Friday, September 17, 2010

Response to the Response to my Response by a Christian Apologist

This is a response to THIS POST by the user Rhology (who I accidentally refer to as Rhoblogy in this...sorry man). That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

Here goes.

As I said in my initial response to you:

your main problem seems to be that a godless world means a world of relative and subjective morality. Guess what? I agree.

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.

So now you say god's morality is objective. You linked me to a post in which you addressed this. I just read it, and here's what you say. Your definition of  obective morality:

a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not.

Okay, so you think a moral system exists that is not contigent upon a mind to exist. Okay, I accept said definition, let's move on.

I asked you WHY god's moral prescriptions are objective. You can't just say they are because he said they are. So I looked in that post for evidence. This is what you had to say to the question of "what makes god's laws good?":

"-We need SOME standard to tell what good and bad are. In atheism, that's totally lacking.
These laws from God are backed up with the force of justice. He will punish all breakers of the law with eternal torment, so evil is met with just judgment.

The law has a policeman and judge as well - God."

So the fact that god punishes everyone the same is what makes his laws objective? Your evidence of objectivity is the "force of judgement?"

I bring your attention back to your definition of objective morality:

a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not.

I see nothing in there about consistent punishemnts across the board. Nothing about the force of judgement. In fact, 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.

Also, you have contradicted yourself:

Magx01:he created that data/the rules

rhoblogy:Not quite. He communicated the rules that are consistent with His character, in the form of commands to His creation. Thus we can know that

Action X is objectively right or objectively wrong.

Rhoblogy in the post he linked me to:WHY did He give this law this way?
Because these laws are how He is. The law He gives flows out of Who and how He is. He is holy; His law demands holiness (and describes how to be

holy). He is good; His law demands goodness (and describes how to be good). He loves truth; His law demands truthfulness (and describes how to be truthful).


So, which is it? The laws existed in and of themselves, and god is simply the messenger, or god created them? You want to say that they are independent of god, but the bible and yourself contradict you.

If they did not come from god, then where did they come from? If god did not create them, what gives him the right to set the punishment? Is that not a subjective addition to a supposedly objective morality?

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

Prove to me, that is, no bare assertions, but proof; prove to me that god's laws are objective. Also, decide if they came from him or he merely described

them to us, and let me know.

A bunch of mumbo jumbo, descriptions of god's supposed holy character, and the fact that he punishes everyone equally does not prove that the morality prescribed in the bible is objective.

It sounds to me like you are trying really hard to say that the real truth is god's laws are objective, true, moral and just, because he says they are.

If they truly were objective, he would be able to demonstrate their truth value and superiority to us, would he not?

Oh, one last question. You say god is holy. That's a moral proclamation. By what standard are you making that assessment?

Your logic seems to be:

God is holy
God's laws are consistent with his nature
God's laws are holy and just

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

Btw, even if your god's laws are objective, 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? I mean, we're talking about lying being punished no more leniently than rape. And you want to say that's justice? Even if you think this is true.....does it bother you?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. You hit almost every point I made, with few exceptions. Very impressive and appreciated.


  1. It looks like you have found another person to debate religion with. Hopefully it goes better here then it often did at GT.

    I often say that people's morals are a matter of perspective. Which I believe is similar to you saying subjective. I would like to think that most people who do bad things don't think they are in their own minds.

    How could anyone not be bothered by the thought of all sins being equal. The fact that they would be equal also means that they are equally forgivable which means that it both makes a simple thing like lying as bad as murder, but also a thing like murder as easily forgivable as a lie. Either way it just doesn't make sense.

  2. Ola.

    I'll go check it out. That was quick (that's what she said!).



Tell magx01 and the rest of The Thoughtful Gamers what's on your mind!