"what is right or wrong" and "murdered" and "And do not see any problem with that"
OK, thank you, John N, for acknowledging the existence of God 3 times in that reply by asserting objective moral values and duties!
Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values DO exist. (Your 3-fold claim above)
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.
42 comments
Can someone explain to me why you need God to have objective moral values ?
I mean hypothetically there could be moral values written in the stars as part of the laws of physics. Those would be as objective as anything deriving from a god and don't require god.
"Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists."
So your faith in the existence of God is so weak that you have to make these lame "logical" arguments to convince yourself.
This is nothing more than a variation of might makes right and because I say so. Basically morality is little more than God's subjective sentiments as a previous poster has said.
Basically this sort of crap is an appeal to authority. Assuming it to be true; just why would the "fact" that God says X is moral be objective? All it "proves" is that God said X was moral; it in no way would prove that the morality dictated was in fact objective.
Thus even if God dictated morality it would still be possible to both question the objectivity of the morality and question the moral dictate itself. And of course the question would arise of where God got his/her morality from?
> "And do not see any problem with that"
Sounds like the other guy is disagreeing with God, which hardly counts as a ringing acknowledgement of his moral standards.
John N said:
> Although I doubt this is correct when I see religous people not only believe, but also love and worship a deity that supposedly murdered billions of plants and animals - including humans - by drowning them. And do not see any problem with that.
Sure enough.
1- We Atheists can be good & civilised to our fellow human beings because we can .
2- Your 'God' is subjectively immoral (Abraham & Isaac: LYING. Hosea 13:16: MURDER & ABORTION. Joseph, re. his betrothed Mary: ADULTERY. Mary: underage : STATUTORY RAPE).
Conclusion: If your 'God' exists, He must bow down & worship we morally superior Atheists. NEXT !
Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
False. Moral values can exist without a god existing.
Premise 2: Objective moral values DO exist. (Your 3-fold claim above)
Not proven.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.
Again, not proven. Try again.
This argument is as stupid as the argument we had yesterday of "People want objective moral justice, therefore it exists, therefore Hell exists, therefore God exists."
Your God, and religion, has some of the most subjective 'morals' I've ever seen.
And as for premise 1, let's suppose that's true. Then the problem would be which god. Is this god even known to human beings? Evidence?
All morality is conditional. What would be considered "immoral" in most situations may not be immoral in others. Therefore it must include some sort of opinion. Therefore it is not objective.
The terms "right," "wrong" and "murdered" do not assume objective morality in any case.
(Anon-e-moose)
"Mary: underage: STATUTORY RAPE."
Concerned more with Mary's age than with the fact that Yahweh couldn't have cared less whether Mary wanted to beget Jesus or not (Mary wasn't told of the immaculate conception until after it happened)? Really? *raises eyebrows*
Your W.L.Craig bullshit doesn't fly. There is nothing that locks the moral base of the western world to your primitive enslaved masses in Biblical societies.
Premise 1: Moral objectives come from God, according to religions and SOME philosophies. There is nothing to indicate either are truth based. Example: Your Nambla buddies have a philosophy that having sex with young boys is ok, you a goat blower, are hardly in a position to be critical.
Premise 2: Objective moral values DO exist. Yes, from society, and notable that Chinese and many other cultures who never heard of your religious nonsense already had these 'objections' as did ancient cultures of the middle east LOOOOONG before your fable.
They also didn't like goat blowers, so stop already.
And did a particularly pretty goat or Nambla member distract you from Conclusion 1?
Conclusion 2 is an unsubstantiated assertion.
Objective morality is a dubious claim. When William Lane Craig and his ilk make the claim it sounds awfully like korality based around consensus of opinion, which is ever flexible, therefore objectivity is negated.
Besides, even if this was remotely logical, it wouldn't mean the Abrahamic deity is the correct one.
Premise 1: If there is no God, then flying pigs do not exist.
Premise 2: Flying pigs DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.
See? You can prove anything if you pull premises out of thin air.
Premise 1 is false, asshole. The fact that you need belief in god to understand that causing the suffering of another being is morally corrupt just proves what a dipstick you are. Human beings had morals loooong before Jesus Christ supposedly existed.
What a fucking tool. The funny thing is he thinks he is so smart and can "trap" atheists.
@Da Rat Bastid
Use of a H135 (updated variant of the MBB Bo 105) with NOTAR, same as Humberside Police's 'Oscar 99':
image
Your argument is valid . [/"Blue Thunder"]
It even has it's own Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/hposcar99
X3
@Da Rat Bastid
Well, Tony Alamo didn't. The only way he's leaving prison is in a box .
Modern secular Rule of Law standards. Informed Consent.
God could've always chosen a woman in her mid-twenties at least. And asked her in advance about if she wanted to give birth to someone else's child. [/Abraham & Isaac].
Or simply snapped his fingers and 'Poof!' Instant Jesus! Ah, but then there's another 'Mystery' of the Bible solved by a mere limerick:
The heavenly lord and master
Saw man heading for a hellish disaster
Why'd he send his son in
To take away sin
When snapping his fingers'd be faster ?
I suspect that's why so many fundies - including one or two posting in FSTDT - are supporting Josh Buggar (although that support may be weakening, post-Ashley Madison): their own deity did the same, after all.
(Anon-e-moose)
"Modern secular Rule of Law standards. Informed Consent."
Your argument might be remotely valid -- IF society (even those who haven't drunk the "if it's fun, it must be sinful" Kool-Aid) weren't fighting tooth and claw to keep these same people uninformed .
But if God is the author of moral values, then they are subjective (God's), rather than objective. So Premise 1 should be "if there is a God, then objective moral values do not exist."
Carry on from there.
Thank you WGC for acknowledging the existence of Thor by posting on Thursday!
Premise 1: If there is no Thor, then Thursday does not exist.
Premise 2: Thursday exists. (Otherwise you would not be able to post on Thursday.)
Conclusion: Therefore, Thor exists.
"Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists."
Which god? Prove it is YOUR god and not one of the thousands and thousands of other gods.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.