ant wrote:Well, it's your worldview that's being questioned.

Says the grand inquisitor. (who never enters the dock)

ant wrote:Is this where you deny atheists exist?

no, this is where you get sadly annoying.

ant wrote: So morality is just a delusion in a cold universe.
Reduced to the very meaningless core of evolution, if one single rape does not hurt the collective survival of a tribe of people, it is not "wrong" within the context of a purposeless universe.

Oh wait - this is where the atheist claims there's objective morality

See, sadly annoying, you go off and have a little conversation with yourself that insults the intelligence of anyone silly enough to take you seriously.

As if the truth is so fragile it needs you to be a jerk to defend it.

why them atheists, i tells ya, without religifying, they will be just rapin' and killin' in no time... why if i didn't have Jaysus in my life i would be rapin' and a killin' in no time too

ant wrote:

Well, it's your worldview that's being questioned.
Is this where you deny atheists exist?

Dip, duck, dodge!

See you in the next thread

I would hope that moral behavior doesn't follow from belief/nonbelief in God. If we see a child that needs help, for example, we help the child because we are human. I don’t think atheism/theism factors into the equation at all. We are altruistic by nature.

But it could also be that those who so desperately want to believe in a supreme moral authority need to believe that in order to be good. Otherwise they would see nothing wrong with murdering and raping people. Or see no difference between a tree falling and a girl freed from slavery.

ant wrote:So morality is just a delusion in a cold universe.
Reduced to the very meaningless core of evolution, if one single rape does not hurt the collective survival of a tribe of people, it is not "wrong" within the context of a purposeless universe.

Morality is a very real thing, with a very real impact. It's a requirement for humans to live together and flourish. This doesn't change between theists and atheists. Of course a single rape is wrong. Why do you think it isn't?

Pastor Rick Henderson mentions "objective morality" several times. What is that, a moral system that every human would recognize as true and accurate? If the system is objective, that should be true. What are these objective morals then? He doesn't say.

• Is there any reason a physical universe of countless moving objects and sub-atomic particles zipping about should inform humans of an "objective moral" system? No.
• Is there any reason to believe a supernatural power has revealed a universal system of "objective morality" that everyone recognizes? No, there are many attempts at such systems, but they contradict each other and evolve over time; there is no objectivity.
• Does "objective morality" exist? There may be some (but not unanimous) agreement on a few details such as when stealing, killing, and slavery are acceptable. However, given the wide range of morals practiced across the globe that are highly contradictory and constantly changing, obviously a system of "objective morality" does not exist. If you disagree, please spell out the entire system.

Since morality doesn't come from the physical universe or a supernatural power and isn't objective, where do you think it comes from?

LanDroid wrote:Since morality doesn't come from the physical universe or a supernatural power and isn't objective, where do you think it comes from?

This theme of "objective morality" is one I mentioned in the thread started recently on Nagel Mind and Cosmos. Nagel maintains that morality is objective. I consider that to be a category mistake, as do the critical authors quoted in that thread. Wishing does not make it so. Nagel is guilty of Tinkerbell philosophy.

The fundamental categories of thought are facts and values. Facts are objective truths, while values are subjective opinions. Morality is a statement of subjective values, and therefore is intrinsically non-objective.

If we say our personal morality is objective, we assert our personal values are universal and absolute. That has historically proven to be a socially compelling stratagem to spread moral views. However, compelling does not mean objective. All morality is premised on value axioms, such as that flourishing is good. Axioms are assumptions that lack the factual categorical nature of objective statements.

We may think the universe would care if humans went extinct, but we have no factual way to know, so this metaphysical speculation is not objective. It is an assumption without evidence.

Systematic morality requires that we identify and agree on fundamental axioms, to construct what is termed axiological ethics. For example, moral axioms could include that human flourishing is good, or that care is the meaning of being. A range of Biblical ideas function as moral axioms, such as that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us, that we should love our enemies, that the least of the world are first in the kingdom of God, and that the wrath of God is against those who destroy the earth.

None of these are any more "objective" than the claim that parallel lines never meet. Moral axioms are ideological constructions, and do not need us to speculate about the existence of some outside power to validate them, any more than Euclidean geometry requires light to travel in straight lines. Evidentiary analysis of our own evolutionary interests is the best validation for our moral beliefs.

Within the constructed world of the system, ethical statements can be considered true, but objectivity is a property of reality, and we cannot say that any moral axiom is objective and absolute except against the reference of some interest, such as human flourishing. We can say 'in order for humans to flourish we should be good'. That is different from saying that objective morality requires us to be good.

My favorite statement on atheism is from Albert Camus: "I don't believe in God, and I am not an atheist." He meant to deny that his non-belief in a God had the related implications it is often assumed to, which would place him where he never wanted to be--in an intellectual pack. With due respect to Pastor Henderson, who appears sincere, there is no mandate for an atheist to be true to, or consistent with, another's notion of the corollaries of his non-belief. All that is necessary is that an atheist not adhere to theisms. A theism is most usefully described as a belief that an immortal being rules the world and has a particular connection with its human inhabitants. Lacking this particular belief, atheists are not left without the resources to have beliefs related to their purpose in life or to morality.

Henderson may have an argument with certain individuals he cites, but his polemic comes up short in applying to atheists in general.