral” does not automatically point to some outside moral law giver. It just shows we all subjectively think it is wrong.

“Exactly, in a godless atheistic worldview, all you can do is give your own opinions..” Please enlighten me to what extra thing you can give that does not ultimately rest on your opinion?

“You can say torturing someone is immoral, and ISIS can come along and
say it is perfectly moral, and there is NO way you can prove that your
personal and subjective opinion is better than the person and subjective
opinion of ISIS.”
Of course I can.

“So, claiming that rape is immoral is exactly on the same level of claiming that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.” How ridiculous.

“There is no standard, it’s just your opinion versus someone else’ opinion.” And the huge amounts of evidence of harm. Saying rape is wrong is not an arbitrary statement. It has supporting data that shows determent.

Let me ask you this. Is there anything that would be out of bounds if you were sure god wanted you to do it? Is there any action you can think of that would make you say “no I am not going to do that”?

B: ” And you will find that subjectively most people agree. This does not prove that there is an objective morality. It only proves our subjective consensus.”

So it’s not torturing babies merely for your own entertainment is not inherently immoral in and of itself, right?

“Please enlighten me to what extra thing you can give that does not ultimately rest on your opinion?”

The Scripture is my ultimate authority. And because I can tell what you’re response will be, I have to say that the misuse of a sufficient and perfect source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient and perfect source.

“Of course I can.”

How exactly can you prove that your subjective moral standard is better than someone else’s subjective moral standard?

“”So, claiming that rape is immoral is exactly on the same level of claiming that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.” How ridiculous.”

That statement of mine is perfectly true for a worldview that embraces moral nihilism, a worldview that negates the existence of inherent moral values in place of personal preferences regarding the moral status of a certain action.

“And the huge amounts of evidence of harm. Saying rape is wrong is not an arbitrary statement. It has supporting data that shows determent.”

Can’t you see the many loopholes in that response that you’ve given? What if the woman is in a coma? How would that harm her? It wouldn’t. So if there’s no harm, then the action is perfectly moral.

And besides, who gets to decide that harming someone is immoral? What if an economic crisis will began (that doesn’t seem to far-fetched considering those 2 presidential candidates of the US) where people will fight for their own survival by robbing other people? What if robbing people at gun point would be the social norm? Would it make it moral to rob people at gun point?

“Let me ask you this. Is there anything that would be out of bounds if you were sure god wanted you to do it? Is there any action you can think of that would make you say “no I am not going to do that”?”

Since God is infinitely holy and just and the very paradigm of goodness, He would never ask me to do anything unjust or immoral.

A: “So it’s not torturing babies merely for your own
entertainment is not inherently immoral in and of itself, right?”

An action is not inherently anything. We are the ones who
are right, wrong, moral and immoral. You should stop using this as well. Why
put the qualifier “merely for your own entertainment” on it? Is there any
instance that torturing a baby for any reason is the right thing to do? It
makes you look like you are saying that you sometimes might need to torture a
child, either emotional or physically, but if you do it just for fun that is
bad.

“The Scripture is my ultimate authority.”

Ok but you still are subjectively assessing that authority.
You even had to jump in and try to preempt my response because you know
subjectively I asses it a totally different way than you. You are part of a
percentage of people who see scripture as the ultimate authority. I am part of
a large percentage that doesn’t. How much more subjective can you get. Words
are like actions. It is us that assign value, not the words themselves.

“How exactly can you prove that your subjective moral
standard is better than someone else’s subjective moral standard?”

I answered this in the other parts of the response. We weigh
it up through the impact it has. This is a gross oversimplification but not
that hard to understand.

“Can’t you see the many loopholes in that response that
you’ve given? What if the woman is in a coma?” WOW!! Just frikin’ WOW. Ok I
will play the “what if” game with this one. So we are not going to look at the
physical ramifications of getting raped but what about the rapist themselves?
He is harming himself through these actions. He is perpetuating a mentality
that it is ok to do things like this if you can get away with it. In what
instance could that be seen as helpful to anyone. Any selfish action like that
has immediate gratification but what are the long term results? Also ask
yourself this; if you were in a coma for 3 years and found out that you were consistently
abused while unconscious, how would that make you feel? No harm while it’s
being done according to you. What happens when you see the video he took on his
phone? What if, What if, What if.

“What if an economic crisis will began…. where people will
fight for their own survival by robbing other people?”

Robbing people is always the lazy and/or desperate action
that gets you short term gain. Subjectively someone can justify stealing my
food to save their child but if my child starves to death then subjectively I
will see that as immoral.Was the stealing inherently anything? We are a social species. We survive by banding
together, pooling resources and helping each other. People like robbers and
rapists harm themselves by doing the things they do and getting ostracised. If
you are antisocial then you have problems finding a mate who will help you pass
on your genes, thus diluting that sort of behaviour out of the gene pool. We
now have populations that are occupied by people who either know their
antisocial behaviour is wrong or view antisocial behaviour as wrong. The
dynamics of evolution gave us our morals.

“Since God is infinitely holy and just and the very paradigm
of goodness, He would never ask me to do anything unjust or immoral.”

This is
the answer I always get to this question and it is no way an answer. Do you not
read your bible? The narrative has him killing children and asking others to
kill children for him. How do you know that you will never be asked to kill a
three year old boy? Numbers 31:17-18

So can I take your answer to be “if god asked me to do it I
would just do it”?

B: can’t you see how you reject objective morality, and then start making moral claims? Amazing is the inconsistency of atheism… So, according to you, the very action of torturing a baby merely for your own entertainment has absolutely no moral value whatsoever, it only gets a moral value based on the opinions of each society, so if a society decided that they should torture a baby for their own entertainment once a year, then that action would be perfectly moral and right in that particular society, and if YOU ever witnessed that, you couldn’t say that there’s anything wrong being done there, because it would be your subjective opinion versus theirs. Why can’t atheists see the conclusion of their negation of objective morality?

A: first of all there is no “objective” morality. Morality is a human construct based on our complex social structures. It is not about opinions. It is about what makes a society work ( another very complex set of circumstances). What possible set of beneficial social circumstances could come from torturing a baby for your own enjoyment?
You however have to ask yourself a specific question if you are going to be honest and not a hypocrite; Would you torture a baby if you thought your particular god wanted you to do it?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s