You have 10 seconds to defend moral objectivism without mentioning G-d

You have 10 seconds to defend moral objectivism without mentioning G-d.

Morality is a set of social rules in place to ensure we can all live together in society, and to prevent people from causing harm to others

god was only needed in the equation because people are too selfish to follow these rules if they do not individually benefit from them or if there isn't something threatening them if they are not "good"

Buddhism doesn't believe in god but has a moral law.

>moral objectivism

Morality doesn't have to have anything to do with God. Men are entirely capable of being moral without God.

It doesn't make God obsolete. God is needed for something very different...

Someone needs to pick up a Bible. Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The thing is people didn't know why they were following many of the rules they were following. Only now can we look back and understand many of the rules were for sanitation reasons or other deeper medical reasons than a primitive tribe could know.

>men are entirely capable of being moral without God
So where do you derive your morality from?
>inb4 they are self-evident
Yet, when this same argument is used for the self-evident nature of God you will Guffaw.

>So where do you derive your morality from?
Where does God derive his morality from?

>So where do you derive your morality from?
From God.

> Yet, when this same argument is used for the self-evident nature of God you will Guffaw.

The fact that I believe morality doesn't have to come from God doesn't mean I don't derive my morality from Him.

Men are perfectly capable of being moral. But I'd rather sticks to God's ideals about morality than man's.

We're not discussing God. Care to answer the question? It's ok if you use the inb4...

Causal Determinism

I believe morality comes directly from God as should you if you are a believer like myself. Atheists who honestly answer this question will agree that they too derive their morality from God, perhaps one day they will stop denying the clear presence of his creation that fills their eyeballs daily.

>Care to answer the question?
The answer to your question is the same answer to mine.

>if you are a believer like myself.

I am. And the conclusion I draw from my belief is that men are capable of many things Christians mistakingly make exclusive to God.

I mean, we are created "in God's image", right?

In my view, people don't need God to be moral. They just need common sense or that innate sense of "right vs wrong", which, we can both agree, must come from God.

But I don't think that prevents man from formulating some morality of their own, independent or even contrary to God's.

It's almost like making blessings exclusive to God. The devil can bless people. People can bless each other, as can God. It's just something sentient beings are capable of.

So morality is arbitrary?

Of course.

again dodging the question. Clearly you a dishonest atheist who is just here to deny deny deny - even when it's apparent you have the answer right in front of you.

>Atheists are immoral
>Atheists derive their morality from God
pick one heretic.

>men are capable of many things (without) God
>people don't need God
>It's just something sentient beings are capable of
this is literally Pride. a deadly sin. It is the root of all other sins - other than blasphemy it is the worst thing you can do on this earth.

God as a concept is a derivation of our inherent moral values

You're not answering my question either, user.

>this is literally Pride

You're getting my drift. It *is* pride.

The knowledge of what you quoted isn't pride. Why do you think the Bible tells us to "lean not on our own understanding?" Is it because men don't have understanding? No, it is because our understanding is misguided, and pride lets us lean on our own, rather than admit our weakness and lean on God.

Remember Babel. People, out of pride, were doing what they were capable of. Because that's how God created us.

See The whole point of Christianity isn't to lie to ourselves that we're incapable of such things. It is to humbly abdicate our own power's and give up ourselves to God's authority.

Consider Jesus at Gethsemane. He had it within his power to end his pain, but he chose not to, and submitted to God's will.

So you're kind of right that "men are capable of many things (without) God" is literally pride. You're just wrong on the details. Recognising that fact isn't pride. It is relying on the fact, that is.

Big difference.

>dodged question again
I think you have this backwards, you can't dodge/ignore a question it's clearly devastating to your entire argument, then ask your own irrelevant question expecting the same courtesy. It's called polite debate. You'll get no more replies from me desu, I consider this you conceding the point btw.
>our own inherent moral values
>what are feral animalistic tendencies
There are many sad tribal people on earth who live without God, without civilization, without law in a feral existence that sometimes includes canabilism. This of course is contrary to what you say because these "people" should have a natural innate ability to sense this morality which they don't. Everything you consider to be 'morals' are derived from God, the fact that you borrow them from others and mix and match to fit your own sliding scale morality is irrelevant. You simply pick the morality you want so that at all times you feel like a good person. That isn't how morality works, the word of God doesn't bend to you, you bend to the word of God - more specifically his moral commandments.

But user, I already answered your question here My entire argument hasn't been devastated, you're just refusing to acknowledge the answer and think that refusal is a counter-argument in itself when it isn't.

interesting. I think we're agreeing for the most part, we just disagree on the wordings here. I was mostly just checking your prideful statements, which may have just been in error or language related.

Objectivity is unobtainable for striving towards it is important.

*BANG**BANG**BANG* a pack of wild niggers appears and is kicking in your door. You start to reach for your smart phone but realize that they are almost through the door already. You pick up your daddies shotgun and load up some shells. You have 5 seconds to decide between moral subjectivism and moral objectivism.

Moral subjectivism does not exist. Humans have behaviour patterns.

Morality derives from what is found to be successful for pack survival and successful synergy between others working together

It isn't complicated

Its religious demand for easy soundbites instead of genuine intelligent discussion which leads you to think there is no possible way for atheists to believe in objective morality.

> You have 5 seconds to decide ...

> Shoots them.
> Spends several weeks alive, deciding.

The point is that in the morally subjective universe there is a perspective from which shooting the intruders is immoral. Maybe they would have just taken your TV and left, maybe they just wanted mo money for dem programz. Why didn't you just fire a warning shot?

The morally objective dictate is that you have an inalienable right to defend your life and property from aggressors by any means necessary.

I think you should give them a warning shot, but if that does not work you do not owe anyone any restraint. If they overpower you they might rape your wife, take all your shit, tie you up and burn your house down.

Warning shots are a Hollywood meme.

Water is the most effective thing at stopping a projectile. Humans are made of mostly water.

A warning shot in a crowded urban area is criminally negligent.

> I think we're agreeing for the most part,

(I may be going off tangent here...)

We do. Most of my position comes from several interesting questions I ask myself. My favourite is this: is it necessary to believe in God to have material success in life?

My answer is an emphatic no. In fact, sometimes God is a "hinderance" to our material success, if for some reason unknown to us (but entirely good) we must be denied of certain things.

I think Christianity going out of the way to make certain things we usually derive from religious thought does a lot of harm to it these days. And it points to certain underlying "problems" in your average person's belief that eventually undermines it when it faces critical scrutiny from unbelievers.

Take, for example, the question of the origin of man and of the universe. For some reason, many people see it as an either-or between the Big Bang and evolution by Natural Selection, and God willing the universe into being and making man from the earth.

But, in my opinion, however God created the world and the way it seems wired to work doesn't have to match exactly, because they're two entirely different events that can complement each other.

Your average Christian believes they were created by God, yet simultaneously holds that their parents had intercourse and he was conceived in a womb and gestated for 9 months.

The reason why atheists and humanists can thrive in this world with their philosophy is because they're not entirely wrong that "man can live without God, or the idea of God". And you can see evidence of people perfectly happy without God.

Where they're wrong is that, they're making a mistake for which the consequences are painful and eternal.

Put another way, you might say "You cannot break into someone's house and steal, because it is wrong and you'll go to jail". I will rather say "Oh you can do that if you want. Nothing stops you. You'll just have to face the consequences. Nothing stops that too."

>Told to argue objective morality
>Proceeds to proclaim subjective morality

Yes, because they idealize an impersonal force that judges right from wrong to quantify your next life. They basically just took God and made Him a force.

Capitalism, the most free financial system on the planet, needs morals to for the people participating so that they do not fuck each other over. Treat others as you wish to be treated is a fundamental rule in life. Personally im a very reactive person. I give everyone a chance, if everyone is good to me and displays a good sense of ethics and standards, i am quite happy, almost eager to return the treatment. Doesnt that sound better than "do what thou wilt"?

Of course atheists can believe in objective morality. They just can't explain it without making an appeal to a higher power.

Sure they can. Moral subjectivity leads to unchecked degeneracy.

We dont need a higher power. We just need to use reasoning to come forward to a golden standard.

>1. Socrates was opposed to the moral relativism of the Sophists.

2. He believed that there were objective moral standards; that they could be discovered; that there were right and wrong answers to moral questions that went beyond mere opinion and popular sentiment.

Why do you need a magical sky daddy to explain that there is a hypothetical best abstract idea out there?

>You have 10 seconds to defend moral objectivism without mentioning G-d.

Followed closely by explaining how to run your car without gasoline.

Could be an electric car

If some values aren't recognized through a lot of time then you got no values at all
If you use them only in some situations, then you don't follow them
Moral relativism doesn't give any other values to counter traditional values, but instead makes people to not value anything at all.
And those who don't value anything at all won't fight for nothing and are only a mindless mass of atomized people, so fuck you shill

Universally Preferable Behaviour

There is a great deal of overlap of basic morality over nearly all cultures - murder, rape, meaningless violence etc are all condemned by nearly all cultures