Which side makes a better case?
avatar
10 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 3 years ago

    hello

    • 3 years ago

      Thanks for the great conversation. Time went so fast. If you wanted to post a 4 min last statement feel free, Ben.

    • 3 years ago
    • 3 years ago

      I think it's a bit of a slippery slope to make the argument "just because we don't have the answer to objective morality doesn't mean one doesn't exist". That may be true, but it also does not mean that one does exist. It's a dead end argument

      • 3 years ago

        @trentr26 That is true in isolation, but not in the context of where we already have some easy answers.
        By that I mean, once you admit there are some things we can easily distinguish as moral/immoral (i.e. raping babies for fun is definitely immoral, helping out people in need most likely moral) then you admit there is a spectrum that other actions fall on (even if it's not 100% clear where on the spectrum they fall)

      • 3 years ago

        @benmouse42 ok fair enough, guess I didn't think of it that way

    • 2 years ago

      Allow me to break down your thesis and attack one issue at a time. Essentially, one part of what you're saying - correct me if you disagree - is without God there can be no truth. We can discuss morality and right and wrong later. So, it seems to me you're asserting without God, it is not true that I exist. So, Descartes declaration that "I think, therefore I am," is false. The truth is Donald Trump won the election, but if there is no God, that's not the truth. The truth is Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927, but if there's no God, that's not true. I can go on and on and on and on and on and on...etc. Either I am missing your point, or you need to explain yourself or defend your position.

      • 2 years ago

        Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're really trying to say is without God there can be no objective morality. Let me tackle that one from the atheist perspective that is mine. Let me use a baseball analogy. In your thesis God is the umpire. What he says is objective morality. The pitch may be two feet outside, but if the umpire (God) says it's a strike, by God - yes pun intended - it is a strike. God is the ultimate umpire when it comes to morality. Hmmm. But, nowadays we have slo-mo instant replay, and umpires can reverse themselves when they watch on a huge electronic screen in ultra slo mo what really happened...and they are no longer omni powerful. Your argument ergo belittles the fan...or mankind...who may disagree with the umpire's or God's ruling on the call...was that a ball or a strike. Mankind is too small to argue with God, and fans are too insignificant to argue with umpires even when umpire - Jim Joyce later admitted his mistake costing Armando Galaraga a perfect game with two out in the bottom of the ninth inning. Let me go so far as to suggest MORALITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE...IT IS SUBJECTIVE. For example, I was once told I was immoral at the age of 35 because I was having sex and I wasn't married. I'm sure the woman who told me that thought her subjective view was objective, but from my perspective, her view was completely wrong. She probably would have claimed her view of morality came from God (or what she was taught), but as an atheist, I could care less....AND, I think how can anyone be so arrogant as to think you speak for God just because you say so. FINALLY, LET ME POSE AN INTERESTING QUESTION: IS IT MORAL TO CONDEMN PEOPLE WHO DON'T SEE EYE-TO-EYE WITH YOUR (GOD'S) BRAND OF MORALITY?