Do Objective Moral Values Exist?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1745-objective-moral-values
If there is no God, there are no objective moral values, since they are prescribed " ought to be's".
If there is no God, then moral values are just a matter of personal opinion, and as such, no objectively or universally valid at all.
If that is the case, unbelievers have no moral standard to judge anything as morally good or bad.
Therefore, in order to criticise God, they need to borrow from the theistic worldview, and as such, their criticism is self-contradicting and invalid.
Even IF they could make a case to criticise Gods choices, that would not refute his existence.
Is torturing, raping, killing babies for fun objectively wrong, and in all circumstances? yes or no?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objective-or-absolute-moral-values
http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm
Is there good and evil, right and wrong, values which transcend cultures and individuals? Objective moral values are moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings. Do you agree there exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong? Do you believe that torturing, raping and killing innocent babies is wrong in any circumstances? Or do you think, it depends just on someones personal preferences, or on what society holds on this issue? If so, you agree, that its wrong in any circumstances, then you agree that objective moral values exist.
You're attempting to make a moral judgment against God as if permitting evil were "wrong". Where, as an atheist, could you ever obtain any standard by which you could declare any action to be morally wrong whether that action was performed by God or by man? In your world there's only the material realm and, according to atheism, the Universe is merely an accidentally produced petri dish containing organic and inorganic entities while lacking any moral law or ultimate purpose. If you're view is factually accurate, then disease, catastrophies, permitting any kind of suffering or evil might be a temporarily unpleasant experience for certain valueless organic units, but nothing, including the infliction of diseases upon innocent babies, could ever really be objectively, morally wrong. This is just one of the many grounding problems with atheism. It leaves you with no basis or standard that you can appeal to by which anything or any action can ever be condemned as wrong or evil. So if you really believe what you say you believe, why the whining outrage over diseases? You should be celebrating the brutality of bare nature. It's just the material, undesigned Universe, randomly thinning the herd, remember? Or did you forget? It sounds like you believe in God, but you just don't like Him.
Robert Vroom
“Lets say that there is no God. Life began to exist simply by accident, and through evolution the traits that best allowed for survival were passed through the generations until we find the world we have today.”
Wouldn’t this mean morality is nothing but an evolutionary development? Wouldn’t the societies we develop also be simply the forms that best aided survival in our culture?
If this is the case, it would seem society would be the highest arbiter of morality. How then can one society say another is doing something wrong? If my society thinks all people should have equal rights and that life is important and another society thinks women should be unable to leave their homes and that homosexuals should be killed, what makes one of these evolutionary paths better than the other?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1745-objective-moral-values
If there is no God, there are no objective moral values, since they are prescribed " ought to be's".
If there is no God, then moral values are just a matter of personal opinion, and as such, no objectively or universally valid at all.
If that is the case, unbelievers have no moral standard to judge anything as morally good or bad.
Therefore, in order to criticise God, they need to borrow from the theistic worldview, and as such, their criticism is self-contradicting and invalid.
Even IF they could make a case to criticise Gods choices, that would not refute his existence.
Is torturing, raping, killing babies for fun objectively wrong, and in all circumstances? yes or no?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objective-or-absolute-moral-values
http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm
Is there good and evil, right and wrong, values which transcend cultures and individuals? Objective moral values are moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings. Do you agree there exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong? Do you believe that torturing, raping and killing innocent babies is wrong in any circumstances? Or do you think, it depends just on someones personal preferences, or on what society holds on this issue? If so, you agree, that its wrong in any circumstances, then you agree that objective moral values exist.
You're attempting to make a moral judgment against God as if permitting evil were "wrong". Where, as an atheist, could you ever obtain any standard by which you could declare any action to be morally wrong whether that action was performed by God or by man? In your world there's only the material realm and, according to atheism, the Universe is merely an accidentally produced petri dish containing organic and inorganic entities while lacking any moral law or ultimate purpose. If you're view is factually accurate, then disease, catastrophies, permitting any kind of suffering or evil might be a temporarily unpleasant experience for certain valueless organic units, but nothing, including the infliction of diseases upon innocent babies, could ever really be objectively, morally wrong. This is just one of the many grounding problems with atheism. It leaves you with no basis or standard that you can appeal to by which anything or any action can ever be condemned as wrong or evil. So if you really believe what you say you believe, why the whining outrage over diseases? You should be celebrating the brutality of bare nature. It's just the material, undesigned Universe, randomly thinning the herd, remember? Or did you forget? It sounds like you believe in God, but you just don't like Him.
Robert Vroom
“Lets say that there is no God. Life began to exist simply by accident, and through evolution the traits that best allowed for survival were passed through the generations until we find the world we have today.”
Wouldn’t this mean morality is nothing but an evolutionary development? Wouldn’t the societies we develop also be simply the forms that best aided survival in our culture?
If this is the case, it would seem society would be the highest arbiter of morality. How then can one society say another is doing something wrong? If my society thinks all people should have equal rights and that life is important and another society thinks women should be unable to leave their homes and that homosexuals should be killed, what makes one of these evolutionary paths better than the other?
