No, it’s a fact.
This is a fact.
This is not a fact. Its an opinion.
My take on it is that - Since God exists and is our creator, we have a duty towards him.
The key words there are “my take”. What if it’s not my take? Are you going to make me believe it? In fact, it is not incumbent upon me to believe it.
How is it possible for me or anyone to “make” you believe in anything? That’s impossible. I am just pointing out an error in logic on your part.
You have the freedom to believe whatever you want, however that doesn’t change what is “incumbent” on you.
Let me give you an example to explain. I might be unaware that i owe the government some money as taxes. I might sincerely believe all my dues are paid and settled. However, that doesn’t mean its not incumbent on me to pay the taxes which i actually owe in reality.
Its not enough to be unaware of something, or hold to a belief. To not have an thing “incumbent” on ourselves, we also need to be correct in our beliefs.
You’re not talking about the same kind of “incumbent” that I am. I am literally pointing out that I, and anyone else, have the freedom to believe what I want, which includes not believing in gods or a particular god. Judged solely on this basis, your belief in a god is no better as a moral foundation than my belief in a non-theistic moral paradigm.
1 Like
Yes you do.
This does not logically follow.
If God exists, then the real nature of God matters when it comes to deciding what is a “good” moral foundation.
If He doesn’t- no moral foundation is good in itself. Hence all moral foundation including that of a child rapist are equally meaningless except in a subjective sense.
Sure it does. If judged solely on that basis. You could have the world’s shiniest morality, but if it has to be based on a belief in a god that people don’t have to believe in, it has no better of a foundation than other moral systems.
You may believe that, but we don’t know if any gods exist. I would contend that morality in itself is meaningful whether or not gods exist. Are you saying that the acts of a child rapist, in themselves, are meaningless?
1 Like
it cannot be judged solely on that basis. You are starting from the assumption that morality exists only in a subjective sense.
If God exists, morality is not subjective.
And i would acknowledge that its your personal subjective conviction.
You are free to contend for factually wrong or logically impossible things.
In a subjective sense, they are full of meaning. For the rapist, there might be a sense of satisfaction/pleasure or intense remorse. For the victim, there could be intense pain, suffering and hopefully a resilience that will help him/her to overcome the trauma. All of these things have meaning in a subjective sense and effect our actions in the real world.
But, without God, they are neither good or evil in themselves. They are just things that happen/have happened.
The fact that humans can’t agree on a god (or gods), nor determine or agree on what those supposed objective standards are, points to your god being one of many invented fictions and your objective moral standard being a pipe-dream.
2 Likes
Human beings cannot agree on a lot of things. Are you suggesting that only things human beings agree upon exist in reality?
Do I assume that the solar system did not exist until human beings could agree that it does and the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa?
This is a startling claim to make.
No, I’m saying that the wide disagreement on the nature of god (or gods) and their associated moral codes, if indeed there are any, and your failure to acknowledge that widespread disagreement, indicates that your opinion is wrong and that your so-called objective moral code is nothing of the sort. .
2 Likes
There is no logic to your claim. Human agreement or disagreement does not change reality.
There is no relevance or sign of understanding in your reply.
Your opinion is not reality.
Agreed. My opinion might not be reality.
However, your claim that disagreement in theology between human beings is proof that God doesn’t exist is false.
Do you see the flaw in the logic?
I said nothing at all about proof.
Yes. You’re attacking straw-men.
The theological answer some would give (including me) is that of course atheists can lead a moral life (1) and of course morality does not come from the bible. Nevertheless, this theology goes, even though the atheist doesn’t know or acknowledge it, their morality does come from God. It is God’s common grace applied to all people, whether they acknowledge it or not, that prevents them from being more wicked than they are. (If it is not obvious, I’m Calvinistic.)
Obviously this is unfalsifiable nonsense to the atheist. I just mention it for its own sake. It is the explanation (to ourselves) that some of us have as to why atheists are moral without religion or faith. A corollary is that the same explanation applies to believers–we are not moral because we believe in God or read the bible, but because God 's grace is restraining our sinful nature, (2) at least to the extent that we can live together and form societies.
(1) Contrary to the notion that some atheists have, that Christians think of them as immoral, the most common reference to atheists that I have heard in church over the years is that it is to our shame (Christians) that in regards to morality we are not better but rather indistinguishable from atheists.
(2) In this model, when God “hardens a heart” (e.g. Pharaoh) or turns people over to their own nature (Rom 1), he is not making them wicked, rather he is removing restraining grace.
6 Likes
I’m only judging it on that basis for the purpose of my argument. I am pointing out that the god you use for the foundation of your morality is as much of a “personal subjective preference” (your words) as any other basis for morality.
Just as your god is your personal subjective conviction.
Well, I hope you keep believing in God then, but just in case, please stay far away from my children.
All of these things have meaning in a subjective sense and effect our actions in the real world.
They have real effects in the physical world which we can make objective moral judgments about, provided we can agree on some moral truths. For example, is it better for a child to be raped, or not to be?
1 Like
We can agree that it’s better such things don’t happen… not only you and me, but the vast majority of human beings would agree. That’s why we have laws to protect children.
However, that doesn’t make it an objective reality. There are people who engage in child trafficking and people who make money off such a bussiness. The moral authority to judge such people ultimately comes from God’s moral laws.
That’s a very narrow way to judge things. It just bypasses the crux of the argent I presented by your fiat.
I was responding to a single point you made initially. You seemed to be rejecting non-theistic morality at least partially on the basis that it relies on beliefs as a foundation. I’m pointing out that theistic morality has the same problem. It was never my intent to judge all aspects of morality on that basis.
Absolutely.
Well, I don’t agree with you on the last sentence. I do agree that we can morally judge such people though, so I hope we can get by on that 
Yes, it absolutely does. I strongly believe morality apart from God does not exist. If true, then the very title of the book or article or whatever it is, is self-defeating.
Now, if you are talking about living a good life, and being even-tempered, and not returning evil for evil, then yes, all should pursue that - theists as well as a-theists. But moral character is a divine attribute. It does not exist naturally in humans.