Discussing “Is Morality Objective?” with Atheists, 3 of 5

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

This is the third segment relating discussions I had with Atheist due to the video “Is Morality Objective? Randal Rauser & CC Vs Brenton & 5-By-5”—when all segments are posted, you will be able to find them here.

Picking up where we left off:

Ken Ammi
Well, since you have just admitted that “everyone…condemn[s] things based on their own subjective morality. That is how it works” you have just disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything.
But you are violating the technical definition of ethics as I outlined it as referring to the ethos by asserting “Ethics is also subjective” which is inaccurate since ethics/ethos is absolute, universal, extrinsic, objective, etc. which is why all people everywhere and at all times agree on ethics/ethos. What they disagree on is morality as the mores which are tentative, subjective, intrinsic, etc.
That “people ought to do is just your subjective opinion on what you think they should do” is an incoherent statement based on you violating the categories I laid out via technical definitions.
And you really should adhere to accurate definitions since when you say “All ethics is is the value system society has” you are stating the exact opposite of the fact which is that “All morals/mores are, are the value system society has” which will hopeful conform to ethics/ethos.
So no, ethics/ethos does not change.
That “you could have everyone agree with something that does” would be evidence of something that is objective.
My that “humans are animals” you seem to be making a statement based on hidden assumptions that since at some time someone taxonomically called us animals then, by golly, such is what we are. But find, let me grant that: now you are telling me that you are an animal and that, by golly, I should change my views to agree with an animal—friend, you just discredited yourself even more.

davelanger
Ken Ammi of course ethics change. They change over time as the needs of society change. And no if everyone agrees with something that would not make it objective. Everything you say is always wrong. You don’t know the definitions you are talking about. Its hilarious you claim its other people that don’t know them. You really need to educate yourself better.
Ken Ammi It’s easy to prove the Christian god does not exist. The Christian god is full of contradictions thus he cannot be real. For example, the Christian god is said to be omnipotent which is impossible since for example, god cannot create a rock so heavy not even he can lift it. God cannot make a square circle. This is all basic stuff.

Ken Ammi
Friend, recall that you admitted that “everyone…condemn[s] things based on their own subjective morality. That is how it works” and so you disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything.
There is a technical difference between morality and ethics which you are ignoring and so you are committing a category error.
Morality when defined as referring to the mores merely describe whatever people do and so it is subjective, tentative, intrinsic, relative, etc. Ethics when defined as referring to the ethos actually prescribes what people ought to be doing and so is objective, absolute, universal, extrinsic, etc. (some term the ethos universal/objective morality).
Thus, “ethics change” because “They change over time” is actually a reference to morality.
The fact that everyone agrees on the ethos is evidence that it is objective.
But then you make the utterly absolute statement that “Everything you say is always wrong” but according to your worldview, that would not matter even if it was true.
Likewise with that you assert that “It’s easy to prove the Christian god does not exist. The Christian god is full of contradictions thus he cannot be real” but you state that as a conclusion without a premise and so it is instantly dismissable: you must first establish how your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to these, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
Unless you begin with that then I can just reply: and who cares that an accidentally and temporarily existing ape expresses random bio-chemical neural reactions that are predetermined by the accidental and temporary laws of physics by pounding away on a keyboard.
Unless you begin with that, begin at the beginning, anything else you say will suffer the same fate: it will be a baseless conclusion and therefore, subject to be rejected instantly.
Now, by the way, omnipotent means to possess the potency to do what which one will to do. On my worldview, since logic is a reflection of God’s ontology then “god cannot create a rock so heavy not even he can lift it” because that is incoherent and “God cannot make a square circle” because doing so would violate the categories of that which is meant by square and meant by circle. Biblically, there are things that God cannot do.

davelanger
Everyone condemns everything on his or her own subjective morality. And yes I can condemn anyone for anything based on my subjective morality just like you and everyone else does. Not sure what is so hard to understand about this. The only difference between me and people like you is I am honest morality is subjective and people like you pretend your morally is objective.
The DEF of morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. I always laugh when people like you use weird definitions that no one uses.
Those values change over time they always have they also change based on what type of society you live in.
You once again don’t know what an internal critic is. I have already been over this with you a few times now and its getting old. I don’t need to provide anything about my worldview to show how your god is not real based on YOUR worldview. That being said, I use logic and reason to show how your god is a contradiction. If you are going to claim logic and reason is not good enough then I can’t even take you seriously. And I knew you wouldn’t debate your god because you know you can’t refute anything I said about it. Its because you like most theist are just a joke and cannot argue the point using your own world view.
Your god is incoherent and that is why its impossible that your god is omnipotent. Your own bible says that god can do anything. Yet he did not. If god created logic and the universe he would be able to violet any laws he made because he created them. The bible does not say god cannot do certain things the bible says he can do anything. Do I really need to show you passages? You once again don’t know your own bible.
If you want to have a real debate and stop playing your little games to get out of debating your god then do it.

See my books on Atheism.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.