1. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    16 Oct '17 06:06
    Are there any atheists brave enough to actually attempt to answer these questions on morality?

    1. If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?

    2. If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?

    3.If you say your standard is evolving and getting better, then can you assert that it won’t evolve into something that contradicts what you believe now thereby demonstrating that your moral beliefs now were really wrong?

    4. If your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?

    https://carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-morality
  2. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    16 Oct '17 07:12
    When you talk about someone's morals evolving and getting better are you referring to that person growing up, learning about how to interact with others, and becoming a more mature person? Do you mean "evolving" and "getting better" in that sense?
  3. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    16 Oct '17 10:04
    Originally posted by @fmf
    When you talk about someone's morals evolving and getting better are you referring to that person growing up, learning about how to interact with others, and becoming a more mature person? Do you mean "evolving" and "getting better" in that sense?
    The questions are directed at anyone who assumes that God did not write His laws upon our hearts and that our morals are simply a product of environment and evolution and that as we evolve our morality gets better.
  4. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8520
    16 Oct '17 10:40
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    The questions are directed at anyone who assumes that God did not write His laws upon our hearts and that our morals are simply a product of environment and evolution and that as we evolve our morality gets better.
    Morality may indeed change over time (due to the non-existence of a moral law giver) but there is no guarantee morality will 'get better.' I believe history has demonstrated that quite clearly. (We can only hope though that our evolving intellect improves us, rather than destroys us. - The jury is still out on that one).
  5. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    16 Oct '17 10:47
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    Morality may indeed change over time (due to the non-existence of a moral law giver) but there is no guarantee morality will 'get better.' I believe history has demonstrated that quite clearly. (We can only hope though that our evolving intellect improves us, rather than destroys us. - The jury is still out on that one).
    Alternatively morality could be getting worse as more and more people reject the moral law within together with the moral law giver.
  6. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    16 Oct '17 11:37
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    Morality may indeed change over time (due to the non-existence of a moral law giver) but there is no guarantee morality will 'get better.' I believe history has demonstrated that quite clearly. (We can only hope though that our evolving intellect improves us, rather than destroys us. - The jury is still out on that one).
    how does the jury measure "bad, worse, better, better still, best" ?
    If there is no law giver than no ruler has been provided.
    You wrote "non-existence of a moral law giver".

    In evolution is "goodness" whatever comes next ?
  7. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8520
    16 Oct '17 12:16
    Originally posted by @sonship
    how does the jury measure "bad, worse, better, better still, best" ?
    If there is no law giver than no ruler has been provided.
    You wrote [b]"non-existence of a moral law giver".


    In evolution is "goodness" whatever comes next ?[/b]
    The use of 'Jury' was figurative (not a literal Jury). In this instance, 'time' is the Jury. And I think, if we end up destroying ourselves as a species, we can all agree that is a bad outcome. No?
  8. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93394
    16 Oct '17 12:401 edit
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Are there any atheists brave enough to actually attempt to answer these questions on morality?

    1. If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?

    2. If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and get ...[text shortened]... e since it can produce self-contradiction?

    https://carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-morality
    1- All morality is subjective. Morality can change for the better or worse and is measured against the subjective standards of the individual and the collective.

    2- see above

    3-Look at the different moralities around the globe, in different cultures. It's possible for something to be immoral and moral at the same time. It depends on perspective. There is no fixed set of rules. It is all subjective and correct to the individual at the time.

    4- A subjective morality is not self-contradictory because it does not assert any fixed position as ultimately right or wrong.
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    16 Oct '17 13:14
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    The use of 'Jury' was figurative (not a literal Jury). In this instance, 'time' is the Jury. And I think, if we end up destroying ourselves as a species, we can all agree that is a bad outcome. No?
    We may all agree. The moral argument for the existence of God examines - "But why do we all agree?" What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

    Did we just pick the thought up out of the air?
    Why isn't a cold dark lifeless universe with nothing but gas and rocks the "good" that should be instead?
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    16 Oct '17 13:221 edit
    Whatever bestowed value and preciousness to the human race, is that bestower on a lower level of preciousness and value than humankind?

    I refer again back to Psalm 94:9.

    "He who planted the ear, does He not hear?
    He who formed the eye, does He not see? "


    Doesn't it make sense that what has been bestowed upon us should have been the capital of one who had it to give?
  11. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    16 Oct '17 13:261 edit
    If man is precious and should continue whatever bestowed this quality upon man must be at least precious. And logically more so.

    Not only more so, but ultimately so. Ultimately precious points to the Uncreated Life - God.
  12. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8520
    16 Oct '17 14:54
    Originally posted by @sonship
    We may all agree. The moral argument for the existence of God examines - "But why do we all agree?" What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

    Did we just pick the thought up out of the air?
    Why isn't a cold dark lifeless universe with nothing but gas and rocks the "good" that should be instead?
    The answer actually is quite simple, though you probably wont like it.

    Early man realised that his chances of survival were enhanced if he worked with other people. (Cooperation). It was this initial cooperation that benefited individuals and the group at large that was the foundation for common morality. (I won't kill you if you don't kill me. Let's agree not to steal from each other and protect each others property etc). This in turn grew into mutual respect and value of life.
  13. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    16 Oct '17 15:23
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Are there any atheists brave enough to actually attempt to answer these questions on morality?

    1. If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?

    2. If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and get ...[text shortened]... e since it can produce self-contradiction?

    https://carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-morality
    I don't say that.
    I don't say that.
    I don't say that.
    yes
  14. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    16 Oct '17 15:51
    Originally posted by @sonship
    ...The moral argument for the existence of God examines - "But why do we all agree?" What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

    Did we just pick the thought up out of the air?
    Why isn't a cold dark lifeless universe with nothing but gas and rocks the "good" that should be instead?[/b]
    Either we believe in your god, or we believe in nothing but rocks and dust. No fallacy there.
  15. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86339
    16 Oct '17 17:411 edit
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    The questions are directed at anyone who assumes that God did not write His laws upon our hearts and that our morals are simply a product of environment and evolution and that as we evolve our morality gets better.
    Human “Morality” has nothing to with “gods laws being written on our hearts”. You repeatedly conflate the two despite having been corrected previously.

    The word “morality” rarely appears in the bible, it is better to use “righteousness” when describing correct attitudes and behaviours in gods eyes. Morality is a human construct.
Back to Top