Actually I know plenty. Most are at least astute enough to admit that the problem of morality
is at least a
problem, even if they don't admit totally my position.
If this is true, logically, morals don't
do anything! Explain to me how a law which can be changed at ANY moment is a law? I really am curious.
So what indeed? Believing is not what we are talking about. That is where subjectivity, personal belief and opinions all come into it. We are talking about an
objective morality. And without an objective morality, how can one
have any morality at all? You still have not answered this, I am very curious to discover how you think morality can matter without someone higher than us.
Now we are talking about a different thing. I know many atheists who live, if not saintly, at least decent, good lives*. I do not say atheists cannot
be moral or act righteously. But, to them, it doesn't mean anything. Going up to random people and punching them is every bit as meaningless as going up to random people and giving them money (from an ethical perspective. Obviously from a legal perspective giving strangers money won’t get felony charges landed against you).
*But again, this begs the questiopn: According to
whom? Me? Maybe? You? Maybe. Maybe not. They can't live "moral" lives if there is no thing to measure it by!
No. It isn't. I see you still just do not understand what I attempt to say...
It might occur to me that they have personal beliefs on the subject, but where do those beliefs come from, hmm? I am committing no such either/or fallacy. Either there is an objective moral code or there isn't. That is not a fallacy, it is a logical determination. A second premise is that without a higher being there can be no objective moral code. This is obvious to all but the most ardently stubborn. You need to discredit one of these two premises. The first is pretty much impossible (there either is something or there isn’t... you can’t have something simultaneously existing and not existing) to discredit, the second premise seems just as impossible. Without a higher Being to create this objective moral code, there can’t be one, since someone had to create it. By all means, point out the fallacy in these premises. I do not think you can because I do not think there is one. Keep in mind that in this particular argument, I am not arguing for an objective moral code. If you wish to have that debate some other time we could. No, my argument here is that for it to exist, there has to be a higher being. That is the basis of my assertion, nothing more, nothing less.
You KNOW? I am curious, how do you KNOW? Who has told you that you live a moral life? Yourself? Someone else? Who has the authority to tell you that you have? No one, really. I, myself, would most likely be appalled by some things you have done (this is not just you; I would be appalled by anyone. By myself, for that matter. All men sin); I probably would not call you a moral person. You may say “Well I don’t CARE what you think” and that would be most reasonable indeed. But I have as much authority as any other human to make a moral judgment of your actions. And my judgment is just as useless as everyone else’s.
But WHY you do this is the question. Do you have a reason? Not really. You just made it up. I could just as easily make up my own moral principle: “Treat others as you DON’T want to be treated yourself”. Would that somehow give my “principle” any sort of credibility? No. The fact that your principle seems acceptable in modern society is no argument for it. You need to have a logical basis for coming up with it, and you don’t. You just made it up. For that matter, you didn’t just make it up, you took it from the Bible, but that is unimportant, since at the moment the Bible has no authority either. We haven’t even reached an objective moral code yet.
Umm, no? Who on earth says that is a “natural moral order”? You? I don’t. Many don’t. Many others don’t. Many others might. Who knows? Who cares? Humans can’t come to morals by majority. That is ludicrous. You might like to invent ethics for yourself, these ethics might be righteous and admirable, but they are still your invention, and therefore have not a leg to stand upon.
Another question: Do you enjoy getting insulted, cursed at, etc.? If so, you are extremely strange indeed. If not, why do you do it to others? Does not this violate your “principle”? And yet... it doesn’t matter, does it? Your “principles” mean absolutely nothing because if you “break” them, who cares! There is no retribution, no law against it. There is nothing in the way of your breaking your own invented principle, or changing your own principle, and a law without some sort of authority behind it is no law at all.
Can you imagine the United States if our laws weren’t enforced? Would anyone make an argument that we have laws at all? Of course not! A law that isn’t enforced is no law at all! A law that can change at anyone’s whim is no law at all.
No, I have not read a book that “shattered my little box” because none can. Or, to be more accurate, none has, and I do not expect any to anytime soon, though I do not claim omniscience and the idea that none EVER can. That is where Faith comes in but I digress, this has nothing to do with the topic. Anyway, this does not mean I do not read opposing viewpoints. I do it often. Indeed, just now I am reading fundamentalist written books about why evolution absolutely could not happen. I do not believe this. Indeed, I am rather convinced it does occur, but I like hearing opposing viewpoints. I have also listened and read many other tapes and books which do not agree with my own beliefs. Existentialism, Nietzsche, Plato have been my most recent. I have read lots of stuff. I just don’t feel particularly confident reading a book you recommend. If it has arguments as logical as your own it will most likely be a waste of time.
I might do that. Not sure why I would seeing as I am being told to by a guy who can’t stop cursing at me but I might.
Can’t you do your own talking, discussing, etc? I am not throwing books at you, though I certainly could. Try reading Peter Kreeft’s imaginary dialogues between Socrates and modern day citizens, or Vincent P. Miceli’s book on atheism, or heck, go to the simple but brilliant logic of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. Have you read any of those? I doubt it. Don’t want to ruin your little box that keeps the angels out
Educate myself? So... reading atheists is educating but reading Christians is abandoning logic? I love your reasoning, anarkist.
It saddens me that you do not wish to continue our dialogue, but I suppose I am not entirely surprised. You have offered nothing coming close to a logical argument in support of your beliefs, and are being battered by logical arguments from the other side. I don’t think you like Christianity (or theism in general) being supported by logic. Maybe you don’t run into it often? Or maybe people just don’t like arguing with you because of your lack of tact. I must say, it is much easier to have a discussion with someone who at least LOOKS like he is trying to be polite, than someone who goes out of his way to be profane and unreasonable.
I am not being lazy at all. Your complete lack of any types of answers is a bit interesting, though. If you simply need more time, say so. I am not one who needs a post within five minutes of mine, that is three pages long. If it is a time issue and that is why you can’t seem to come up with any reasonable arguments based on logical thought, just say so and get back to it whenever you have the time. I do not wish the discussion to end on a bad note merely because you have a busy life.