Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

[CartBlanche]

JWeinCom said:

o_O.Q said:

 

"My insistence that you don't change words is not silly word play.  I don't see how this contradicts anything else I said. "

 

its silly word play and a contradiction because you have conceded that some behaviors are objectively better than others (my mistake it appears you haven't, you just resorted to trying to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit apparently)

 

"Even if it's the closest we can get to objective, it is nowhere near objective."

 

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist

if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

 

"I have no idea what objective reality has to do with this.  We can have objective reality without objective morality."

 

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

 

"Best is a subjective term that would require evidence.  It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours."

 

as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

 

every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center

 

those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering

 

"I did not agree with that at all..."

 

lol i never thought i'd see someone try to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit... its interesting i suppose

so how far are you willing to take this? are you willing to claim that all values are subjective and therefore no state of being is better than another state of being? (or in other words a dismissal of objectivity)

 

"Ok.  So, you agree that this is not objective morality?"

 

um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value

 

 

i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least

if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

No.  I was claiming that it has not been demonstrated that objective morality exists.  If the best method we've devised doesn't get us there, that either means it doesn't exist, or our methods are flawed.

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

It depends what you mean.  If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective.  Then that data has to be interpreted.  The interpretation is always going to have some degree of subjectivity (except in hard sciences I really don't know much about them). 

Scientists with the same pool of data can (and do) create entirely different models to explain it.  

as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center

those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering

There has never been a war between two countries that have a McDonalds in their borders.  Does that mean McDonalds is responsible for peace?  Correlation does not mean causation.  If successful societies have had religion, that does not mean religion caused it.  Especially considering that most of the shitty societies also had religion.

Cambodia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Syria, Bangledesh, Niger, The Congo, and the Phillipines are states that have religion and are awful in terms of human rights and quality of life.  Sweeden, Denmark, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan are mostly secular countries that are doing very well in terms of human rights and quality of life.  So, it's quite possible for a society to thrive without religious morality.

So, there's a lot more work to be done if you want to claim religion is responsible for the success of those states.

um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value

A message only has value if it can be communicated.

Going back to your example, lets say you say it to me a mile away.  As I head back to you, you are mauled by a bear.  Your toungue is ripped out, your eyes are plucked out, and your body is completely and totally paralyzed.  You have absolutely no way to communicate the message.

What is the value of your message now to anyone who is not you?  How can anyone even claim the message exists?  Likewise, if nobody can demonstrate or communicate objective morality, how can we claim it exists?

i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least

if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?

By subjective criteria. We look at the data and come to the best supported ideas about the best way for a president to act.  And we judge based on that.  And since it's subjective, we wind up with people having differing opinions. 

Objective Morality exists, but no human is capable of being objectively moral.

Also morals are a fluid, they change over time and over a society's experience. What is morally acceptable today, may not be so in future and visa versa.

What are your examples of things you believe to be morally objective?