Morality without God is an Illusion

Debate Room
21

Why do you care? Thats the morality I’m talking about, its clear that you have your own subjective stance but my question is where is your stance coming from is it because caring about yourself and others is good? Why is it good whats your standard?

Exactly my point the question you presented doesnt help in your stance on defending your morality standard whats the foundation it is based upon even subjectively if theres no definite standard it stands on then its based on illusion
Subjective morality results in chaos ultimately
All wars that happened in history are result of nations having their own subjective stance on whats right and wrong
In this case brute force seems like the only solution as telling them they are wrong is pointless when they are right in their own subjective stance

In my opinion morality is pointless in Subjective morality as the purpose of morality is differentiating right and wrong. And subjective morality doesnt have any weight regarding true right and wrong only chaos it cannot claim anything to be true outside of the person holding that subjective morality

Collective subjectivity may arise in mind
but the problem with it is for example just because 100 people tell a lie and only 1 person is telling the truth doesnt make the lie a truth
Collective subjective is just more people agreeing on the same thing the only thing that it adds is it makes strengthens the brute force.

Demonstrating/proving requires repeatability theres a difference between prove and evidence
Eg. You cannot prove the big bang you cannot demonstrate or repeat it but you can still believe it.

Therefore believing is something we can choose but theres gotta be a reason for believing i.e. evidence
Example: lets say from a theist Christian view the resurrection of Christ and the many witnesses who didn’t gain anything in fact lost their home family and getting tortured just because they were a witness of Christ resurrection all they had to do was deny that Jesus rose again thats all but the fact that they died with their testimony shows that they had a strong conviction, that they had really seen something.
Its possible that the witnesses lied
But its not reasonable that they lied its more reasonable that they’d seen Christ resurrected holding their testimonies to their death

Looking at this, any person have the right to not believe this if he chooses
And at the same time any person will have the right to believe this if he chooses

Yeah illusion it would be if theres not backbone for your subjective morality and yeah each person decide their own subjective morality but my point is if they decide their own morality it ultimately involves standard for differentiating right and wrong you can choose a standard but not being able to back that up why it would be valid shows how the whole ideas stands on an illusion.

22

The topic i presented is screaming for a defense on either subjective or objective morality being in a valid stance reasonably and not an illusion which doesn’t have any stance

But what I observed is that no reply so far defends their morality whatsoever they believe in, and just tried to show how wrong it is to believe in a divine authority
Lets say for example theres no Objective morality for certain and you can prove that there’s no God
It still doesnt answer the questions raised by the topic i presented

If any morality is failed to defend or define or claim the validity of their own standard of right and wrong
It certainly still is an illusion

23

This has been answered, it is subjective, just like yours.

Why wouldn’t it be? Again I answered this in my first response, explaining that i care about the consequences of my actions, do you not care about the consequences of your own actions? You never answered of course.

Subjective and illusory are not the same thing, again I care about the consequences of my own actions, and those of others, and I am an atheist, thus your claim is demonstrably wrong.

I challenged you to offer a single objectively moral or immoral act, if you cannot. then it follows morality is subjective.

You have not demonstrated that objective morality is possible, with or without a deity. You have failed to demonstrate anything to define or objectively evidence that a deity exists or is even possible. You came to us making claims, the burden of proof is entirely yours.

Straw man fallacies, you brought a deity into this it is for you to properly and objectively evidence that deity and accurately define it. If you can’t then I must withhold belief from your claim. The same for objective morality.

Gibberish? Also what’s with the redundant line breaks? Highlight text in any post and a quote icon will appear, you can click on this and presents the text in a new post, as a quote, and links it to the original post. I understand you’re new, but this will help with clarity, and we can see what you think you’re responding to.

  1. Now one last I am an atheist, I have a subjective moral world view.
  2. You are claiming this is an illusion, define what you mean by this, and why you think it is relevant to my morality.
  3. Since you have claimed a deity exists and is essential for objective morality you must define and objectively evidence that deity, or the claim is meaningless.
  4. You have claimed objective morality is possible, and I have asked you offer an example, on eact that is objectively immoral or moral, you have failed to do so, thus I must disbelieve your claim.
1 Like
24

Morality evolves from civilisations, we decide what we all agree is right and wrong… have you ever noticed when the over whelming majority of a society agrees on its social norms, it is more cohesive.

As oppose to where those norms are at odds, like in the states right now, where you’ll have fierce debates and less societal cohesion.

We decide what is right and wrong, we still do it to this day.

25

Subjective morality is the only stance that is valid, until objective morality can be proven.

And here is your problem, you cannot prove there is a god or that morality is objective.

But we can at least agree there are morals people choose to follow on the whole.

Which is at the very least a subjective morality.

So only one position is currently valid.

26

I hope you are a moral person
Living in your moral standard
But if you cannot define your moral standard where does it cone from, your morals are standing in a mystery
Therefore you are living based on a mystery

27

You have a circular reasoning here
Im asking why you care
And you answered because it is subjective
i asked why it is valid
And you answered again saying you care about your consequences

Your subjective morality depends on You caring and you care because its subjective and your stance on its validity depends on you caring

If i told you that smoking is prohibited in a park and if you ask me where is my souce how do i know it is prohibited?
And i answered because it is prohibited and dont give you any souce for my message
You will be very angry and you would tell me i am a delusional person

If you failed to present and defend your subjective morality where it is based on? It would mean no more than an illusion

So your logic is “if you failed to prove objective morality , subjective morality is true”

I could say the same
If you failed to justify subjective morality (and so far i dont observe such answer) objective morality is true

Oo the burden of proof is only on me?

i thought you are all Athiests who are logical and reasonable enough to convert me, who are living a moral standard life
But when i raised a question on where your morality comes from, you guys just shifted the burden of proof on me

Yes im making a claim to which questions are involved to which you cannot answer the burden of proof on your morality as you are living by it

So im the only one responsible regarding burden of proof?

Im not attacking a straw man, even if we put out any deity whatsoever, you stated that subjective morality is the only true morality
Im just asking you where does your morality come from whats your source
Even Disproving God does not better your stance on your subjective morality
You still gotta show where your standard comes from

Im exactly showing and attacking the fact that you believe in Subjective morality without any evidence or backbone for it
This is not straw manning… My friend

28

You thought wrong then….

1 Like
29

I attempted something in another thread, please read it.
A Call for Ethical Consistency: Is Consequentialism Enough? The Role of Intention and Volition in Moral Action - Debate Room - Atheist Republic

30

Okay athiest also have a burden of proof
If i say aliens exist i am well aware of the fact that a burden of proof is on my view
But at the same time if i say aliens dont exist, its an active claim and burden of proof regarding their non existence is still upon me

Subjective morality:
I hope you’re not okay on torturing babies for fun and this implies you have a moral standard and in your case you claim its wrong subjectively
Which means its not ultimately wrong and it depends on the subjective view of others
Get people like Jeffrey Dahmer and other psychopaths. The subjective morality stance doesnt have any opposition regarding their view.
You are no more right than them if you cannot provide your source from why torturing babies for fun is wrong ultimately
Which puts you all at the same level

As you look like an intelligible person i guess you thought this through and you are okay with it

The fact that even if some people rap*d your daughter he who did that is not objectively and ultimately wrong. And to add, if he overpowers you with brute force he will have ultimate authority over her. After all morality is subjective right? so theres no universal truth just opinions

31

An illusion refers to perception or belief that doesnt have a foundation backbone or reality.

I am well aware that you are an atheist and you dont see a reason to believe in God
So from what i see so far, i guess you would think Theist are the one living in illusion because they believe in something they can’t prove or that doesn’t have a backbone or foundation

If so, you are on the same level if you fail to provide proof for your foundation for believing in Subjective morality

Hence, i can say your subjective morality is an illusion

32

This is the question i am asking you guys

Ohh it evolved
Then let me ask you one thing how do you know what right and wrong
Is it written in your dna
Or is it the fact that you feel guilty when committing what we supposed bad deeds (as simple and small as lying all the way to murdering and cannibalism)

Then psychopaths dont feel guilty at all in committing such crime
So is it right for them? A moral thing for them?

33

It’s simply “well being”, treating others the same way you’d want to be treated. We’re social animals, so it’s common decency. Why would you need an outside influence to behave in an acceptable manner?
I don’t want or need any god/gods in my life.

3 Likes
34

There are actually some gods who sanction this behavior…the christian god, for example.

5 Likes
35

Why?

If you see my earlier posts, a type of jellyfish called a Portuguese man-o-war is actually a colonial organism of several animals living together in harmony.

Each one of these animals has to follow rules, like “share food,” “don’t attack your neighbor,” and “don’t eat our offspring.” These rules are primitive versions of some of the Ten Commandments, and these jellyfish (or their close relatives) have existed for over 500 million years.

The “backbone” (to use your words) that guides their morality is survival.

They don’t worship God (as they don’t even have a real central nervous system), yet they have used a precursor of morality for over 500 million years.

Morality is subjective

36

I see our latest stormtrooper for Bronze Age mythology hasn’t even acknowledged the existence of my post, let alone addressed the issues pointed to therein …

37

It appears s/he is ignoring a great deal. I suspect they are thing s/he finds uncomfortable or unanswerable.

3 Likes
38

It is what is ingrained within us, from father to son, so to speak.

The same way i can teach my toddler to not piss on the floor when going to the toilet.

No its not written in our DNA, rather learned behavior, albeit one we can easily ignore.

To them it is right, too like minded folk as them it is also right, to others like perhaps myself and yourself, we’d deem that wrong.

Why? Because it is our subjective opinion.

Still, either way you are left with all your work ahead of you.

You can claim it to be objective, but you need to demonstrate that, where it comes from etc?

Its the inevitable full circle where theists are left with questions they either cannot answer, or don’t want to answer…

But let me tell you, if your god(s) allow children to die of bone cancer, i’m telling you now, i’m more moral then your god.

39

The whole existence of gods demonstration thing I’ve mentioned earlier springs to mind here.

Should another thread on this subject be opened, I hold out hope that @Truthseeker will pour on the evidence like a fountain of holiness that’s had the handle broken off at full blast.

Or Truthy could just do that here. Potato, potatoh, whichever.

2 Likes
40

How many times are you going to ask this question, and then ignore the answer?

Like the deity you claim exists, yet can neither define nor objectively evidence.

Why wouldn’t I care? Maybe I am just a better human being than you?

Your morality is subjective, did you think we would skip past that?

Like your illusion a deity exists, or did you think we would simply ignore the fact you have neither defined nor objectively evidenced any deity? We can do this all day long sunshine…

No, that is a straw man fallacy, and we note your claim remains unevidenced, and without any surprise.

It doesn’t need justifying, you already asserted more than once that my morality (without a deity) must be subjective, and your morality is also subjective, as you have failed to offer a single example of anything that is objectively moral or immoral. Or any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is even possible.

It rests with your claims, as I explained, and you have failed to offer anything beyond bare assertions to support them.

Two more straw man fallacies…

That’s a lie…

Another lie…

Another lie…

Can you offer a single example of an objectively moral or immoral act?

It’s subjective, like yours, as I explained several times already, do you not know what subjective means?

Of course, and so do you? Otherwise your claims about subjective morality are entirely meaningless?

Yes I would claim that, and yes it is a subjective opinion, sadly the deity depicted in both bible and koran, does not agree. Do you think think torturing babies (et al) is wrong? Why do you hold this subjective opinion?

Yes.

Their subjective view differs from mine in what is moral, yes. What’s your point?

Straw man fallacy, since I never claimed to be “more right” than anyone, their subjective morality differs from mine, and mine from yours no doubt. Now can you demonstrate a single objectively moral or immoral act? It’s a simple question you seem keen to dodge…

Be careful sunshine, I am prepared to indulge your facile reasoning, and ignorant and idiotic assertions, but if you stray into ad hominem, then I might decide to reciprocate.

Oh dear, I think you mean intelligent, and like morality, this is relative.

I don’t have a daughter, but FWIW I would consider this an immoral act, but that is not an objective truth, just a subjective opinion.

I think so yes, perhaps you can offer a single example of an objectively moral or immoral act? So far you have failed to do so.

Straw man fallacy.

Not really:

Illusion
noun

  1. an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.

Yet you can’t offer a single example of an objectively moral or immoral act, so it seems that your perception is the one that does not reflect objective reality, and ipos facto is illusionary…

It’s a subjective opinion.

All animals that have evolved to live in societal groups must and have evolved empathy, and the ability to differentiate between “right and wrong” behaviours that society will accept.

Correct, so much for objective morality.

They don’t understand the distinction, but then neither do you apparently.

1 Like