About Morality on Atheism with magx01 - 2

magx01 has responded to my last post.  I'd like to reiterate that I appreciate his courtesy in these exchanges - one could certainly do worse for a debate partner.

Now, let's pause first of all to examine the admissions he's made, which will lead directly into the structure of the post I'm about to write.

He says (emphasis original):

You are correct. My morality is subjective. Everyone's morality is subjective, to be technical about it, but let's stick to atheism. Yes, subjectivity, relativity, all true. 

Your critiques are true.

I have no objective standard by which to demonstrate that my morality is such.

What does this mean for him and for our discussion?  Quite briefly, he has conceded the majority of what I contended.  What does that mean?  That all his complaints about how tGotB treats rape, rapists and rape victims can only reasonably be attributed to him as an individual.  Why did he bother telling other people how he feels?  Why did he bother disagreeing with someone else (me)?  Based on what evidence does he think that his moral assertions are better than mine?  Merely his feelings that they are?  But of course, my feelings are that mine are better, so where does that leave us?  Where does that leave him with respect to Tkalim, the avatar of my thought experiment?
Quite simply, it leaves him stuck in the middle of nowhere.  Have you ever tried to convince someone who preferred pizza with pineapples and canadian bacon that pizza with pineapples and canadian bacon is, in fact, revolting?  How far did you get?  What evidence did you adduce to that effect?  What if you showed your friend comparative brain scans whereby you demonstrate that different parts of your brain lit up when you had your favorite pepperoni and mushrooms pizza than when you ate pineapple and canadian bacon pizza? And what if you showed him that the same parts of his own brain lit up in similar circumstances?  Wouldn't he look you in the eye and shrug, "So?  I like it better"?  And add, "Did you seriously scan our brains while eating pizza?  I can only hope it was prohibitively expensive so you won't waste your time again"?

Now I hope magx01 will ask himself - have you ever tried to convince someone that raping and murdering children for fun is, in fact, revolting?  What if you had to?  What will you tell him?  Some nonsense about a brain scan?  That you feel that what he's doing is wrong?  So what?
Remember - it's not as if raping and murdering little children is objectively wrong.  Everyone's morality is subjective.
Let's see how far magx01 is willing to take his position.

Now for his actual post.  I'll divide my response into 2 parts.

Part 1 - In Which I Apply His Own Rationale To His Contentions 

You can't just say they are because he said they are. 

Why not?  Who says?  Is there something wrong with it?
If he says it is irrational, again, so what?  Is there some reason I shouldn't be irrational, on his worldview?  What if my morality says it's morally obligatory to be irrational?  What will magx01 say to that?


I don't see you offering a justification for your assertion that god's laws are moral at all

Should I?  Why?



you have contradicted yourself:

So what?  Is there something wrong with self-contradiction?  If he says it is irrational, again, so what?  Is there some reason I shouldn't be irrational, on his worldview?  What if my morality says it's morally obligatory to be irrational?

If they did come from god, well there goes your claim of objectivity

magx01 doesn't seem to think that's a problem, so why should I?  Why not keep holding to my Christian worldview anyway?
If magx01 points out that it's inconsistent, so what?  Is there some reason I shouldn't be inconsistent, on his worldview?  What if my morality says it's morally obligatory to be inconsistent?


I have to ask, the fact that all 'sins' are considered equal, and the fact that all 'sins' are punished the same.....this doesn't bother you?

A much better question is why this bothers magx01.  Why can't be live consistently with his stated worldview?

Part 2 - In Which I Defend The Christian Worldview On Its Own Contentions
magx01 will make numerous references back to this post of mine:  Contrasting atheistic preferences and biblical law

Me:  a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not.
magx01:  Okay, so you think a moral system exists that is not contigent upon a mind to exist.

Hmm, this brings up a good point, which can serve as a clarification for our further discussion.  I shamelessly ripped that line off of William Lane Craig, but I forgot to tweak it for my own use.  I mean it is a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not any human believes it.
So hopefully that will help.


You can't just say they are because he said they are. So I looked in that post for evidence.  

Now, wait just a minute.  I'm defining my position.  You don't get to tell me what I believe.  Let me tell you what I believe, and then you can deal with that on its own merits.
And God most certainly can say they are b/c He said they are - He's the Creator of the universe and the Ultimate Lawgiver.  You don't get to judge God any more than I do.


So the fact that god punishes everyone the same is what makes his laws objective? 

No, not at all.
1) Just b/c all unrepentant get eternal torment does not mean the torment will be of equal intensity.
2) What makes His laws objective is what I described in the post. God is unchanging, the Creator, His law applies across the board.  It enables me to say that rape is always wrong.  Philosophically speaking, He is the ultimate standard.  Questioning the ultimate standard is nonsensical - on what standard would one do so?

I don't see you offering a justification for your assertion that god's laws are moral at all. Let me keep looking...Ya, nothing.

How could anyone justify the ultimate standard?  Based on what...standard?  This question is irrational.


So, which is it? The laws existed in and of themselves, and god is simply the messenger, or god created them?

Looking at what I wrote, I never made that intimation.  It's neither of the above.  As I said: The law He gives flows out of Who and how He is.  If it helps, let "gives" = "communicates/reveals".  Such that the law He communicates/reveals to humans flows out of Who and how He is.


If they did come from god, well there goes your claim of objectivity, since they are not independent of a mind. 

Hopefully the clarification above will clear this up.  The mind in question is a transcendent mind, of the Ultimate Lawgiver.

other than him telling you so, where do you get the idea that he is holy? 

Nowhere else.  So what?

the fact that all 'sins' are considered equal, and the fact that all 'sins' are punished the same.....this doesn't bother you?

Not all sins are considered equal, far from it.  And not all sins are punished the same.  So there you go!  :-)


And you want to say that's justice?

I have no other means by which to identify justice.  As we've seen above, neither do you.