Discussing “Is Morality Objective?” with Atheists, 4 of 5

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

This is the fourth 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
I would appear that you are so used to a certain modus operandi—showing up, making demands, declaring yourself victorious, running off to do it all again—that you are uncomfortable when you are asked to not begin with conclusions but to begin at the beginning—however inconvenient that might be to your worldview.
Again, when you affirm “Everyone condemns everything on his or her own subjective morality” you have utterly disqualified yourself from ever potently condemning anything since you are admitting that when you do so, you are merely expressing your subjective and tentative emotions de jour—I could not have discredited you better myself.
FYI: you will not get very far when you misrepresent me to myself (especially when what I said is right above this in the thread for all to see). You seem to read out of your Atheist talking points when you say “I am honest morality is subjective and people like you pretend your morally is objective.”
What I said is, and I quote, “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.” and I added, for the sake of semantics, that “(some term the ethos universal/objective morality)” but the technical definitions as well as the different terminology (“universal/objective morality” or even “absolute morality” while we are at it) prove that we agree that “morality is subjective.
You also misrepresent me (to myself) again with “I don’t need to provide anything about my worldview to show how your god is not real based on YOUR worldview” when what I said was something you still conveniently sidestepped, “you must first establish how your worldview provide you a premise for” what, whether God is real? No, “truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to these, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise.”
Those are your first steps and without them anything you say is meaningless and as impotent as your subjectively emotive moral condemnation—by definition.
Now, when you say “I use logic and reason” you are beginning with the very conclusion I identified: you are failing to 1. premise for logic, 2. for adhering to it, and 3. for demanding that others do likewise. You see without these first steps then “your god is a contradiction” is literally meaningless.
I also find it fascinating that you play mind reader but that is another issue, you seem to be arguing against an imaginary foe since you claim “because you know you can’t refute anything I said about it” but that is the point: you want to play your MO card and not be questioned about its validity.
You say “Your god is incoherent…its impossible that your god is omnipotent” but those are non issues since, as of yet, they are merely emotive assertions.
You say “Your own bible says that god can do anything” but that is an assertion which is unquoted, uncited, un-elucidated and based on hidden assumptions.
Same with the list of talking points you with which you ended
In a way I do not blame you for refusing to face the fundamental failure of your worldview—which fails before it even begins—but the best bet is to accept that fact and abandon it.

davelanger
Love how you start off your post with a bunch of nonsense.
You love to say that I DQ myself by saying I cannot condemn anything, that is simply not true. I condemn is based on my subjective morality, just like you and everyone else does but you pretend what you think is objective. At least I am honest.
When you say you ought to do, that is not objective, it’s still subjective. Its what you THINK someone SHOULD do. It’s an opinion.
AGAIN I don’t need to provide anything about my worldview to speak about your worldview. You really have no idea what an internal clique is, you are the one sidestepping and are trying to deflect the real issue here.
You have not refuted anything I have said, if you could you would but you keep trying to deflect the real issue here. And you keep getting pissy I don’t take the bait and get way off topic which is what you want.
We are talking about morality and it being subjective or objective. So stick to that. I have already shown how its subjective, you have not shown how its objective. In fact you want to talk about anything but morality.
You said a whole lot of nothing, so show me how morality is objective. I am still waiting.
As for me making just assertions, are you really saying the bible does not say god can do anything, because if you are then you really don’t know the bible.
The only one failing here is you. You stll cant prove objective morality. And these are the games people like you play. You keep dodging the debate so people just give us then you can claim they ran away.
Last chance to prove objective morality.

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.